Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 23

Ongoing problems with the "Religious views" section
There are some ongoing problems with this section:
 * 1) Any "Religious views" section of this article would have to focus on religious views concerning its actual topic, civil same-sex marriage. Faiths can and have rendered different verdicts on civil ssm than on religious ssm. In fact, faiths that end up supporting both tend to follow a trajectory: reject both — support or remain silent on civil ssm (and/or civil unions) while opposing religious ssm — support both. The Episcopal Church, for example, recently completed this trajectory. While I have taken only a very quick and cursory glance at the notes, I have not yet noticed the inclusion solidly in either camp of faiths offering differing verdicts. Nevertheless, care must be taken, and it may be helpful to include a bit on such faiths.
 * 2) Relatedly and consequently, the articles linked to at the top of the section, which are focused on religious ssm and show signs of similar confusion, should really be relocated to the "See also" section.
 * 3) Also relatedly and consequently, at least many of the notes for this section (namely, all the ones I've bothered checking), which actually relate to religious ssm, need to be replaced with references actually discussing religious views on civil ssm. Antinoos69 (talk) 10:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The article is on same-sex marriage generally, not solely civil marriage. If you can bring citations for religious groups who support the one but not the other, a paragraph focusing on this theme would be helpful. But the existing material also belongs. Cl ea n Co py talk 10:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. This article is almost exclusively devoted to the legal status of civil ssm around the world. Furthermore, marriage in the "Issues" section means civil marriage. Consequently, any "Religious views" section therein must concern religious views on civil ssm. While the main text of the section is correct for both religious and civil ssm (to the extent that I know or have checked, and with slight tweaking), all the sourcing that I've looked at concerns only religious ssm and is therefore invalid. Improperly sourced material can be removed at any time by any editor, which I will start to do systematically if this problem is neither acknowledged nor remedied. If editors intend this section to be about religious ssm, then I would oppose it as not sufficiently relevant for this article. Simply relocating the linked articles to the "See also" section would suffice. If editors nevertheless persist in irrelevance and misunderstanding, then the section should be renamed something like "Religious same-sex marriage" or "Same-sex marriage among religious traditions" and moved to the end of the article, right before the "See also" section (for a new section 7). Antinoos69 (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Clean Copy, I suggest you read the editor's replies to my concerns on this issue above if you're going to try and convince him of this.   MediaKill13   (  talk  )   05:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Unless sources are provided, and preferably, content added to the article to explain to the reader what the difference between civil and religious ssm even means, I see the issue as moot, pedantic, and verging on WP:OR. Timothy Joseph Wood  12:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Good grief! Is it possible, despite the distinction's prominence in debates over marriage equality, that you are one of the astonishingly few people in the modern industrialized world who doesn't understand the difference between civil and religious ssm? Civil ssm is marriage between people of the same sex in civil law as established, codified, regulated, and recognized by the state. Religious ssm is marriage between people of the same sex as performed, theorized, and recognized purely within religious traditions. Until very recently, the Episcopal Church supported civil unions and civil ssm while rejecting same-sex marriage within its own religious tradition. A faith may interpret its theological or sacred traditions as compelling it to support the legal right of civilly married same-sex couples to hospital visitation, for example, while at the same time concluding that there is no support in those same theological or sacred traditions for any divine establishment of ssm as a sacred institution or sacrament. There is nothing even remotely confusing, esoteric, "pedantic," or "OR" about the distinction. One must merely be clear about which of the two one is discussing, and use sourcing and titles appropriate to it. If you're so ignorant of the subject as to be learning this for the first time, then you have absolutely no business attempting to edit or comment on this matter. You would be simply incompetent on the matter, as a plain point of fact. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And no amount of pontificating on the point changes the fact that, as I said, there is no sourced content in the article explaining any of this to the reader in any detail. If you would like to propose content to that effect, you are more than welcome to. If you prefer to simply make yourself feel better by asserting how much more enlightened you are than everyone else, well, that doesn't have very much to do with building an encyclopedia. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Antinoos69, I can assure you that I understand the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage quite well, I just wonder why you're using your purported expertise to claim that the article is about the former, and using, with all apologies, childish methods to stifle discussion, such as I suggest you drop it, unless you derive enjoyment from typing aimless text without acknowledging that you might be even a little biased (I am sick to death (as many LGBT youth literally are) of every discussion of LGBT matters being hijacked into some detailed religious discussion complete with offensive quotes from religious leaders and organizations. Spare us.) I really don't like to comment on you as an editor, but I feel that this is a little disruptive.   MediaKill13   (  talk  )   18:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My previous post was not addressed to you. Antinoos69 (talk) 09:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Let's back up, as editors are entirely missing the point. The choice made in point 1 will also require some minor tweaking of the text, but that can be dealt with in process, or so I would expect. These are the pressing and ongoing issues regarding this section, and they must be dealt with. Antinoos69 (talk) 09:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) What are we attempting to write about? The first thing editors must do is decide what the current "Religious views" section is actually about. Is it talking about religious ssm or is it talking about civil ssm?
 * 2) Sourcing for civil marriage. It should be talking about civil ssm, as that is what the "Issues" section and the vast bulk of the article are focused on, and consequently what would be most pertinent. In that case, one would have to note that at least many of the references are about religious ssm, thereby constituting improper sourcing. The simple fact of the matter is that a reference solely on religious ssm cannot serve as a source supporting a statement about civil ssm, much as a reference on the internal workings of the sun cannot serve as a source supporting a statement on ancient Greek mining practices. Many of the references would have to be replaced.
 * 3) Situating and titling religious marriage. If editors nevertheless decide they are trying to discuss religious marriage, the section would have to be retitled and moved. A title like "Religious same-sex marriage" or "Same-sex marriage within religious traditions" would work fine. As marriage in the "Issues" section is referring to civil marriage, the "Religious views" section would have to be moved. I would suggest moving it to the end of the article, as a new section 7. In this case, the article would leave unaddressed religious views on civil ssm, the article's actual focus. Of course, in this case, my preference would be to delete the section entirely, as not sufficiently relevant, relocating the linked Wikipedia articles to the "See also" section. These articles explain the matter better and in greater detail than editors would here.


 * We are attempting to write about same sex marriage, full stop. Looking through the first few pages of google scholar, I'm seeing nothing dividing these issues cleanly as you seem to think they should be. Everything seems to be about marriage vs civil unions, which is fundamentally a legalistic distinction.
 * After pages of discussion, you really don't seem to get how this works, and fail to understand when it's explained repeatedly. So let me try to put this in the most explicit terms possible. This is Wikipedia. So welcome. The goal is to build a free encyclopedia. We do this based on reliable sources so that content in an article can be verified by readers. Content that is not supported by sources, even things that seem obvious to some, should not be added, and should be removed. If you would like to provide sources for the content you would like added, or the changes you would like made, I will be happy to review and discuss them. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You are completely ignoring and refusing to engage the essential points I just made in considerable detail. but I am glad to see you agree that "[c]ontent that is not supported by sources, even things that seem obvious to some, should not be added, and should be removed," so I will now do precisely that. Happy? Maybe you will soon decide to confront the issues. Antinoos69 (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC) Btw, I just did a search for "same-sex marriage" (note hyphen!) on Google Scholar, and, to the extent one can determine, all the sources on the first page of results (I looked no further) appear to be addressing civil marriage. So drop the rhetorical gamesmanship. Are you so uninitiated as to expect writers actually to use the terms "civil same-sex marriage" and/or "religious same-sex marriage" (or some such terms) in their discussions? That's not how these things typically work. Instead, the actual topic must be deduced from context. Terms like "law," "government," "the state," "civil rights," and whatnot tend to indicate the subject is civil ssm; whereas terms like "God," "biblical," "holy," "scripture," "religion," as well as repeated references to religious faiths tend to indicate the subject is religious ssm. Clear? Antinoos69 (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the page of "Same-sex marriage", not "Civil Same-sex marriage", so a paragraph focusing on the religious views concerning same-sex marriages should be mantained. --Skyfall (talk) 10:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If the section is improperly sourced, it can certainly be removed. Antinoos69 (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you so uninitiated as to expect writers actually to use the terms "civil same-sex marriage" and/or "religious same-sex marriage" If writers don't use the terms, and don't explicitly address the subject, then it is WP:OR. Period. Timothy Joseph Wood  11:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. Period. OR policies do not apply to editors' interpretations as to what secondary sources are actually about or trying to say. In fact, it is logically impossible to use secondary sources without first so interpreting them. The fact of the matter is that the term "same-sex marriage" is used in different specific ways in different contexts—much like the term "junk," which can refer either to garbage or genitalia, depending yet again on context. Those contexts must be interpreted. And how on earth do you suppose many of the sources actually used in the section are on-point if you have no idea what that point is? If we can't Wikiknow what a non-explicit reference to "same-sex marriage" actually means, then how can we use sources consisting only of such references, as are found referenced in this section? We'd have to declare the corresponding statements improperly sourced and remove them. Of course, this whole line of argument of yours is staggeringly asinine and obtuse. Antinoos69 (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC re: religious views

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The questions concerns the following section currently in the article:

The range of options discussed appears to fall fairly well into:


 * 1) Retain the section as is
 * 2) Rewrite the section
 * 3) Delete the section

Attempts at achieving a local consensus seem to have reached an impasse. Timothy Joseph Wood 13:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Rewrite - Extensive argument to this effect can be seen above. The section goes quite out of its way to mention opposed faiths in as passing a manner as possible, and then goes to the extreme in gory detail on the support faiths, a list including individual churches, faiths with only a few thousand adherents, and one fake religion: Pastafarianism. This violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NPOV, by giving the false impression that religions generally are in support, which they are not. Simply put, the current section is POV pushing via word count.


