Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 28

Shady citation on the Arabic WP
On the Arabic version of this article, there is reference to a shady 1984 book about men in open relationships. It’s used to claim that all gay men aren’t faithful in marriages lol. I tried to edit it out but AR Wikipedia has a lock on removing text, and needs to be done by an administrator. You can see this at the introduction of this section on Arabic Wikipedia. Funny how people will make arguments against gay marriage using a primary source with an unrepresentative sample in consensual open relationships, before gay marriage was even legal. Sxologist (talk) 03:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We have no editorial control over the other languages, it would have to be raised on that wiki. CMD (talk) 06:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

addition for timeline
please add Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota to the timeline 86.151.53.161 (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Is Same-Sex-Marriage legal nationwide in the United States?
In the timeline found under the History section, we indicate that same-sex-marriage is legal "[nationwide]" in the United States despite the fact that it remains illegal in the US Territory of American Samoa. What is the best way for us to address this without misleading readers, or unnecessarily complicating the table?


 * 1) Leave it as is.
 * 2) Remove "[nationwide]".
 * 3) Add a footnote indicating that it remains illegal in American Samoa.
 * 4) Remove "[nationwide]" and add a footnote.
 * 5) Other suggestion.

Thank you in advance for your consideration and input.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Leave it as is This would appear to depend on whether American Samoa is part of the "nation" of the United States. I'd say not. Note in particular that Samoans are generally not US citizens. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 4-Remove "[nationwide]" and add a footnote (or alternatively 2 or 3) - American Samoa is a United States Territory and forms part of the nation of the United States. While it is true that not all American Samoans are citizens at birth (most are American "nationals"), the territory is part of United States' territory and under its jurisdiction. The US Congress can make laws concerning the Territory and SCOTUS has jurisdiction to determine what laws apply to the territory and preform judicial review as it does over any other US State or Territory.  The territory like any other (except Washington DC, in part) does not have voting representation in the US Congress and does not get to vote for President.  Nonetheless, it is part of the United States.  It seems factually incorrect and lazy for us to gloss over this detail.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3 or 4 - The fact that same-sex marriage is illegal in American Samoa definitely needs to be mentioned. From a purely factual point of view, American Samoa is a US territory and as such, part of the US as a nation. For that reason, I view option 4 to be applicable. At the same time, from an encyclopedic point of view, I consider it acceptible to leave it as "nationwide", so long as a note is added to explain the situation around American Samoa, rather than having to list "Legal in all 50 states, District of Columbia, XYZ territories, etc", just to ommit American Samoa. I believe that the main goal of an encyclopedia would be to be factually correct and easily readable. For that reason, I view option 3 as also applicable. Goodposts (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Leave as is. There is a nationwide ruling thru SCOTUS, so it's 'nationwide'. We already have a footnote in the info box, so we don't need one here. This list is a summary. We leave out all sorts of details. E.g., SSM was legalized in California years before the date listed here. But we leave out such distracting details in the interest of brevity. Really, do we want a footnote that California legalized SSM, then overturned it, then reinstated it? Same with Bermuda? Same with Sonora? Same with the Caymans when that happens? If we're going give all the details for one polity, we need to do it for all of them. The table would be chock-full of footnotes. How does that help the reader?
 * I also don't understand Darryl's obsession with American Samoa. There are lots of places in the US where you can't get married. Navajo, for example. But evidently Injuns aren't real Americans, so they don't count. But American Samoans -- who do not want US law to apply to their country -- are somehow being abused. They could petition the US Congress to overturn the treaty that prevents them from being US citizens, but they don't want to! It would mean abrogating much of their local sovereignty if they did. (E.g., controlling immigration and preventing outsiders from buying up all the property.) So they'll stay the way they are for the time being, thank you very much. Similarly with Puerto Rico -- they could vote to become a state if they wanted to, but they don't. Where Darryl has a point is Guam, which should be a commonwealth except that the US Congress refuses to act on their wishes. But that has nothing to do with this article. And we don't need paternalistic protection of people who don't want to be protected. Regardless, whether Darryl is upset that American Samoans are being abused by an oppressive state is not reason to make a jumble of a summary table. All the details are in the main history article linked at the top of the section. — kwami (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't have an obsession with American Samoa. I have never been. What I do have a bit of an obsession with is creating an accurate encyclopedia. The truth is SSM is not legal nationwide in the US. We do a disservice to our readers to suggest otherwise.  While some want to be able to say SSM is legal nationwide in the US for reasons of patriotism or due to some political or social agenda.  It is not our job to appease such sentiments.  Our job is to create an accurate encyclopedia.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)


 * But the person we'd be appeasing is you, and your anger/agenda. It's a summary table. The details are in the main article linked at the top of the section. It would create a mess to add a footnote for every little detail in every country, which in the interests of accuracy, we would need to do if we wanted to make it more than a summary. As for 'nationwide', SCOTUS made a nationwide ruling. That's pretty simple. And American Samoa is its own nation, as Navajo is. If the UK passed a 'nationwide' law that didn't affect their colonies, we'd say 'nationwide' for the UK too, since the colonies aren't in the UK. Yeah, it's colonialism, which seems to be driving you on this, but that's the world we live in. And frankly, the fact that Mayotte voted to stay with France despite the Comoros screaming 'colonialism', or Puerto Rico with the US, is hardly an abusive situation, certainly not compared to West Papua or Chechnya or Xinjiang. All of which is beside the point.
 * Also, this missing the reason we said 'nationwide' in the first place. The US first legalized SSM in 2004, so technically we could put the US in that year. We don't because we chose to list only the legalizing polity, which was Massachusetts. But since we list the US for 2004 and 2008 to 2015, it would be potentially confusing -- as well as inaccurate -- to simply say 'United States'. The 'nationwide' tells the reader why the US is being listed as a whole for the first time. If you want a legalistically accurate table without doing that, then Canada needs to move to 2003, the US to 2004, Mexico to 2010, Brazil to 2012, and the UK to 2014. Either that, or clog up the table with so many footnotes that no-one's going to bother to read them. — kwami (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It may be a nationwide ruling, or it may not be. What is clear is it is not being applied nationwide. At some future date SCOTUS or some other court may find Obergefell v. Hodges applies in American Samoa. Until that day or until Congress passes legislation to the same effect, SSM is not legal [nationwide].--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
 * I suppose that depends on what you mean by a "nation". Am.Samoa are their own country. The constitution doesn't apply there. They're allowed to have discriminatory land tenure laws, where you have to be ethnically Samoan to own land. That would be illegal under the 14th amendment. And that's why the govt of Am.Samoa has never pushed for a change of status -- imagine what would happen to the Samoans if rich Americans could go in and buy up all the land. It would be like native Hawaiians in Hawaii. So they're in this limbo, sort of in the US but not really. But again, why is AS such a big deal to you when the tribal nations are not? Just because they have to get on an airplane if they wish to marry? Your POV doesn't seem to be about accuracy but only about this one polity. — kwami (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * One polity that happens to be part of the United States and doesn't have SSM. There are a lot of non-sequiturs and irrelevant facts in your explanation, but none of that changes that American Samoa is part of the US and SSM is not legal there, ergo it is not legal nationwide. I have already responded to your tribal nations question before. The difference is that members of those nations can be married to a same-sex partner in the state or Territory they live (with the exception of American Samoa).  Furthermore, those marriages would be recognized by the federal government and the state or territorial governments where they live.  The only thing is their tribal nation would not recognize their marriage.  American Samoans cannot get married in their territory at all.  It is not the same thing. I suspect SSM is not permitted in the Amish communities of the US either, but that isn't really an apples to apples comparison either, now is it?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
 * If you can't get married on the Navajo Nation, you can't get married on the Navajo Nation. Repeatedly claiming that only the polity you're concerned with is important just emphasizes your bias. I don't know if Am.Samoans can get married in Arizona or not, the way the Navajo can, but in any case that's not your argument. It doesn't matter to you if SSM is legal nation-wide or not, as long as it's legal in this single polity. We don't need to add footnotes for any of the others, just for this one special case. Catering to that would introduce bias into the article. We already note several times that SSM is not legal in Am.Samoa. It's not like we're hiding it, just that the table is a summary and doesn't go into all the details.
 * BTW, you can get married in any Amish community in the US. Whether your family or church will accept it (not, for the latter) isn't a matter of law, and so irrelevant here. — kwami (talk) 07:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah. Here the writer states that American Samoans can go to Hawaii and get married, return and their marriage won't be recognized. How exactly is that different from citizens of the Navajo Nation? — kwami (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Because American Samoa is a territory. It is not part of Hawaii. Navajo lands cover multiple states. In every one of them SSM is legal. It is an apples and cucumber comparison.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
 * By that argument (Navajo is in AZ and SSM is legal in AZ), Am.Samoa is in the US and SSM is legal in the US, so Am.Samoa is just as much a cucumber as Navajo is. They're both semi-sovereign countries which do not allow or recognize SSM. In both cases you can get married in another US polity. Why you're insisting on creating a fundamental distinction between them, why Am.Samoa should be vitally important when the hundreds of tribal nations are immaterial, is beyond me. — kwami (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So by your reasoning we should remove the "nationwide" designation because SSM remains illegal in American Samoa (a territory) AND in the Navajo Nation (an indigenous jurisdiction). I am not sure why you refer to either as a "country".  Neither is an independent political state.  American Samoa is a US Territory, and governs everyone that lives there (regardless of ethnicity or ancestry).  The Navajo Nation is a self governing indigenous community that exists within the territory of several US States.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A country is not an independent political state. Yes, we could remove "nationwide". But then we'd need to move the US flag from 2015 to 2004, when the US first legalized SSM. I think people might object to that, especially when the only reason would be to pander to the obsession that you don't have with American Samoa. — kwami (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep "nationwide" and just add another link to footnote e. Whether the Navajo Nation or American Samoa are "part of the nation" is a story that has so many asterisks, its asterisks have asterisks of their own, and the answer is always going to be "yes and no".  G M G  talk  17:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we can cross-link footnotes in templates, so that should work. — kwami (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Contentious section
"A study of nationwide data from across the United States from January 1999 to December 2015 revealed that the establishment of same-sex marriage is associated with a significant reduction in the rate of attempted suicide among children, with the effect being concentrated among children of a minority sexual orientation, resulting in about 134,000 fewer children attempting suicide each year in the United States."