 * A rewrite of the section should favor in length of treatment (give WP:DUE weight to) larger faiths such as Catholicism and Islam, give similar treatment to both mid-sized faiths in support and those in opposition, and simply ignore individual churches, and other obscure sects. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

This is entirely the WRONG RfC to be having. The editor who started this thing is confused about the state of the discussion, apparently hung up on ancient history. The current issues are laid out in my "General Observations" in the "Second drafts" subsection immediately above, especially the first two. The first RfC, in what will apparently have to be a long series of them, should likely be whether there should be a separate "Religious views" section of the sort being contemplated when the article already has a "Controversies" section touching on these issues, along with other related ones. I have been unable to get anyone to acknowledge the existence of either this "Controversies" section or my references to it. The current "Controversies" section can briefly accommodate the proposed subject. Having a separate "Religious views" section would require a major rewrite and restructuring of the "Controversies" section, and perhaps even its elimination. These "Same-sex marriage [in] …" articles, which are clearly focused on providing the current legal status of civil same-sex marriage within the geographical jurisdictions they contemplate, have their way of very briefly and in passing dealing with "religious views," and this new proposed way isn't it. This RfC should be abandoned and replaced with the proper one. Antinoos69 (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it's difficult to summarize what you're advocating, since you seem to have argued variously in favor of retaining the section as is, deleting it entirely, and for moving it to another section, which as far as I can tell, is essentially a rewrite. Timothy Joseph Wood  23:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, a "rewrite" would mean rewriting the "Religious views" section in loco, right where it is. That's not what I have in mind. My own preference would be to delete the "Religious views" section entirely, adding a link or two to the "See also" section. As for changes to the "Controversies" section, a simple addition to one subsection or the creation of a very brief "Religious views" subsection would suffice. The new material, however added, would merely summarize each of the two sides' principal and most characteristic arguments, without quotes of religious leaders, organizations, or documents. A scholarly source summarizing those two positions, making all the selections and judgments for us, would have to be found and used as the basis for the added material. But this is now getting far beyond this or any one RfC. Antinoos69 (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Rewrite: This is just going to be a simple summary of what I discussed above:
 * Although Antinoos69 keeps insisting that the article is about civil marriage, I disagree. The title of the article is not "civil same-sex marriage" or "religious same-sex marriage", it's just same-sex marriage. The argument presented is that the articles with the prefix Same-sex marriage in... i.e relating to a specific country are written specifically addressing civil marriage. While this is true, it should be noted that the articles are about countries, and the countries' laws are not religious laws but secular laws. Comparatively, the article Same-sex marriage in Christian churches (which is, admittedly, a redirect) is expected  to have little mention of civil same-sex marriage. So, in my opinion, this article is supposed to be a general discussion on issues to do with same-sex marriage (the prefix or suffix same-sex marriage in an article), just like the article on marriage lists opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, monogamous marriage, polygamous marriage, child marriage, incestuous marriage, forced marriage, interracial marriage, and God-only-knows what other kind of marriage within its scope.
 * In view of my point 1 above, because the religious views are notable, and do need to be presented neutrally, I am in favour of trimming the number of churches that support SSM (for a view of what I'm advocating, see my comment immediately after the first comments in the "Religious views" section.) And before I am accused of not reading the "General Observations", I would like to say that I am not particularly averse to deleting the "Religious views" section and adding them to the "Controversies" section, only I don't feel this would be the best way to resolve the issue.   MediaKill13   (  talk  )   08:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The point of the article clearly is to provide the current legal status of civil same-sex marriage around the world, other matters being variously touched upon as background and explanation. That's how these "Same-sex marriage [in] …" articles generally work. Your Same-sex marriage in Christian churches example, as you admit, though without understanding the logical implications, is a redirect for an article with a very different name. Your example, therefore, is irrelevant. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My point, which you are not getting, is that this isn't a Same-sex marriage in... article, it's a same-sex marriage article (emphasis strongly supplied). I did not cite my example trivially, I noted that it was a redirect and I knew exactly where it was redirecting to. It falls into the same scope (Yes, a union and a marriage may or may not be the same thing, but there's a reason that redirect was created). I gave another example, the "mother" of this article itself, marriage. Marriage is a general overview article (and yes, I know the "implications" of citing an essay) that lists other marriage related articles in its scope. Think of it as the parent category, same-sex marriage as the child category, and "Same sex marriage in..." as the grandchild articles. The purpose of a general overview article is to summarise the issues relating to the article "Same-sex marriage". The article example I cited is within the scope of same sex marriage, as a fork of the article. See also the examples given at Content forking and the guideline Summary style.   MediaKill13   (  talk  )   09:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I "get" your argument perfectly; I merely find it absurd. Anyone taking a look at this article can plainly see that its point and purpose is to provide the current legal status of civil same-sex marriage around the world, just as anyone who takes a look at your article example can plainly see it's irrelevant to the point. You're not going to convince me, so I suggest you drop it, unless you derive enjoyment from typing aimless text. Antinoos69 (talk) 09:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The following WikiProjects have been notified: LGBT studies, Feminism, Religion. Timothy Joseph Wood  12:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Minor comment: the first two lines currently suggests that Muslims and Orthodox Jews are "among larger Christian denominations". I don't know if that's related to the RfC, but I figured I'd point it out. ~ Mable ( chat ) 13:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oddly enough, I was fixing this as you wrote the above passage. Cl ea n Co py talk 16:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * My 2 cents. The original wording had a severe case of WP:EDITORIALizing, which I hope I've fixed. Otherwise the information in the section seems accurate and reasonably well-sourced, so I don't see a point in a full rewrite. Balancing aspects may be required to provide due weight, but I'd go adding summarized highlights from the Religious views and Blessing articles linked at the top of the section, rather than removing anything currently in there.
 * As for the form of the text, people seem to prefer prose to lists, but I think a list would work best here to alleviate the heavy reading - as there isn't much said about each religion listed; the paragraph is a mere enumeration of religions. Diego (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Minor rewrite. Religious views have an enormous impact on discussions on this topic. Not to include a section on this would be a serious omission.
 * On the other hand, in its present form, the second paragraph is certainly an impenetrable and largely unhelpful mass. I have, perhaps unhelpfully, tried to begin to group the items in this interminable list thematically, representing the many Lutheran churches simply by a reference to "many Lutheran churches" and retaining the supporting references. This should be continued; it is enough to write "many national Churches" and list the specifics in the references, rather than having to list every single church here. We should keep in mind that there is a separate article on the theme! (Update: I have tried to continue this further.) Cl ea n Co py talk 13:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Rewrite or Delete. Current section has lots of problems. It mixes the official views of religious bodies with the general views of religious adherents. It seems to have no standard for inclusion in it lengthy lists. Finally, it makes it sound like these views are written in stone (well, maybe some of them are) rather than views that have, in many cases, changed in recent years. Kaldari (talk) 05:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Could you formulate something showing how these views are changing, with supporting citation Style? I agree this is important. Cl ea n Co py talk 10:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I've boldly closed the RfC, since progess seems to be underway, and the original question isn't quite accurate anymore given the recent changes. Timothy Joseph Wood 10:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ongoing problems with the "Religious views" section (second attempt)
We will apparently have to try this yet another way. Answer the following questions regarding the text of the current "Religious views" section as directly and briefly as possible: Are any lightbulbs turning on over editors' heads? Antinoos69 (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Consider the following statement from the section: Arguments on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate are often made on religious grounds and/or formulated in terms of religious doctrine. Does this statement address civil same-sex marriage, religious same-sex marriage, or both as its subject? Does the language of the statement indicate this subject with adequate clarity? Does the sourcing for the statement address this specific subject (in both its aspects in the case of both)?
 * 2) Consider the following statement from the section: The Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and various Protestant denominations take official positions opposing same-sex marriage. Does this statement address civil same-sex marriage, religious same-sex marriage, or both as its subject? Does the language of the statement or previous context indicate this subject with adequate clarity? Does the sourcing for the statement address this specific subject (in both its aspects in the case of both)?
 * 3) Consider the following statement from the section: The Episcopal Curch, the Presbyterian Church (USA), and other Protestant churches support allowing those of the same sex to marry or conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies. Does this statement address civil same-sex marriage, religious same-sex marriage, or both as its subject? Does the language of the statement or previous context indicate this subject with adequate clarity? Does the sourcing for the statement address this specific subject (in both its aspects in the case of both)?
 * 4) Consider the following statement from the section: as do some Catholic denominations. Does this statement address civil same-sex marriage, religious same-sex marriage, or both as its subject? Does the language of the statement or previous context indicate this subject with adequate clarity? Does the sourcing for the statement address this specific subject (in both its aspects in the case of both)?
 * 5) Consider the following statement from the section: Some individual churches have committed to marriage equality in opposition to their denomination's stance. Does this statement address civil same-sex marriage, religious same-sex marriage, or both as its subject? Does the language of the statement or previous context indicate this subject with adequate clarity? Does the sourcing for the statement address this specific subject (in both its aspects in the case of both)?
 * 6) Consider the following statement from the section: In 2015, a survey found that 62% of white mainstream Protestants in the United States favor allowing gays and lesbians to wed. Does this statement address civil same-sex marriage, religious same-sex marriage, or both as its subject? Does the language of the statement or previous context indicate this subject with adequate clarity? Does the sourcing for the statement address this specific subject (in both its aspects in the case of both)?
 * 7) Consider the following statement from the section: A majority of Muslims, and Orthodox Jews oppose same-sex marriage, while Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist Jewish rabbinical groups affirm its validity. Does this statement address civil same-sex marriage, religious same-sex marriage, or both as its subject? Does the language of the statement or previous context indicate this subject with adequate clarity? Does the sourcing for the statement address this specific subject (in both its aspects in the case of both)?
 * 8) Consider the following statement from the section: Though Buddhism is considered to be ambivalent on the subject as a whole. Does this statement address civil same-sex marriage, religious same-sex marriage, or both as its subject? Does the language of the statement or previous context indicate this subject with adequate clarity? Does the sourcing for the statement address this specific subject (in both its aspects in the case of both)?
 * 9) Consider the following statement from the section: particular Buddhists have supported marriage equality. Does this statement address civil same-sex marriage, religious same-sex marriage, or both as its subject? Does the language of the statement or previous context indicate this subject with adequate clarity? Does the sourcing for the statement address this specific subject (in both its aspects in the case of both)?
 * 10) Consider the following statement from the section: as do a variety of other religious traditions. Does this statement address civil same-sex marriage, religious same-sex marriage, or both as its subject? Does the language of the statement or previous context indicate this subject with adequate clarity? Does the sourcing for the statement address this specific subject (in both its aspects in the case of both)?
 * 11) Does the title of the section adequately indicate the section's subject or range of subjects?
 * 12) Is the location of the section in the article appropriate for the section's subject or range of subjects?
 * 13) Do the linked Wikipedia articles at the top of the section reflect the subject or range of subjects of the section as a whole?
 * No. I have many light bulbs, all of which turn on in response to sources. You are pushing a distinction which, as far as I can tell, is invented by you. More so, you are using this apparently invented distinction, and an obvious misrepresentation of this discussion, to repeatedly delete an entire section against consensus.  I will take this opportunity to remind you that disruptive editing may result in sanctions. Find sources or get off it. Timothy Joseph Wood  23:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I will "get off it" only once editors decide to return to their severely misplaced senses, not one moment before. Now, are you actually denying that there exist two different and well-known phenomena, both of which may be and are referred to as "same-sex marriage": one being civil ssm, codified and regulated by the state; and the other being religious ssm, established, regulated, and recognized within religious traditions? Is that the obstructionist Kool-Aid you're drinking? Antinoos69 (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm getting tired of asserting this, so for the last time, let's look at the definition on the first line of the article:
 * Same-sex marriage, also known as gay marriage, is marriage between people of the same sex, either as a secular civil ceremony or in a religious setting
 * Noticed the bold and italicized words? That should give everyone a pretty good idea of the scope of this article. Again on an example of one of your questions:
 * Consider the following statement from the section: Arguments on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate are often made on religious grounds and/or formulated in terms of religious doctrine. Does this statement address civil same-sex marriage, religious same-sex marriage, or both as its subject...?
 * Q: What is the title of the article?
 * A: Same-sex marriage.
 * Q: Does the sentence have anything to do with same-sex marriage, no matter what kind it is?
 * A: Yes.
 * Q: Again, what is the title of the article?
 * A: Same-sex marriage.
 * Q: So does the sentence fall within the scope of the article?
 * A: ?
 * These are the questions we should be asking.   MediaKill13   (  talk  )   05:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid your attempts at literary criticism and logical explication were utter flops.
 * The "definition" you provide merely "defines" two senses in which the term is used. There is no intent to suggest that every instance of the phrase "same-sex marriage" is referring both to civil and religious same-sex marriage (as one editor appears to believe, and as is relevant below), which is fortunate, as any such assertion would be very obviously incorrect. It is logically invalid to interpret either this definition or the article's title as an indication of what the article intends to or actually does primarily discuss. Note that only one sentence in the rest of the lead addresses religious views on marriage, the remainder addressing civil same-sex marriage, a focus largely reflected by the article as a whole. And note how, in section 4, "Same-sex marriage around the world," the phrase "same-sex marriage" is generally used to mean civil same-sex marriage. As usual, meaning is ultimately determined by usage and context.
 * Your Q&A on my point 1 entirely misses the point. My questions don't go to whether material on a kind of same-sex marriage can be included in the section or article. They go to whether the actual subject of the statement is adequately defined and whether that statement is properly sourced. Consider the following scenario, and that other editor should read closely here. Suppose we had one secondary source, speaking solely in terms of "same-sex marriage" but within the context of civil ssm, claiming that in 2012 Roman Catholics supported ssm by 60%, and another secondary source, again speaking solely in terms of "same-sex marriage" but within the context of religious ssm within the Church, claiming that in 2016 Roman Catholics supported ssm by 45%. Then suppose that editors wrote within this section of our article that support for "same-sex marriage," without further qualification, among Roman Catholics was as reported in each source for each year. See the problems? We would have a semantic problem (i.e., an incorrect implication that the very same kind of marriage decreased in support between the two years), an explanation problem, and a sourcing problem. These are the kinds of problems that my questions were meant to force editors to recognize and address. And they must be addressed. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Your own personal speculation as to the proper taxonomy of same sex marriage is irrelevant, and will not be addressed other than to indicate it's irrelevancy, which has been done repeatedly. Timothy Joseph Wood  14:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are unable to understand the difference between civil and religious ssm, then I'll point out that no other editor has shared your inability in that regard. The difference is most relevant for reading about, researching, and writing on "same-sex marriage," as the scenario from my second point above made crystal clear. So, having finally read the section/article on a device on which all the references download properly, I will be fixing the section within the next couple days. I don't anticipate I'll be paying you any further mind on this point. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Every editor here has rejected your personal taxonomy and your attempts to delete this section. Further major revisions to this section against consensus will be reverted. Seek consensus for your changes, as the current section represents the consensus of multiple editors following the previous RfC. Timothy Joseph Wood  16:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, or a brazen lie. No other editor has expressed your ignorance of the difference between civil and religious marriage. I will do as I please and deem proper. Period. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Clean Copy: The article is on same-sex marriage generally
 * MediaKill13 Q: What is the title of the article? A: Same-sex marriage.
 * Skyfall This is the page of "Same-sex marriage", not "Civil Same-sex marriage"