This doesn't cite any source and is this wishful thinking? 49.146.51.131 (talk) 05:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Contentious section
The article states: "Anthropologists have struggled to determine a definition of marriage that absorbs commonalities of the social construct across cultures around the world." This sentence seems to imply that marriage is a social construct and not something arising from human natuer. That would mean it is a biased statement. Malus Catulus (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * This is appropriately sourced, and I see no issue with bias. Kauri0.o (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Switzerland
On the case of Switzerland, if I understand correctly SSM was approved by the Parliament, however it can still be contested if the party that opposes it gathers enough signatures for a referendum. If I'm undertanding correctly then it should be mentioned on introduction isn't it? After all there's no warranty that the referendum is going to happen yet. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting case. Referendum isn't set in stone. Is it WP:CRYSTAL to assume the signatures will be collected and the referendum allowed or is it WP:Crystal to assume that the referendum won't be called? Del U sion23 (talk)  12:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The approval by Parliament does not make same-sex marriage legal in Switzerland, the law has not yet come into effect. CMD (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Does it mean it is on hold for the duration of the period of signature collection? Then only coming into effect in case they fail, or put on hold again until the referendum's result?--Aréat (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is on hold for a period of time, and if there is no referendum then it comes into effect. If there is a referendum that will affect it. CMD (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What I was thinking, thanks.--Aréat (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok but in that case it will be currently a similar case than Austria, Costa Rica and Taiwan where same-sex marriage was set to be legal in a particular future date. In all those cases it was included in the infobox with a dash. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't seem to have a particular future date for Switzerland. CMD (talk) 09:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * When Slovenia approved marriage in 2015, the country was included in the info box with an astrisk despite the scheduling of a referendum. It was only removed when same-sex marriage was rejected in said referendum. Andrew1444 (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