My own position should be abundantly clear, and exactly in line with the above. No editor here has at all agreed with the inclusion of your original research, which you have admitted yourself has exactly zero sources supporting it.

You may do as you "please and deem proper" and I will be happy to put together a report for the appropriate noticeboard. Addition of original research against consensus will be reverted. Timothy Joseph Wood 17:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yet again, you demonstrate you haven't the foggiest idea what I'm actually discussing at any one time. None of your three bullet quotes addresses my subject in my post, the existence of two distinct phenomena, civil and religious ssm, such that statements about one are often not statements about the other. Yet again, no other editor has ever agreed with you in this particular regard, and one has explicitly expressed a view contrary to yours. Deal with it. I'll be fixing the problematic section within a couple days, as soon as I get a chance. Antinoos69 (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I have to say that I see no justification for removing information relating to religious controversies over the theme. Cl ea n Co py talk 09:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The subject of your post differs from the subject of mine. Antinoos69 (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure who these editors you reference are, but you may want to ping them here to participate in the conversation. The point, that you habitually seem to miss, is that these "two phenomena" mean absolutely nothing unless you can provide sources for them, sources explicitly defining them. Without this, they are inventions of your own imagination and they are thus original research. Timothy Joseph Wood  22:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In the previous section, MediaKill13 stated, "I can assure you that I understand the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage quite well." No editor, other than you, has ever so much as hinted at a contrary view or such extraordinary ignorance on that very specific point I was discussing. "The point, that you habitually seem to miss, is that" a source on one or both of these forms of ssm absolutely cannot serve as support for statements about any other kind of marriage. As is, the language of the article frequently doesn't reflect the subject of the sources it cites. That constitutes both improper sourcing and OR. I will be making minimal adjustments to the section to remedy these serious and elementary problems that somehow manage to fly way over your head. For your own private edification, of which you are apparently desperately in need, start by searching for "civil same-sex marriage" and "religious same-sex marriage" (separately) in Google Scholar, along with similar terms and phrases involving "legal recognition of," "in law," "sacrament," "religious rites," and so on, both with and without quotes. You will apparently be shocked. Antinoos69 (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure. Searching for both yields exactly one result. So, for about the tenth time, please provide a source for this distinction. Timothy Joseph Wood  22:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Clearly, you're being intentionally obstructionist and asinine. As no other editors agree with you on this, I will ignore you. If you like, you can start an RfC: "Are civil same-sex marriage and religious same-sex marriage distinct phenomena such that true statements on one may not be true statements on the other? And should editors use language in the texts of articles making relevant distinctions in this regard?" I will eagerly and happily await the results. In the meantime, I'll be fixing the section. You're just too ridiculous. Antinoos69 (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So no, no sources. Timothy Joseph Wood  23:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You actually found one, you buffoon, and would have found more had you searched for the terms separately. Now go start that RfC. Or are you afraid? I'm done with you. Antinoos69 (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No. It doesn't seem to be a source that deals with either thing as you seem to want to describe it. I don't need to start an RfC on whether we should include original research; it's policy. Timothy Joseph Wood  23:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What part of done with buffoonery are you failing to understand? (Btw, if you revert me without an RfC, I'll move for or start one myself.) Antinoos69 (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to do so. Timothy Joseph Wood  00:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I know. Antinoos69 (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The "Religious views and practices" section, formerly "Religious views"
My recent edit of the former "Religious views" section requires some clarification to aid editors making additional fixes. My edit merely indicates where sourcing falters and adjusts the text to conform to cited sources. In addition to some sparse copy editing, I also changed the section title to better reflect the content, and fleshed out /edited references. I will take the section one sentence at a time, the numbers below corresponding to the sentence being discussed. There remain problems, however. Perhaps the most serious is the flawed structure. The section keeps toggling between supportive and opposing faiths. Grouping each separately, entailing some rewriting, might make the text read better and more logically. (Properly speaking, again, this whole section, in its current form, should be one paragraph, but I am attempting to abide by the current Wikipseudoparagraphstructure.) Antinoos69 (talk) 10:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) The first sentence was originally sourced to a less-than-ideal reference that had nothing to say about the claims made. Appropriate sourcing is required.
 * 2) I then added this suitable topic/summary sentence for the section, and separated this short introduction from the rest of the section. Properly speaking, of course, this whole section, in its current form, should be one paragraph, but I am attempting to abide by the current Wikipseudoparagraphstructure.
 * 3) The cited source here concerns only the RC Church. While both the RCC and the Orthodox Church oppose all same-sex marriage (ssm), the source addresses civil marriage only. Additional or replacement citation is necessary.
 * 4) All but three of the sources cited here address religious marriage only, including with regard to the Episcopal and Presbyterian churches named in the text, so I limited the text's language to that, providing hidden comments (wherein other problems, too, are noted) in the notes to aid editors. While faiths affirming religious ssm naturally also tend to support civil ssm, most of the sources don't reflect that fact. Additional or replacement sources must be found. The sourcing here is a bit of a mess. Though I could have separated out the various sources on different kinds of marriage, that would have complicated the text, only to be changed back once proper sourcing were provided. It seems easier to change just the marriage designation. I also removed the superfluous source quotes from one of the notes. I moved a later reference here, where it belongs, and removed one that belongs elsewhere.
 * 5) I separated the Alliance of Baptists into its own sentence. The cited source indicates support for civil marriage only, and the organization's website would seem to corroborate that view.
 * 6) The cited sources address religious marriage only. While faiths affirming religious ssm naturally also tend to support civil ssm, the sources don't reflect that fact. Additional or replacement sources could be found, and the text augmented accordingly. I also moved a previous reference here, where it properly belongs, and removed one that did not belong.
 * 7) Updated claim and reference, which actually addresses civil marriage with regard to this claim.
 * 8) Sources only partially support claim. Claim is reasonably supported on religious ssm, but is only partially supported on civil ssm. UK Muslim leaders are a tiny portion of all Muslim leaders. Additional or replacement sourcing is needed.
 * 9) Cited sources address religious marriage only. While faiths affirming religious ssm naturally also tend to support civil ssm, and Orthodox Judaism opposes all ssm, the sources don't reflect those facts. Additional or replacement sources could be found, and the text adjusted accordingly.
 * 10) The first clause's claim of Buddhist ambivalence is not actually supported directly by the cited source.
 * 11) The vast majority of the cited source is addressing religious marriage, including in this regard. I adjusted the language of the text accordingly.


 * I will say this again for the sake of form, although it has been said a dozen times already. Find a source to substantiate and define your supposed division between civil and religious ssm. Otherwise it is original research. Timothy Joseph Wood  12:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Unacceptable. Nobody has ever agreed with you on that point, which constitutes but one phrase of my edit, so you should never have touched the rest. As for that single phrase, I direct you to the first sentence of the article, as well as the links provided in the phrase itself. You know, the whole article on "Civil marriage," for starters. Now, I will expect your detailed commentary on points 1 to 11. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have addressed this over and over, as have others. The fact that you cannot WP:LISTEN does not constitute a crisis on my part, nor does it put the WP:ONUS on me to provide consensus against your preferred change. That's not how this works. The article is on SSM. The division you are attempting to impose is original research, and an arbitrary classification of sources based on what you personally think they are talking about based on your personal definitions. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. You are the only editor who has ever so much as whispered about your ignorance of civil vs. religious marriage--which, by the way, concerns only one phrase of my edit. Why are you even touching the rest? As for that one phrase, see the links and the first sentence of this article. If you don't understand what references are addressing, and no other editor has ever so much as whispered about that either, start RfCs on each to see if other editors share your lack of understanding. It is always up to Wiki editors to interpret secondary sources. So, which source would you like to start with? Antinoos69 (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm never going to agree with this rather spectacularly singular view of yours, and you clearly won't see reason, so you might as well start some RfCs right now, just get my OK on the wording first, as there's a tendency for misunderstanding the points in dispute. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 one external links on Same-sex marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/americas/brazil-judge-approves-what-appears-to-be-countrys-first-gay-marriage-between-2-men/2011/06/27/AGYN2znH_story.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150614004959/http://www.startribune.com:80/mexico-supreme-court-opens-door-to-gay-marriage-nationwide/307197801/ to http://www.startribune.com/mexico-supreme-court-opens-door-to-gay-marriage-nationwide/307197801/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20040415-0750-spain-marriage.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140116230706/http://www.cepchile.cl/dms/lang_1/doc_4844.html to http://www.cepchile.cl/dms/lang_1/doc_4844.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100123144431/http://www.hindustantimes.com:80/News-Feed/nepal/Nepal-charter-to-grant-gay-rights/Article1-499154.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/nepal/Nepal-charter-to-grant-gay-rights/Article1-499154.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140517121108/http://conganhatinh.gov.vn:80/web/guest/9/-/vcmsview/qvgy/1506/1506/6374 to http://conganhatinh.gov.vn/web/guest/9/-/vcmsview/qvgy/1506/1506/6374
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100610164736/http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/AP_06_pre.PDF to http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/AP_06_pre.PDF
 * Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/68OwEop7Y?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Freligion%2F2008-12-04-gay-poll_N.htm with https://web.archive.org/web/20081208080418/http://www.usatoday.com:80/news/religion/2008-12-04-gay-poll_N.htm on http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-12-04-gay-poll_N.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing "Religious views and practices" section controversies
Timothy, what gives? Why are you reverting changes having nothing to do with your "issue," many of which had remained as is for over two weeks, without the slightest objection from anyone? Why are you reverting all my individual edits, rather than just the one(s) to which you object? You can't possibly have objections to all of them. For example, what objection could you possibly have to the "citation needed" tag after "Orthodox Church" in the first sentence of the second paragraph? Are you claiming the cited source discusses the Orthodox Church? And why do you omit any rationale for your multiple reversions? I simply cannot begin to fathom your problems here—unless, of course, your problem is actually with my editing this section/article at all. Antinoos69 (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * There's already been pages of discussion on this, an RfC, and you've been blocked for two weeks over this content. That I forgot to restore the version prior to your edit war/block until the page popped back up on my watchlist is immaterial. Timothy Joseph Wood  10:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You're not listening. My current changes pointedly avoided your "issue." Can't you see that? Can't you see that the above indicated cited source makes non mention of the Orthodox Church? Of course, we both know you just don't want me editing this article in any way. Tough. I suggest we take things to arbitration. Antinoos69 (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you do not self revert I will report you again to WP:ANEW for returning and resuming exactly the edit war from your last report. As has been made clear from your own actions, your intentions are not to improve the article, but to discredit a section you personally would prefer were deleted. Timothy Joseph Wood  22:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No. You're not listening. Your much discussed "issue" is not implicated in my recent edits, very purposely so. In other words, I very pointedly made sure not to do the very thing you mysteriously insisted I not do. Didn't you bother reading my edits? I am utterly perplexed by your behavior. Explain it to me. Are you actually claiming the above indicated source does address the Orthodox Church? I have absolutely no idea what your current problem(s) could possibly be. Obviously, you're not capable of engaging me rationally, so let's take this to arbitration. Antinoos69 (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly clear, I edited the current section specifically to avoid your source interpretation issue, such as it is. So I can't begin to fathom what you could possibly be objecting to now, unless you object to my being an editor on Wikipedia. So, please, explain your current objections to me, whatever they may be. Antinoos69 (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Greenland
Please actualize the Greenland status and color in the map, since marriage is legal since 1 october.
 * I guess marriage has been legal their for far longer. Or are you confusing marriage with something else? --154.69.29.83 (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Malta
Malta has been recognising foreign same-sex marriage for years now and it is still not marked similar to Mexico and Israel, but simply as having civil unions (civil union in Malta is equal to marriage except name). Can anyone update the map showing Malta as recognising foreign same-sex marruage? Same-sex marriage is on the agenda of both major parties and both are for it and will probably be introduced by 2018. Until then Malta should be marked as recognizing foreign same-sex marriage.Continentaleurope (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

A major problem with this SSM article
Currently in the world 780 million live in countries where same-sex marriage or civil unions are legalised. That represents 11% of the world's population, of 7.4 billion. This percentage would be even smaller, if civil unions are excluded. This SSM article, and even Status of same-sex marriage, does not convey that perspective / information. Even for 'liberated' Australia there has been 21 unsuccessful attempts in federal parliament for SSM legislation, with a people's-plebiscite on SSM now having been put off for years. Where in this article is, "Why is that so?"

This article, which was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, 2016 (see above), reflects an obvious support for SSM, and reads more like something from a gay-pride publication.

On top of that, a SSM suicide-study is dismissed for not saying something a Wiki-editor thinks it should have said. Sources are dismissed as having an 'anti-same-sex marriage agenda'. Editors are dismissed as having a 'POV'. Ironically, with those dismissals coming from User:Antinoos69, who has on his User page an image, "widely cited as a prime example of homoeroticism in American art".

Embedded POVs are a major problem within this SSM article. B20097 (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * When it comes to SSM, you may want to get your information for what is "currently" true from some source that isn't two-and-a-half years old. Details on the situation in Australia are, like most details on most countries, in a separate article (recognition of same-sex unions in Australia), so that this article does not become huge. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You may find that whining homophobic diatribes are ineffective. The study, as extensively explained in the previous section, was dismissed because it is irrelevant to the section to which it was appended. Biased, logically flawed, and homophobic secondary sources generally should be dismissed on Wikipedia. Perhaps your edits would be better appreciated on Conservapedia. Antinoos69 (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Suicide study
Multiple editors have been inserting this text:
 * A 2016 study of suicide, undertaken in Sweden, involved the analysis of data records for 6,456 same-sex married couples and 1,181,723 man-women marriages.  Even with Sweden's tolerant attitude regarding homosexuality, it was determined that for same-sex married men the suicide risk was nearly three times higher than for different-sex married men, even after after an adjustment for HIV status.  For women, it was shown that there was a tentatively elevated suicide risk for same-sex married women over that of different-sex married women.

The problem with this is that it doesn't really say anything about same-sex marriage. Marriage is not a variable here; it's not comparing gay couples with marriage to gay couples without. It's comparing people in gay couples and people in straight couples, and limiting the sample set to married folks. It doesn't even have the data to say "gay men are more likely to be suicidal than straight men, and marriage doesn't change that." It seems to be irrelevant... and certainly, sourcing a study to the study itself means that no significance has been shown. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems relevant to me - it's comparing men in same-sex marriage to men in heterosexual marriages. This article is not just about marriage in general, it's about same-sex marriage, and it is legitimate to compare same-sex marriage to other forms of marriage. StAnselm (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That would seem more a study of homosexuality than a study of same-sex marriage. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, because it's restricted to marriage. StAnselm (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's right, it's restricted to marriage, so it doesn't tell us anything about marriage versus non-marriage. And we don't at the moment have some external source telling us this is of import. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This Wiki article covers Same-sex marriage.  The matter raised is contained within the section Same-sex marriage > Studies > Health.  The study compared the suicide-propensity of those who are in same-sex marriages with those who are in hetrosexual marriages.   Namely, Same-sex marriage > Studies > Health.   Yes, it is correct to say - "it doesn't tell us anything about marriage versus non-marriage".  However that comment is immaterial as the study did not say anything other than what it said.  External sources are obviously not mandatory for many other citations within this article.   One possible external source is,  People in homosexual ‘marriages’ almost 3 times more likely to commit suicide: study.  I note 'lifesitenews' LifeSiteNews.com has been cited 246 times within Wikipedia.   B20097 (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No. The material is both irrelevant and POV. The entire section to which the material is appended concerns the effects of same-sex marriage on health, on which the study is entirely silent. Studies comparing same-sex couples not married to married same-sex couples would be relevant. Comparing same-sex couples to different-sex couples tells us nothing in and of itself. Indeed, the material leads readers to conclude that marriage is good only for different-sex couples, an incorrect inference that raises POV concerns, especially as the editors advocating for the material have histories of conservative religiosity and anti-LGBT sentiment. Furthermore, I believe it is the inclusion of disputed material that requires consensus, not its removal. I will therefore remove the material. It should not be restored without prior consensus. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Before relying on LifeSiteNews, you may want to check the most recent time they were discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I must confess I didn't bother clicking on the LifeSiteNews link. Having now done so, I now understand/ have confirmation of the highly biased perspective of some editors. The site engages in faulty logic and the misinterpretation of science. The site sees that married same-sex couples have higher suicide rates and improperly concludes there is something wrong with ssm/LGBs. The site is oblivious to the fact that the higher suicide rates compared to different-sex married couples may reflect a reduction compared to not married same-sex couples, which would indicate a positive effect of ssm rather than a negative one. The site also fails scientifically to account for other factors contributing to higher suicide rates for same-sex couples, such as minority stress. The site is therefore clearly unreliable: reliable, mainstream sources tend not to commit these errors. The site is engaging in classic homophobic "reasoning." Some editors are apparently repeating these errors, including with regard to the cited study within the disputed material. That constitutes original research, among other things. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "may reflect a reduction" You are making a hypothesis which is not supported by sources. We do not have data on the suicidal tendencies in unmarried same-sex couples in Sweden. In fact our article on Suicide in Sweden is small and rather outdated (all data concern the year 2011)Dimadick (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood. I wasn't "making a hypothesis." While assessing the dubious website, I was pointing out a possibility not accounted for by that website, thereby invalidating its claims and assumptions. In fact, it is the website that is unsupported by its source/study, rather like the disputed material here, which lacks sources supporting its relevance to this article. Clear now? Antinoos69 (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * If the article is using scare quotes around "homosexual 'marriages'" then it is safe to say that they have an anti-same-sex marriage agenda; they are definitely not objective. I do not believe that LifeSiteNews is a reliable source, so it should not be included in this article. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The site even uses quotes around "marry" in a same-sex context. If we're willing to nitpick, we could also question the site's use of "homosexual" and "homosexuals" in place of more standard terms like "same-sex" and "LGBTs." Unfortunately, there are much more critical problems where this site is concerned. Antinoos69 (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I think I figured out what kind of source LifeSiteNews is. We do not have an article on it, but it is apparently owned by Campaign Life Coalition, a socially conservative lobbyist organization. And the goals of the organization are advocacy of "traditional family values" and opposition to same-sex marriage. In other words, they are more than a little biased. (By the way, am I the only one who gets mental images of domestic abuse when hearing the phrase "traditional family values"?) Dimadick (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you are not the only one. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Dimadick your two comments implying support for traditional family values [must be] more than a little biased  - along with - "one  . . gets mental images of domestic abuse when hearing the phrase "traditional family values" ",  both provide insights into a particular POV.