why no info of Vatican?
124.244.120.42 (talk) 07:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, first, it's not legal there and there is no discussion about it (they don't even have civil marriage - just religious one - and (religious) SSM is not permited under the catholic tradition).
 * Second, what the pope announced yesturday is that the countries of the world should authorised same-sex civil union - not marriage - and he was not talking about the Vatican city State ! Martin m159 (talk) 09:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Pope didn't say so: it was a collage of his two different sentences about two different problems. --Riccardo Riccioni (talk) 07:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality
I don't see any kind of neutrality. Why only studies supporting same-sex marriage and homosexuality are scientific? Those who do oppose them are all ignorant? --Riccardo Riccioni (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It depends what your definition of 'studies' is? Based on scientific consensus, and trusted government and health body advice the article is balanced and neutral. If you want an encyclopaedia to reflect every opinion out there it would not be proportionate. However, representation of the opposition to homosexuality is documented extensively on Wikipedia. AussieWikiDan (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your answer, but I firstly cannot accept that Catholic Church be called a fundamentalist group. It has so many academies and scientists throughout the world who give reasons of its convictions! Moreover we in Africa have a very different approach to homosexuality, and, please, don't call as "primitives": may be our wisdom has more value than some "scientific" researches. Finally I, as the main contributor of Swahili Wikipedia, am very disturbed by the homo-dogmatism of the English edition. May be this is why Ad Oriented had to leave! Peace to you! --Riccardo Riccioni (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Riccardo Riccioni, Please do not conflate this discussion with racism or this article in fact. There is always difficulty when religious groups undertake scientific studies or make statements on issues such as sexuality; their opinions may not be objective. Some countries also do not have secular governments which also brings about issues with reliability. AussieWikiDan (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you again. I didn't understand your last sentence, but the second one is very clear: it is like saying that scientific studies by religious persons are not credible as those by other people. I think both faith an unbelief are choices which can positively or negatively orient the research. For both it is necessary to see if this apply. Moreover, in the case of sexuality, personal choices also do influence the research, for anybody tries to justify himself/herself. What both you and I agree on is that we need objectivity in science and neutrality in Wikipedia. --Riccardo Riccioni (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * After this talk, am I allowed to change the text saying that SSM are opposed not only by fundamentalist groups but by Islam, Catholic Church, Orthodox Churches and other Christian denomination. May I expose some reasons? --Riccardo Riccioni (talk) 07:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, the sentence talks about the most prominent opponents. It does not require a full listing of all groups that may or may not give support. The article LGBT rights opposition might be a more relevant place. Apart from that I'm not really sure why you want to list various religions? AussieWikiDan (talk) 11:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you want knowing my intentions? What are you suspecting? Is not this a kind of censorship? Truly it seems English Wikipedia is not like it would be. All the same, I don't like read that the religious groups opposing SSM are fundamentalist. And the most important is the Catholic Church, because of its dimensions and academic expertise. Saying some information is present in another among 6 million articles in not enough. Peace to you! --Riccardo Riccioni (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Same-sex marriages performed abroad isn't recognised in Armenia
How many same-sex marriages were recognised in Armenia since July 2017? The answer is - zero. For example, in 2018, more than 400 same-sex couples registered their foreign weddings in Israel.

According to the Family Code of Armenia, marriages performed in other countries are recognized by the state, however, if the norms of a foreign state contradict the Constitution of Armenia, then the legislation of Armenia is applied. As a result, recognition of foreign same-sex marriages appears to be impossible.

On 3 July 2017, «PanARMENIAN.Net» news agency published an article stating that according to unnamed source in the Ministry of Justice, same-sex marriages performed abroad are valid in Armenia. This news was reported by some media outlets but still has not been confirmed.

On 26 August 2019, the Minister of Justice, Rustam Badasyan clearly stated that Armenia does not recognize same-sex marriage.

As of 2021, no such recognition has yet been documented. It is not known if recognition would give such couples all the rights of marriage under domestic law, also in light of the existing constitutional ban. There had not been a single case in four years! NO SINGLE CASE IN FOUR YEARS. So the article does not reflect the reality.

Let's wait until the first foreign same-sex marriage will be actually recognised and reported by the media. JDQUD1 (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems opinionated and none of the statements above are backed by any credible sources. Archives908 (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Update- user has been blocked for WP:SOAPBOX, as was initially suspected. Archives908 (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

India, Bolivia, China and Tlaxcala
Please someone edit the map. Bolivia has same-sex unions, India and China have unregistres cohabitaion and Tlaxcala (Mexico) legalised same sex marriage Taxydromeio (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The map is hosted by Wikimedia Commons. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 20:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

And how can we edit it? Taxydromeio (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Wording of lead
I removed the word "marriage equality" from lead because it made no sense in context: "marriage equality" is not "the marriage of two people".