 * Within democratic Canada, the Campaign Life Coalition view,  "Marriage is about attaching mothers and fathers to their children and to one another. At its heart, the institution of marriage is concerned with providing stability to children and ensuring that their mothers and fathers are committed to the offspring from their union",  is a legitimate position.   Denigrating that source as, "biased, logically flawed, and homophobic secondary sources", does no credit to Wiki-editors.


 * My objection for this SSM Wiki-article is that citations taken from gay literature and advocating SSM, are deemed as unbiased.  Similarly Wiki-SSM-editors who have pictures such as this on their User page are deemed to have a NPOV in contributing to SSM articles.   B20097 (talk) 08:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, you may find that whining homophobic diatribes are ineffective. Your behavior towards me is approaching harassment (WP:HA). I very strongly suggest you stop it. Now. And I would suggest removing the pic from your post, editing your text accordingly. Antinoos69 (talk) 08:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

"support for traditional family values" means that the organization has taken a partisan position in the matter. Which is what I was commenting on. If you think there are other partisan sources in the article, do bring them to our attention. Bias is bias, and sources which are too closely affiliated with the subject matter are suspect. I was not commenting on homophobia, because I am not aware of this organization's stance on homosexual people in general.

As for me, I have more often heard the phrase "traditional family values" in association with domineering and abusive father-figures than anything remotely positive. I do not edit the article to insert my own view on the matter.

I am not aware who the editor with this image in his/her user page is, but I do not see what our preferences in artwork have to do with anything. I myself find that nude art is underrated and should be more prominently displayed. I also think that Ulysses is a mediocre and unimaginative novel, and James Joyce was a hack writer, but I do not post my opinion in the main article. Dimadick (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed. If there are sources in the article that currently violated WP:NPOV then they should be pointed out and removed/replaced. The (potential) existence of liberally biased sources in the article is not a reason to add conservatively biased sources. Anything "study" published by an organization advocating for "traditional marriage" is going to violate NPOV, because it is from a source which assumes its conclusion before the study is even undertaken. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Colombia New Poll
A new poll conducted between November and December 2016 shows that support for same-sex marriage is 37% while 59% is against.. So please update that information in your table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.18.52.36 (talk • contribs)

Ambiguous statement in the introduction
I will probably forget about this article before "consensus is achieved" so I hope whoever reads this changes this statement when that happens:

The introduction contains this statement: < The American Anthropological Association asserts that social science research does not support the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon not recognizing same-sex marriage. >

They provide as a source this document: < http://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2602 >

The poor wording in the intro section makes it sound like the American Anthropological Association opposes gay marriage; since the statement is ambiguous, it can be interpreted either way. On the other hand, the original statement is unambiguous: < The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. >

Please change the introductory statement to this (or something equivalently unambiguous): < The American Anthropological Association asserts that social science research does not support the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. >

This both doesn't misquote the original, and keeps the statement unambiguous. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pentalis (talk • contribs) 21:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Status in Slovenia
What is the status of same-sex marriage in Slovenia? Politico (http://www.politico.eu/article/slovenia-allows-same-sex-marriage/) quoting Reuters says it is now legal, but another user has pointed out other sources that contradict this. Generally I think Reuters and Politico are very credible sources. If anyone with more info could clarify, that would be helpful. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * They are incorrect. The law, which was passed by the parliament in April 2016 and took effect today, significantly expanded the rights of same-sex partnerships. It's not marriage. See,.

However there is a growing number of media reporting that same sex marriage is legal in Slovenia. Weatherextremes (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I also found this from Reuters and this  from Jurist. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's new, upgraded partnership act (the old one, much narrower in scope, was repealed). See information on the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities's website and other Slovenian sources . Marriage is still available to opposite-sex couples only. See article 3 of the Marriage and Family Relations Act. Ron 1987 (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification and the sources Weatherextremes (talk) 10:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Estonia
Is it clear that same-sex marriages are recognised throughout Estonia? I have some doubts because that was Tallin Circuit court decision. Oliviw (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC) Oliviw (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

any reason why Slovenia is not listed as having same sex marriage?
Sources: http://www.politico.eu/article/slovenia-allows-same-sex-marriage/ http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/02/24/same-sex-marriage-is-legal-in-slovenia-from-today/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.1.142.196 (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Already discussed two threads up on this page. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   04:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Falkland Islands
The Falkland Islands voted for same-sex marriage 30th March 2017 (7 to 1 vote). The bill now awaits royal assent. Please update. Thxs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosch138 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Same-sex marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131006084549/http://sosogay.co.uk/2013/gay-marriage-politically-rather-than-ethically-motivated/ to http://www.sosogay.co.uk/2013/gay-marriage-politically-rather-than-ethically-motivated/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=ODYzMQ%3D%3D
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/americas/brazil-judge-approves-what-appears-to-be-countrys-first-gay-marriage-between-2-men/2011/06/27/AGYN2znH_story.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www5.tjba.jus.br/corregedoria/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=420%3Auniaohomoafetiva&catid=31%3Anoticias&Itemid=142
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151016144837/http://www.cmi.com.co/?n=118476 to http://www.cmi.com.co/?n=118476
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140930123537/http://users.cybercity.dk/~dko12530/s2.htm to http://users.cybercity.dk/~dko12530/s2.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160313091931/http://inatsisartut.gl/samlingerhome/oversigt-over-samlinger/samling/dagsordener/dagsorden.aspx?dagsorden=29656&day=26-05-2015 to http://www.inatsisartut.gl/samlingerhome/oversigt-over-samlinger/samling/dagsordener/dagsorden.aspx?day=26-05-2015&dagsorden=29656
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://knr.gl/da/nyheder/f%C3%B8rste-homoseksuelle-par-viet-i-kirken
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ft.dk/samling/20161/lovforslag/L129/index.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iCHjEwL13Lmoqv92kvpq7ADOWPlw
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150711134150/http://suracapulco.mx/archivos/289751 to http://suracapulco.mx/archivos/289751
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2005%2F04%2F21%2F5
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20040415-0750-spain-marriage.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160201082402/http://www.ifop.com/media/poll/2255-1-study_file.pdf to http://www.ifop.com/media/poll/2255-1-study_file.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160201082402/http://www.ifop.com/media/poll/2255-1-study_file.pdf to http://www.ifop.com/media/poll/2255-1-study_file.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131013233248/http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/it%E2%80%99s-final-gay-wedding-fines-go-vietnam131013 to http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/it%E2%80%99s-final-gay-wedding-fines-go-vietnam131013
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061117201231/http://www.indegayforum.org/staff/show/91.html to http://www.indegayforum.org/staff/show/91.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130512111336/http://www.famigliearcobaleno.org/public/documenti/file/How-Does-the-Gender-of-Parents-Matter.pdf to http://www.famigliearcobaleno.org/public/documenti/file/How-Does-the-Gender-of-Parents-Matter.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Transgender and intersex people
This section contains synthesis, and does not address issues purportedly faced by intersex people except by inference from statements about transgender people. Evidence is needed that is proportional to claims of typical problems. Trankuility (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Taiwan same-sex marriage poll.
A recent poll conducted in november 2016 showed that 52% Taiwanese supported SSM:

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2016/11/29/2003660214

Most polls show that a majority of Taiwanese support SSM:

http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=2273290

http://focustaiwan.tw/news/asoc/201506270005.aspx

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/11/30/nearly-two-thirds-of-taiwan-supports-marriage-equality-survey-finds/

Alderney is NOT in the United Kingdom
Alderney is erroneously listed under the United Kingdom.

Alderney is a dependency of Guernsey. Guernsey is NOT part of the United Kingdom and is NOT a member of the European Union.

Guernsey IS a dependency of the UK but only because the Queen, in her capacity as the Duke of Normandy (not Duchess; she's a female Duke) is the head of state for Guernsey and Jersey -- which are the only two pieces of Normandy still under the Duke. Mainland Normandy was lost to France centuries ago. Insular Normandy remained in the Duke's control. A vote was held in the 19th century under which both Jersey and Guernsey opted to remain independent of France.

Guernsey has its own currency, stamps, national government, etc. The UK is responsible for foreign affairs but has no role in the government of the bailiwick.

So, instead of being listed under the UK, Alderney should be listed under Guernsey.

Alternatively, "United Kingdom" could be changed to "UK Dependencies" (or "UK Dep.").

But it is quite inaccurate to claim that Alderney or Guernsey is part of the UK, since neither is.

2601:645:C300:42D0:FCC8:B7D:18C0:ED21 (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Slovenia
I'm a bit confused about Slovenia. I have seen some messages that suggest Slovenia has allowed same-sex marriages as of 24.02.2017. But because this page is usually very up-to-date with recent developments, I don't know why it's not reflected in the text. Is it true?

Here from Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-slovenia-rights-idUSKBN1630U0 And that one: http://www.newnownext.com/slovenia-gay-marriage/02/2017/

Take care112grammarpolice (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Same-sex marriage is not legal in Slovenia, see Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 23. Ron 1987 (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Same-sex marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130926032112/http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/02/24/most-irish-people-support-gay-marriage-poll-says/ to http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/02/24/most-irish-people-support-gay-marriage-poll-says/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121025004814/http://publicreligion.org/research/2011/08/generations-at-odds/ to http://publicreligion.org/research/2011/08/generations-at-odds/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111230041201/http://www.umich.edu/~classics/news/newsletter/winter2004/weddings.html to http://www.umich.edu/~classics/news/newsletter/winter2004/weddings.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407093356/http://www.rcnradio.com/noticias/jueza-toma-decision-historica-declara-civilmente-casados-primera-pareja-gay-79665 to http://www.rcnradio.com/noticias/jueza-toma-decision-historica-declara-civilmente-casados-primera-pareja-gay-79665
 * Added tag to http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20130322/NEWS01/303220029/Pediatricians-group-backs-gay-marriage

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2017
Can the page now be edited to reflect the same sex marriage developments in Germany? 89.127.34.27 (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Germany and Malta
Could you please update the table to reflect the recent changes in Germany and Malta regarding same sex marriage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camacupa5 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Both countries are close to legalising but the laws are not yet in force. Thus they can't be added to the table yet, but I'm sure that will change soon. Cheers,  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  20:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Intersex
Are there any notable discussions about marriage of intersex people? I mean, whether there is a subject to be covered in wikipedia? Article "Intersex" says nothing. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK; this one: "Legal aspects of transsexualism" speaks about intersex as well. In any case, does anyone care to start Intersex and transsexual marriage? (or two separate ones?)Staszek Lem (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I advise against a combined article, and the source you cite is dated and not reliable. The issues facing each population are different, and depend on situations in each country. For example, all intersex people who identify with sex assignment at birth are able to marry everywhere. See for example Intersex rights in Argentina, Intersex rights in Australia, Intersex rights in Germany, Intersex rights in New Zealand, Intersex rights in South Africa, but not Intersex rights in the United States. Trankuility (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Ancient through Renaissance examples
Citation 121 and 122 have identical text. The only differences between the citations is that they are hosted on different websites. One should be struck. Furthermore, the text the citations refers to possess errors which should disqualify it. For example it says, "when the Council of Trent decreed that a wedding must henceforth be performed in a parish church, by an authorized priest, in the presence of witnesses, and following the proclamation of “banns” (the public announcement of the ceremony).". The errors are, 1: Trent did not require marriages to be performed in a Church only 'in facie ecclasia' i.e. in the face of the Church. In actuality they were performed outside the Church on the doorsteps. The second error is that Christian priests in the Western tradition never performed marriages. Based on Roman law, a marriage was a contract between two willing parties capable of entering into the contract: the spouses performed the wedding. Trent merely required witnesses.

Reference 120 is also problematic. Problem 1: priests did not marry anyone; thus, a reference which states this can not be considered reliable as it does not demonstrate the knowledge necessary to interpret historical documents. No such basis existed in canon law (as marriage was not a part of civil law in Western Europe until the changes brought on by the Protestants) for such a union. Therefore, while the document may attest that the two may have gone through the ceremony it should not necessary follow that they were considered married.

Finally, reference 118 does not support the statement: "Still, the lack of legal validity notwithstanding, there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships existed in ancient Rome, though the frequency and nature of "same-sex unions" during that period are obscure." The reference makes no such claim. The reference does examine evidence for same-sex marriage in Imperial Rome; however, it only uses references to Boswell (mentioned reference 105 and 106) and Foucault. As such, this article by Eskridge is not a survey of the historical literature ca. 1993. Since it is not a survey and Eskridge's article itself does not contain a statement concerning scholarly consensus Eskridge cannot be used to demonstrate consensus.

In summary, I argue that references 118, 120, 121, and 122 should all be struck and the accompanying text be eliminated. Citations 121 and 122 are duplicates, 120-122 do not demonstrate sufficient knowledge of the era to be reliable sources, and citation 118 does not support the statement it purports demonstrate. I will wait a few days to see if there are any comments. If none, I will move the material to the talk page and remove it from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.161.44 (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

edit request
please add the following to the timeline under 2017:


 * Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin (5 June)

cheers, 155.245.69.178 (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  20:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * great, thanks 155.245.69.178 (talk) 08:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Links with flags for Germany and United States
Please re-check the list of countries — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hokutorion (talk • contribs) 21:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Mayor Newsom's publicity stunt doesn't count
Comparing San Francisco's rogue election-year stunt to actual issuances of valid marriage licenses is rather silly. The city government knew the marriages would not be validated, and lo and behold, they were not. It was just a lame attempt to make same-sex marriage an issue in the presidential race. Please remove SF from the time table. --SchutteGod (not logged in) 70.181.168.53 (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It is unclear what you are objecting to: Newsom is never mentioned by name in the article, and the reference to San Francisco, in the Timeline section, the row for 2004, make it clear that this was a temporary action. What, exactly, do you want changed? TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 06:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Same-sex marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/78874/malta_legalises_samesex_marriage_as_parliament_votes_in_favour_of_marriage_equality_bill
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://portal.fo/nu%2Bkunnu%2Bsamkynd%2Bgiftast.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140531105241/http://www.elperiodicdandorra.ad/politica/34228-da-diu-no-al-matrimoni-gai.html to http://www.elperiodicdandorra.ad/politica/34228-da-diu-no-al-matrimoni-gai.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://conganhatinh.gov.vn/web/guest/9/-/vcmsview/qvgy/1506/1506/6374
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160910202204/http://www.globalbuddhism.org/13/wilson12.pdf to http://www.globalbuddhism.org/13/wilson12.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Marriage equality
Current lede reads: Same-sex marriage, also known as gay marriage or marriage equality, is marriage between people of the same sex, either as a secular civil ceremony or in a religious setting. As written, the sentence implies that same-sex marriage has the same meaning as marriage equality, and that marriage equality means marriage between people of the same sex. That doesn't make sense. For this reason I am creating a separate sentence to say what marriage equality means. Ordinary Person (talk) 04:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with your assessment, but lead changes need consensus. The terms frequently are used interchangeably by sources. But I think we could clarify the lead like you suggest.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As a general topic-namer, the terms are sometimes interchangeable, but when you come to define the terms specifically, it makes no sense to say "marriage equality means marriage between people of the same sex." I propose that the lede begin as follows: Same-sex marriage, also known as gay marriage, is marriage between people of the same sex, either as a secular civil ceremony or in a religious setting. The term marriage equality refers to a political status in which same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage are considered legally equal. Ordinary Person (talk) 04:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There are times when they can be and are used interchangably, but that doesn't mean that they mean the same thing. Saying "I support reproductive choice" means the same as "I support abortion", but you wouldn't say "my sister the doctor performs three reproductive choices in an average week". This is similar. As such, I'm in favor of OP's suggested edits. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My only reservation: I don't like "opposite sex" I know it's a common term though. I'd support the proposed changes as is.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Huh? What does "political status" have to do with it? That's sloppy wording that is liable to confuse readers. The OP has not articulated a cogent reason for their objection to the current wording. I think I see what they're saying: that the phrases "same-sex marriage" and "marriage equality" are, if one parses them, not logically synonymous. That may be true, but it is also true of innumerable other pairs of phrases; the English language is funny that way. In fact, the phrases are functionally synonymous because they are commonly used to express the exact same concept. In other words, that is the way they're actually used in the real world, and that is all we should be concerned with. Of course, if there is noteworthy coverage, such as peer-reviewed literature, about the suitability of these terms, that can be covered in the article, but there is no policy-based reason for changing the lede as proposed.  Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   15:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, actually, the first sentence comes across as utter nonsense. "Same-sex marriage, also known as gay marriage or marriage equality, is marriage between people of the same sex, either as a secular civil ceremony or in a religious setting." If we remove the "also knowns" and just put in "marriage equality" as if it were synonymous, we end up with "Marriage equality is marriage between people of the same sex, either as a secular civil ceremony or in a religious setting." Nope. "Marriage equality" has to do with the legal status of same-sex marriages relative to mixed-sex marriages. It is not in itself same-sex marriage. My pals have a same-sex marriage, they don't have a marriage equality. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, were we proposing to remove the "also knowns"? I missed that. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   19:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We were proposing to move "marriage equality" out of the "also knowns" because same-sex marriage is not also known as marriage equality, as the substitution shows, just as "abortion" is not also known as "pro-choice." --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We're apparently talking past each other. I was drawing a distinction between phrases that are logically synonymous and those that are functionally so. "Marriage equality" and "same-sex marriage" are indeed two different things, but they are frequently used interchangeably. Would "also referred to as" or "commonly referred to as" bother you less than "also known as"? I'd be fine with either of those. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   21:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I'd not be fine with either of those things, because they still don't make it true. When people are talking about marriage equality, they are talking about the topic of same-sex marriage, but they are speaking of specific goals. The change suggested is one toward accuracy. (The one suggestion that we not use the term "opposite sex" is reasonable; I'd suggest "mixed-sex", but I know not all will agree.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * People are not necessarily speaking of specific goals when they use the phrase "marriage equality". Sometimes they are talking about the status quo. For instance, Netherlands has had marriage equality for more than 16 years. Where's the goal there? Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   03:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the phrase "same-sex marriage" means exactly what it says on the tin: marriage between people of the same sex. "Marriage equality" means a political status in which same-sex marriages are treated as equivalent to opposite-sex marriage. I don't mind "marriage equality" being in the lede, even being directed to this article, but it is not a legit a.k.a. for same-sex marriage. I've been told we need consensus before editing. I don't think it is reasonable, or even strictly within Wikipedia's terms, for an article to remain erroneous because one person out of many objects to an edit. Ordinary Person (talk) 05:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's still not right. You're describing it merely as a "political status". It is a legal status and a social status as well, at the very least. We need more eyes on this. Rivertorch   FIRE <sub style="color:#0066FF;">WATER   15:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, can you explain what you mean when you say "marriage equality" is a social status? Ordinary Person (talk) 02:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Opinion polls for same-sex marriage
The information in the Opinion polls for same-sex marriage chart is extremely misleading. If information for some countries comes from Eurobarometer, all available information from that source should be used equally instead of information of lesser/more biased sources (such as ILGA) for other countries. For some countries this gives a difference of >30%!