However, if there is a desire to retain the phrase in the lead, we could maybe change In the modern era, the first same-sex marriage law took effect in... to In the modern era, marriage equality was first granted to same-sex couples in... WanderingWanda (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Please discuss on here before removing a key part of the lead. You provided no citations for this change just your opinion. Marriage Equality directs to this page and so should not be deleted until you gain consensus to create a separate standalone article; or you change redirect to an existing article; or you delete the page. AussieWikiDan (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, let me try to explain the problem in another way: two people just got married. Is their union a marriage? Yes. Is their union a marriage equality? No.
 * And I don't believe you are correct that the lead needs to use the phrase "marriage equality" just because of the marriage equality redirect, although I've already proposed a solution, above, that would retain the phrase. WanderingWanda (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WanderingWanda makes a good point, the term "marriage equality" is used to refer to the legalisation of same-sex marriage, rather than same-sex marriages themselves. It would better redirect to Legal status of same-sex marriage. CMD (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not object to the lead being re-written, I just believe the term should remain in the lead somehow or redirected elsewhere. I reverted your edit so it could be discussed and not lost, as can happen. I agree the current phrasing should be improved. AussieWikiDan (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * With due respect to, the text that they have re-inserted here is simply false and should be removed immediately. "Marriage equality" is not a synonym for same-sex marriage, and we're misleading and confusing our readers if we suggest that it is. The cited body of the article says that activists "have long used the terms marriage equality and equal marriage to signal that their goal was for same-sex marriage". The pursuit of the goal and the goal itself aren't the same concept. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have changed the lead to reflect the consensus here that it is misleading; I have referenced the additional text changes. AussieWikiDan (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If there are no objections, I will also change the redirect as I proposed above. CMD (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral about it really. There is no article that would fit the action of fighting for marriage equality. However, if it is changed please remove the bold from the wording and link in this article. AussieWikiDan (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Legal status of same-sex marriage might be a reasonable redir target for Marriage equality (I suspect it is), but given that this is a subject that attracts controversy and is part of a general sexuality-and-gender discretionary sanctions regime, it would be much better done as retargeting proposal at WP:RFD. People at RfD often turn up even better redir targets that people's first guesses anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, up at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 26. CMD (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just move the term to make more contextual sense in the lead. Do not remove it or unbold it (without finding a better redirect target first), per MOS:BOLDSYN. I have to strongly suggest that people get less "Bring up the cannons and storm the ramparts!" about this stuff. The very first rule of MoS (in its lead) is to write around problems instead of fighting about them, and the obvious WP:COMMONSENSE meta-rule above that is to write in a sensible manner in the first place. See also WP:POINT: Don't provoke other editors by making a guaranteed-to-cause-objection deletion, nor just engage in a reflexive revert, if a minor copyedit to have the actual encyclopedia material make better sense is the obvious answer for both sides. FFS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't provoke other editors? By coming on here and berating us all and then saying FFS (For Fuck Sake) – doesn't that seem to undermine your point or border on uncivil? AussieWikiDan (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

My preference here would be to revert to the longstanding wording, before it was changed a couple of weeks ago, which clearly and concisely defined the term within the natural flow of the lead: "The introduction of same-sex marriage (also called marriage equality) has varied by jurisdiction,..."--Trystan (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