Furthermore, the information from Eurobarometer that is used in the chart, comes from the wrong column in my opinion. The first column better reflects if people are in favour of same sex marriage in their own country. --

I completely agree with the above. I'm discouraged by the ILGA findings in particular. For example, I haven't been able to find any such poll conducted in the last 6 years in the UK to suggest support for same sex marriage has dropped to 48%. Indeed in Northern Ireland the only constituent country not to have it legalised shows overwhelming support as do the majority of conservative outlets, media publications and politicians. That would make the aforementioned 48% either statistically inaccurate or the UK is a complete anomaly and outlier.

How can opinion go from a steady increase in 10 years to a sudden drop to under 50% based on one survey?


 * Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom
 * http://www.northernslant.com/lucidtalk-poll-overall-support-for-same-sex-marriage-in-northern-ireland/
 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10782135/Majority-of-Conservative-and-Ukip-voters-back-gay-marriage-poll.html
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35447150

TragicVision1 (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)TragicVision1

first marriage ever in Germany
see c:Category:Same-sex marriage in Germany. --C.Suthorn (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Australia
Countries allowing same-sex couples to marry does not use the term of "same-sex marriage", they define marriage as a union between two people, just like it's proposed in Australia so this] content is needless. Ron 1987 (talk) 02:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure what is meant by: "Countries allowing same-sex couples to marry does not use the term of "same-sex marriage", they define marriage as a union between two people"?   If other countries "define marriage as a union between two people" should not this be specifically mentioned in the article. There is one passing, 2 February 2013, reference in France.  It is not mentioned in Same-sex marriage in France.  The issue which seems to be overlooked, is significant for non-binary people.  Recommend reference to marriage of two people be included. B20097 (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not just non-binary people. Same-sex marriage implies that it is somehow different from "opposite-sex marriage," though I can't think of any cases thus far (Taiwan might take this route) where a country has equalized marriage and it is a separate type of marriage. Any two people go to the same office to get the same certificate or notary and the government treats them the same in taxation, spousal privilege, divorce, inheritance, etc. Perhaps certain finer equalization issues still exist, but maybe "same-sex marriage" is not such an anomaly once 24 countries have legalized it. Andrew1444 (talk) 04:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not advocating a second or alternative form of relationship-registration, I am referring to the use of a more inclusive, nongendered term 'two-people' marriage, (which covers 'same-sex' marriage), rather than limiting the above to 'same-sex' marriage. B20097 (talk)

Medieval & Early Modern history section
Citation 121 and 122 have identical text. The only differences between the citations is that they are hosted on different websites. One should be struck. Furthermore, the text the citations refers to possess errors which should disqualify it. For example it says, "when the Council of Trent decreed that a wedding must henceforth be performed in a parish church, by an authorized priest, in the presence of witnesses, and following the proclamation of “banns” (the public announcement of the ceremony).". The errors are, 1: Trent did not require marriages to be performed in a Church only 'in facie ecclasia' i.e. in the face of the Church. In actuality they were performed outside the Church on the doorsteps. The second error is that Christian priests in the Western tradition never performed marriages. Based on Roman law, a marriage was a contract between two willing parties capable of entering into the contract: the spouses performed the wedding. Trent merely required witnesses.

Reference 120 is also problematic. Problem 1: priests did not marry anyone; thus, a reference which states this can not be considered reliable as it does not demonstrate the knowledge necessary to interpret historical documents. No such basis existed in canon law (as marriage was not a part of civil law in Western Europe until the changes brought on by the Protestants) for such a union. Therefore, while the document may attest that the two may have gone through the ceremony it should not necessary follow that they were considered married.

Finally, reference 118 does not support the statement: "Still, the lack of legal validity notwithstanding, there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships existed in ancient Rome, though the frequency and nature of "same-sex unions" during that period are obscure." The reference makes no such claim. The reference does examine evidence for same-sex marriage in Imperial Rome; however, it only uses references to Boswell (mentioned reference 105 and 106) and Foucault. As such, this article by Eskridge is not a survey of the historical literature ca. 1993. Since it is not a survey and Eskridge's article itself does not contain a statement concerning scholarly consensus Eskridge cannot be used to demonstrate consensus.

In summary, I argue that references 118, 120, 121, and 122 should all be struck and the accompanying text be eliminated. Citations 121 and 122 are duplicates, 120-122 do not demonstrate sufficient knowledge of the era to be reliable sources, and citation 118 does not support the statement it purports demonstrate. I will wait a few days to see if there are any comments. If none, I will move the material to the talk page and remove it from the article. Sept. 21, 2017 Safinski (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

As there have been no objections I am removing the above discussed sections and the passage in the section on the Roman Empire. Safinski (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

"Discontinued" references
The "discontinued" references are pointless. In most cases no couples had the chance to get married under those laws as they lasted for a few days. Those references make the table confusing for the average reader. As more and more countries/ territories will legalise same-sex marriage in the future, the table will become too long to read. Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It is part of the historical record. AusLondonder (talk) 08:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. As I recall, for instance, three hundred people got married in Michigan in just the one day it was legal. I'm not concerned about how long the list gets--what matters is it is accurate. Andrew1444 (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's just confusing --Baronedimare (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is pointless in that section Martin m159 (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC).

But that's why they appear in the "timeline of same-sex marriage" article. Whoever is interested can find all the information there. Shouldn't the summary table of been more conclusive? Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 11:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree, the table is a tabular summary of Timeline of same-sex marriage. More detail can be found in that article, with references.  Del <sub style="color:black;">♉ sion 23  (talk)  12:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Could we try to reach a consensus before changing it so its not just going to be changed hourly? It's been this way for years and I don't think that anyone should unilaterally change it.Andrew1444 (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I also see the map is incorrect. I asked on the talk page of "LGBT rights by country or territory" if can anyone edit Chad and the Gambia on the map but noone seemed to care. Chad criminalised homosexuality and the Gambia no longer enforces the law. So they should be coloured as orange and yellow respectively. Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 12:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Parenting
The parenting section of this article is virtually non-existent and I believe there is a lot of information that could be added, which I am currently working on. Breyeahh (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

New Zealand
Cooks Islands and Niue are not "New Zealand territories" but self-governing states in free association with New Zealand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.170.112 (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2014‎

But they're not members of the UN and are not countries. And their residents have New Zealand passports. Must be an identical situation as the UK and the British overseas territories. Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * They are part of the Realm of New Zealand: not the same as the British Overseas Territories. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Map
Could someone fix map and make all the territories of Australia yellow, not just mainland, as suggested by user Colonial Overlord? Ron 1987 (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC) EDIT: I consider an edit war by Colonial Overlord over little, barely visible error on the map really stupid... Ron 1987 (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, you started the edit war by reverting my explained edit, then reverting me again without appearing to have read anything in my edit summary. And I consider persistently removing accurate information just so the file can always have the same name rather stupid. Colonial Overlord (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

This user keeps edit warring following a request to stop, if he continues doing this he should get a warning. Either way though, the map should be updated, another one shouldn’t be added and in any case this information is not even accurate as of today. The postal survey was non-binding and no laws have yet been passed. In order for Australia to be able to be displayed as gold/yellow on the map actual laws by the parliament have to be passed and that has not happened. So not only is it ridiculous to replace a map with a new one with worse quality (which should by the way be deleted), the information is not even accurate. I would recommend the user to stop edit warring or he will be reported. --2607:FEA8:559F:FA30:3C79:939B:6779:FAB (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If someone who knows how to could just fix the bloody map, we could end this discussion. I'd question how sensible it is to have these images in a format that can't be edited by normal image editing programs. And you seem to have missed the "announced intention to legalise" part of the caption for the gold colour. Colonial Overlord (talk) 05:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That map has not been used that way in a very long time and actual laws have to be passed before countries can be coloured gold. For a while that part of the caption was even deleted until someone brought it back for some reason. No country is coloured gold until their government has passed the law and it awaits to be enforced. Also the maps are very easily editable so don’t blame the website for you lack of knowledge on how to edit them. I would once again suggest you return the regular map back in place. --2607:FEA8:559F:FA30:3C79:939B:6779:FAB (talk) 05:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The reality is that the caption for gold says "government/court legalized OR announced intention to legalize". If Australia is not to be coloured gold, then that caption needs to be changed and doing so requires discussion and consensus.


 * That colour was originally created to model the situations in UK and France where there was government support but legislation not yet enacted. It was later used to colour US states where there were stayed court rulings subject to appeal, and in no guarantee of coming into force. By all means argue for changing the caption, but I'm not sure your proposal fits with the historical record. Colonial Overlord (talk) 05:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * For the longest time the map has been used to colour countries that have already passed marriage laws but aren’t yet enforced. The legend was already changed a while ago but someone changed it back without consensus. You are talking about events that happened several years ago, the situation of same-sex marriage has changed since then and so has the use of this map. Once again countries are coloured only after laws were passed.--2607:FEA8:559F:FA30:3C79:939B:6779:FAB (talk) 05:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Regardless, on the current caption not colouring Australia is simply wrong. As to changing the caption, why do you think it's better that way, aside from just having been done before (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)? Colonial Overlord (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem here. The government enacted this postal vote to authorize liberals a free vote on same-sex marriage (item 1). The Government of Australia has announced that they would authorize a free vote and Turnbull, himself as prime minister, says he wants to enact by Christmas (item 2). I believe that this combination warrants the gold color. It is a much more definite situation than Nepal, which was gold for years. If the situation changes, we can simply change the color back. Wow. Even the US government does not attempt this hard at semantics. Andrew1444 (talk) 07:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It’s a simple policy that requires an actual legal change rather than just promises. Jersey was coloured gold because it enacted an official legal comittment to legalize same-sex marriage. That is the requirement, Australia will very likely pass the law very soon so it will be coloured gold regardless. --2607:FEA8:559F:FA30:3C79:939B:6779:FAB (talk) 12:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Either way, what made you think that it’s okay to entirely replace a map that has been used for years with your png map of lower quality without any sort of consensus. This change should have been discussed on the actual map’s talk page. --
 * Did the government or court announce an intention to legalise? YES! That makes Australia and the territories gold and it makes you a child. Andrew1444 (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

2607:FEA8:559F:FA30:3C79:939B:6779:FAB (talk) 12:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The prime minister announced his intention however there are other parties that exist and they vote in the parliament too. Actual legal action has to be made. Personal attacks by calling me a child are absolutely innapropriate and there is no reason for you to say that, if you want to take part in a discussion then do so civilly. A government isn’t just one person, a vote has to take place.--2607:FEA8:559F:FA30:206B:FAAE:4B47:59AD (talk) 03:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

For reference, .svg files can be updated relatively easily using the free software Inkscape. I've updated the map to include the territories. Feel free to revert depending on the outcome of this discussion. Cheers,  Del <sub style="color:black;">♉ sion 23  (talk)  19:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing that! The file has now been reverted to no gold on Australia at all by (what appears to be) a different user to the one arguing above, making very similar arguments. Said arguments amounting to "this is how it's always been done", which is quite false. Let me break this down.


 * 1. Gold was originally used for countries like the UK where there was "merely" a commitment from the government to legalise. It was later used for US states for stayed court rulings, which were even less of a committment to legalisation than a government announcement (since they could be reversed on appeal, and in fact American lower courts tend to be the most liberal and the Supreme Court the most conservative). And that gold colour is STILL used in the same way on an "other version" of the map for America listed next to it on Commons.


 * 2. According to the current caption, Australia unquestionably fits the definition. Whatever is done, keeping the current caption for gold and not colouring Australia with it is right out.


 * 3. Changing the caption is a change to the status quo and requires consensus. I won't revert again but I think Australia should stay gold (in accordance with the caption) during this discussion.


 * 4. As to whether the caption should be changed, here are the arguments against it:


 * (a) It's been used this way for all the major western countries (UK, France, US etc) so why change its use now?
 * (b) The lighter gold colour simply says "government/court announced intention to legalize civil unions" with no mention of already legalized. For consistency gold should be the same (and this is more proof that that was the original purpose of gold).
 * (c) Gold continues to be used for stayed court rulings on the map of America prior to Obergefelle ruling.
 * (d) That a bill has government support (and ALSO the explicit support of the people in this case!) and thus almost certain to pass is very useful information. Colonial Overlord (talk) 13:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You’re still talking about events that occurred a number of years ago. Even the most recent of your references, the USA state legalizing marriage, occurred during and before 2015. Policies do not always stay the same however in recent use, the map has always been used this way. Back when Britain and France were announcing plans for legalization, same-sex marriage was even more uncommon in the world than it is now and that kind of news attracted a lot of attention. The situation has changed since then and same-sex marriage has a more normalized status in the Western world and this map now require actual laws to be changed in order for countries to be coloured gold.--2607:FEA8:559F:FA30:DDBC:5C45:87FD:1C3 (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry - when was a consensus reached that supported your statement? AusLondonder (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Same-sex marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120106064114/http://mexico.cnn.com/nacional/2011/12/02/los-matrimonios-del-mismo-sexo-despiertan-polemica-en-quintana-roo to http://mexico.cnn.com/nacional/2011/12/02/los-matrimonios-del-mismo-sexo-despiertan-polemica-en-quintana-roo
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151220005904/http://www.jornada.unam.mx/ultimas/2015/12/17/aprueban-el-congreso-de-nayarit-los-matrimonios-gay-5165.html to http://www.jornada.unam.mx/ultimas/2015/12/17/aprueban-el-congreso-de-nayarit-los-matrimonios-gay-5165.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120522013505/http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=270221 to http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=270221
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150707002336/http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Homosexuality-and-Same-Sex-Marriage-in-Islam.html to http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Homosexuality-and-Same-Sex-Marriage-in-Islam.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Australia
Why is Australia shown on the global map as a country where same-sex marriage is "legalized but not yet in effect"? As far as I am aware, no bill has been passed by the Australian Parliament legally recognizing ssm. What has happened is that a non-binding postal survey was held to gauge public opinion. While the expectation is that a bill will be approved, given the results of the survey, that does not mean that ssm has been "legalized". The law in Australia has not changed, even if the politics surrounding this issue has. It is likely that ssm will be legalized in the next few weeks, but the map is currently misleading and inaccurate. We've jumped the gun. --209.202.119.246 (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Map change request
Could someone more skilled than I please update the map to reflect the recent Australian decision? The nature of the law being passed is federal: this means that the Australian territories also share the same status as the rest of the country. Let’s get more dark blue on the map! J43437 (talk) 09:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Bermuda
Bermuda is not an independent country and unfortunately its SSM Act has recently been abolished. Can anyone remove Bermuda from the Opinion Polling list or change its colour? The mistake has caused confusion, ex. Australia should be the 25th country to legalise SSM, however, most news report say Australia is the 26th which is incorrect.

Both Taiwan and Austria are currently in the same situation, but Taiwan has disappeared from the Title Page. Could anyone put Taiwan back on it?

Thanks and regards, Khhmel (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Khhmel (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Khhmel (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Adoption
I think there is an error that resulted from somebody deleting text about Australia. In Australia, adoption is governed by State law. My understanding is that some states and territories allow it. Others do not. The article says that adoption is legal wherever same sex marriage is recognised. I believe this isn't true in Australia. That said, I'm not sure that adoption belongs in this article at all. The article is about same sex marriage. Adoption is an entirely separate issue. The right to adopt can exist without there being recognition of marriage, and there can be recognition of same sex marriage without the right to adopt. While I recognise that the two issues relate to gay rights, they aren't the same thing and one isn't dependant or related to the other. Should it be a separate article, or perhaps be relocated to an article about 'recognition of gay rights'. 114.198.91.123 (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Same-sex marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/marriage-101
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100620042439/http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7017501996?Congress%20Considers%20Outcome%20of%20D.C.%20Gay%20Marriage%20Legislation to http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7017501996?Congress%20Considers%20Outcome%20of%20D.C.%20Gay%20Marriage%20Legislation

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald's marriage status
Please comment at Talk:Glenn Greenwald, NOT here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

If one wishes to be pedantic
There are some people who are being very pedantic. OK ... France is shown in the table, but SSM is also legal in French Polynesia, Wallis & Futuna, New Caledonia, St Pierre & Miquelon and the French Southern & Antarctic Territories. These are not overseas departments of France. Should they be listed separately? Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They all follow French law, so they shouldn't be listed separately. Isseubnida (talk) 05:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Same sex marriage got legalized in these parts of France by the same law on the same day, it didn't went through a different legislative process. Do remember that they vote for the president, national assembly and Senate and have the french nationality, don't mistake them for fully devolved entities. They just have some autonomy which vary from one to the other.--Aréat (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The best comparisons are perhaps the Northern Territory in Australia or the Yukon, Nunavut and Northwest Territories in Canada. They are fully integrated into the larger state; they have defined autonomy to cope with their distance from mainland France and their insularity. Andrew1444 (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

It would appear that Slovenia introduced gay marriage, please check and this to the lists - thank you
Slovenia has accepted same-sex marriage since 24th of February 2017. Check this link: https://www.rtvslo.si/slovenija/sprememba-zakonske-zveze-potrjena-istospolni-pari-se-lahko-porocijo/359579 and add Slovenia to the list. Plus update your outdated list because there are a couple of countries that legalized it as-well. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.37.87.50 (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

No, it did not. This has been a common source of confusion. It introduced enhanced registered partnerships on that day, and some news reports erroneously called them marriages. A similar thing happens in Italian media where civil unions are called marriages. Continue to watch this space though, as Slovenia has new elections in July and the issue could resurface. Robsalerno (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Central and South American legislation
Unless its not a good idea, I have decided to start adding Central and South American nation-states that will most likely be affected by the Inter-American ruling. Let me know what you think. thanks Earth1000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earth1000 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We should not include these countries, unless intention to comply with the ruling is expressed. Ron 1987 (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As of 14 January 2018, that would mean Costa Rica (per government) and Peru (per judiciary) correct? Andrew1444 (talk) 06:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The governments of Costa Rica and Panama, as well as the judiciary of Peru, have stated that they would adhere to the ruling. That is enough for them to be included on the timeline. Andrew1444 (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Bulgaria, Poland, Serbia, Japan
What about legal recognition of unregistered same-sex couples in Bulgaria, Poland, Serbia or Japan? Isn't it the same situation as in the case of San Marino which is included on the list?

Bulgaria, Poland: LawsAndFamilies Database Launched | Europe. Progress across Europe Same-sex marriages or registered partnerships are now legal in 21 of the 28 member states of the EU... And also in Poland and Bulgaria, same-sex couples are beginning to get some legal recognition. http://www.sexualorientationlaw.eu/155-lawsandfamilies-database-launched-europe

additionally Poland: Landmark decision of the Supreme Court regarding rights of same-sex partners in criminal law http://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/3773-poland-landmark-decision-of-the-supreme-court-regarding-rights-of-same-sex-partners-in-criminal-law-pdf-101-kb

Serbia: In 1997, Serbia-Montenegro allowed artificial insemination treatment for women in a same-sex relationship. http://www.gaylawnet.com/laws/rs.htm LGBT world legal wrap up survey (p. 6) http://accept-romania.ro/images/stories/world_legal_wrap_up_survey__november2006.pdf

According to information from the prison and correctional facility “Zabela” management, this institution does allow visits from same-sex partners. BEING LGBTI IN EASTERN EUROPE: SERBIA COUNTRY REPORT (p. 17-19) h ttps://www.google.pl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjWzeaog-XYAhUIDiwKHXXADs84ChAWCCYwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rs.undp.org%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Fserbia%2FPublications%2520and%2520reports%2FEnglish%2FBLEE%2520SERBIA%2520report_web%2520version.eng.pdf%3Fdownload&usg=AOvVaw1OPvfKufvx55VylWt09sqq

Japan: Japan to allow its citizens same-sex marriage - with foreign partners http://www.fridae.asia/gay-news/2009/03/31/2249.japan-to-allow-its-citizens-same-sex-marriage-with-foreign-partners — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.51.136.158 (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Costa Rica
On 20 January, same-sex couple will marry before the notary, but it will not have legal effect until registration in the Civil Registry. The notary will have eight days to sent request for the registration. It's not clear whether the Registry will agree to do that. See,. Ron 1987 (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I will not be surprised if Costa Rica legalizes same-sex marriage within the next couples of weeks. signed Earth1000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earth1000 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)