"Banned" or "not recognized"?
The legend under the red map says "Same-sex marriage banned by a secular constitution". It should be distinguished whether in particular country there is any legal "ban" on same-sex marriage or cohabitation, or same-sex marriages are simply not recognized by law - which is by no means the same thing. Such is the case with Polish law which doesn't recognize same-sex marriage but the claim that there is any "ban" is just false [Another thing is that the interpretation of the provision of Polish constitution about marriage is highly debatable - while some claim that it defines marriage as an union between a man and a woman, there is a strong argument that this provision isn't really a definition (as literally it doesn't define marriage, but proclaims that "marriage between a man and a woman remains under protection of the state")] Anyway, the point is that "ban" on something and "not recognize legally" are not the same thing, and putting them together as the article does is simply misleading --Monsieur empereur (talk) 08:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Not recognized" might be more accurate if a nation's laws were entirely silent on the matter of same-sex marriage, but wording prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying is a ban, and is described as such in reliable sources.
 * In the case of Poland, for the purposes of a summary chart, I think we have to go with how the constitution is legally interpreted and applied by the courts, which have interpreted Article 18 as prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying.--Trystan (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If wording prohibiting is a ban, but silence on the matter is not recognizing, then in the case of Poland "not recognized" would be accurate, not "ban", as Polish law is in fact silent on the matter. There is no provision of Polish law which would prohibit same-sex marriage or even mention it in any context. Same-sex unions in Poland have no legal status - so aren't recognized by law - but aren't "prohibited" in any way. Monsieur empereur (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Japan
We should remove Japan from TBD list. The court’s ruling has no immediate legal effect and same-sex couples are still not allowed to marry. Even if all district courts declare same-sex unions constitutional, the legalisation of same-sex marriages is not guaranteed, - that would need a Supreme Court ruling, which could take several years. Alternatively, Japan's legislature, the Diet, could pass a law making same-sex marriage legal, although there is almost no appetite among the ruling party to do so. Dustssics (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree, unfortunately. Martin m159 (talk) 08:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Romania
Many informations on the page about Romanian legislative solutions regarding the sam-sex marriages are false or misinterpreted: Romanian: ''29. Analizând conformitatea modificării propuse cu prevederile alin.(2) al art.152 din Legea fundamentală, referitoare la interdicția suprimării vreunui drept sau libertăți fundamentale sau a garanțiilor acestora, Curtea a examinat redactarea art.48 alin.(1) din Constituție, în forma propusă de inițiatorii revizuirii, prin raportare la definiția noțiunii „a suprima”, și a constatat că aceasta nu este de natură să facă să dispară sau să înlăture, să elimine ori să anuleze instituția căsătoriei și că toate garanțiile dreptului la căsătorie, astfel cum sunt consacrate în textul constituțional de referință, rămân neschimbate. Prin înlocuirea sintagmei „între soți” cu sintagma „între un bărbat și o femeie” se realizează doar o precizare în privința exercitării dreptului fundamental la căsătorie, în sensul stabilirii exprese a faptului că aceasta se încheie între parteneri de sex biologic diferit, aceasta fiind, de altfel, chiar semnificația originară a textului consacrat în Constituția din anul 1991 (în acest sens, a se vedea considerentele cuprinse la paragrafele 36—42 din Decizia nr.580 din 20 iulie 2016).'' English: After an analysis of the compatibility between the proposed [constitutional] modification with the content of paragraph (2) of the article 152 from the Constitution, regarding the interdiction of suppression of rights and fundamental freedoms or of their guarantees, the Court examined article 48 paragraph (1) from Constitution in the state which was proposed by those who initiated the modification bill [(The family is founded on the freely consented marriage of _the spouses_ a man and a woman, their full equality, as well as the right and duty of the parents to ensure the upbringing, education and instruction of their children.)] in the view of the definition of the term "to suppress". Through replacing the phrase „of spouses” with the phrase „of a man and a woman” it is accomplished only specification in regard of exerting the constitutional right of marriage, in the way that it expressly establishes the fact that it [marriage] is officiated between partners of opposite biological sex,thus been, moreover, exactly the original meaning of the text contained in the Constitution of 1991 [the actual Constitution].'' To uphold the plea of unconstitutionality and declares constitutional the provisions of Article 277 (2) and (4) of the Civil Code, to the extent that they permit the granting of the right to reside in the  territory of the Romanian state, under the conditions provided by the EU law, to spouses – citizens of the Member States of the European Union and/or citizens of third-counties – of same-sex marriages, concluded or contracted in a Member State of the European Union. --82.76.1.28 (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Romania does limit the marriage only to opposite-sex couples as a result of a Romanian Constitutional Court decision (Decision No.539 from 17 September 2018 ). Unfortunately, the decision is available only in Romanian but I will translate the following paragraph:
 * Romania also does not recognize any form of lmited legal recognition (registered cohabitation, legal guardianship) at the moment. The controversy comes from a misinterpreted Constitutional Court decision: Decision no. 534 of 18 July 2018 on the exception of unconstitutionality of the provisions of Article 277 (2) and (4) of the Civil Code . The decision is translated in english and the following paragraph states that Romanian law recognized same-sex marriages only in regard of application of the European Directive about the period for which the spouse of an EU citizen is allowed to stay on the territory of Romania (Romanian Gov initially didn't gave this right to same-sex spouses as its law didn't recognize and still doesn't recognize same-sex marriages from abroad, but recognizes only a right of staying in the country for the period determined in the Directive. The term of "spouse" used in directive is autonomous and it isn't affected by the term "spouse" used in Romanian law and neither does it give a status of a "married person" to same-sex couples.):
 * I forgot to log in when i left this message. The IP address belongs to my account. --JOrb (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * That would seem to be a somewhat intermediate situation. The supreme court could rule next year that între soți does not specify gender, and if they did, then the constitution would allow SSM without any change in its wording. Of course, specifying a right to OSM is not actually a ban on SSM either, but it's often clear that that was the intent of the wording, at least when it was changed recently for specifically that reason. — kwami (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Truth is that practically the Constitutional Court (which is different thing from Supreme Court) can change its jurisprudence and state that the phrase "between spouses" allows SSM. At the same time, that thing is improbable and clearly an abusive interpretation since in Romanian law "to interpret" doesn't mean to give a new meaning to something, but only clarify what was the intent of the lawmaker. Actually, it was a shock for everybody when the European Court of Justice interpreted the Treaties of EU in the way it allowed SSM due to the fact that at the time when the treaty was signed (1991), the idea of SSM didn't exist in Europe yet. The interpretation was extensive beyond what was intended in 1991. So without any constitutional revision, it is very improbable SSM will be allowed soon. --JOrb (talk) 08:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Niall O'Loughlin - vote yes on marriage equality street art - Dublin, Ireland.png

Tlaxcala missing from notes
The template for the notes is missing Tlaxcala in the list of Mexican states. Heikocvijic (talk) 03:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Good catch. You should go ahead an implement the fix, and I'd be happy to check your work afterward. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Already fixed by someone else. I just don't know how to edit templates yet :/ Heikocvijic (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thailand
I've read (and now can't find the refs) that the govt of Thailand recognizes SS couples as couples/families. No rights, but rather like the situation in Vietnam. In Vietnam, you have to register where you live, so that is quite literally registered cohabitation. In Thailand, I doubt you do have to register, but the govt recognition would seem to be more or less equivalent. Does anyone have any refs we could use to justify classifying Thailand as having minimal recognition the way Vietnam does? — kwami (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

To ensure that all Wikipedia content is verifiable, anyone may question an uncited claim. If your work has been tagged, please provide a reliable source for the statement, and discuss if needed.

By citing sources for Wikipedia content, you enable users to verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources, thus improving the credibility of Wikipedia

If you can provide a reliable source for the claim, then please add it! Cyanmax (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Anyone can leave a note on the talk page asking for a source. Please, present your evidence. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.

The accuracy of a statement may be a cause for concern if:

It has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic;

It contains information which is particularly difficult to verify; It contains information which is ambiguous and open to interpretation, either due to grammar, or opinionated wording; Cyanmax (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Vietnam
Vietnam is colored light blue on the map, implying that it recognizes unregistered cohabitation. However, Vietnam does not have specific unregistered cohabitation laws. I can provide you with a list of reliable sources.

Kwamikagami claims that: "In Vietnam, you have to register where you live, so that is quite literally registered cohabitation." (citation needed)

First of all, what does "registered cohabiation" mean? Perhaps what they meant is "registered partnership", or maybe "unregistered cohabitation". The term "registered cohabitation" does not exist.

Besides, all content must be verifiable. In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Anyone can leave a note on the talk page asking for a source. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.

The accuracy of a statement may be a cause for concern if:

It contains unlikely information, without providing suitable references;

It has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic;

It contains information which is ambiguous and open to interpretation, either due to grammar, or opinionated wording;

There are reliable sources supporting two or more different claims.

Kwamikagami's claim about "registered cohabitations" in Vietnam is somewhat misleading. A list of reliable sources are presented below:

The first source states that:

"While the ruling, which came into effect on New Year’s Day, allows same-sex couples to wed without fear of criminal prosecution, Vietnam’s Communist Party stopped short of extending ANY rights or privileges to same-sex couples — the government won’t recognize same-sex unions nor provide legal protection to them."

Source: https://www.metroweekly.com/2015/01/vietnam-removes-same-sex-marriage-ban/

The second source states that:

"The law no longer specifically prohibits same-sex marriages, but says they aren't recognized by the government. It does not allow same-sex partnership either, although the issue has been open for discussion during many house meetings."

Source: http://thanhniennews.com/politics/vietnam-allows-surrogacy-within-families-denies-samesex-marriage-27502.html

The final source states that:

"There is a major flaw in the law. According to Clause 2, Article 8 of the new law, although it allows same-sex weddings, such couples are neither recognized nor protected under the law. Although Vietnam abolished its ban on same-sex marriage, the law has a very limited effect in practice. If not recognized by the state, such marriages will not be protected by law for matters such as personal and property rights."

Source: https://thediplomat.com/2020/02/the-fight-for-lgbt-rights-in-vietnam-still-has-a-long-way-to-go/

The claim that Vietnam recognizes same-sex unions is MISSING CONTEXT, because without additional information it could be misleading. It is true that Vietnam abolished its ban on same-sex marriage and allowed symbolic same-sex weddings. However, same-sex couples are neither recognized nor protected under the law.

Vietnam doesn’t recognize same-sex unions so it should be changed to gray. Please, update the map. Provide sources of the opposite if you disagree. Cyanmax (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree. Nothing in the sources provided, or in this article or in Recognition of same-sex unions in Vietnam supports any colour other than grey. Given that the issues identified in the above section remain unaddressed, I think the time has come to remove the map until it can be replaced with a version that is supported by reliable sources.--Trystan (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I concur. This map was good time ago but now some people want to actualize it for the sake of adding things, doesn't matter if they are relevant or have any actual sense. Thailand and Vietnam should be changed to gray and Armenia should be striped because there have been no cases in 5 years. !!! 5 years! You have to admit, that 5 years is quite a long period of time. Biased armenophile (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Cyanmax, I'm glad to see you making sensible arguments here. I wasn't going to bother answering the silliness in the previous thread. (E.g. that in order to make a sarcastic comment on a talk page I need to cite a RS to prove its veracity.)
 * One of the countries (Thailand) is based on sources I can't recover. I agree, if it can't be demonstrated it should be removed. Two of the countries are based on an interpretation of our criteria. Our criteria, and our interpretation of those criteria, have changed over the years, and I have no problem adjusting them further. But I would like a clear statement of what our interpretation should be, so we have criteria to follow for all countries.
 * As for Vietnam, at the time same-sex marriage was decriminalized, I attempted to have this discussion: If you register your same-sex cohabitation, does that count legally as "registered cohabitation"? As for your claim that the term "does not exist", it clearly does, as a quick search of Google Books will demonstrate. (E.g. the 1996 Law on Registered Cohabitation for SS couples in Iceland.) So, does registering cohabitation, so that the police do not harass you for shacking up, not count as registered cohabitation, or do we want to restrict the light blue to something more substantial, as CU-light? Which rights are substantial enough for light blue on the map? To me, it seems that protection from police harassment is significant. It would certainly be nice if more of the grey countries in Africa had such laws / legal decisions.
 * As for Armenia, does our map reflect the law, or does it reflect the application of the law? The judicial decision states that Armenia must "recognize" foreign SSM, though the degree of recognition does not seem to be defined. But it appears that no-one has ever taken advantage of the law. So, how should we represent that on the map? I could certainly see striping it like S.Korea.
 * As for Thailand, there were news reports that the govt recognized that SS couples were having religious marriages. But I cannot retrace those reports, and in any case the govt recognition was quite minimal, so even if I could find them again, they might not be sufficient for our definition of the map color.
 * So,
 * Vietnam: a couple gets married, moves in together, registers with the municipal authorities, and the police leave them alone.

The govt affords them no other rights of marriage. Should that be lt blue or grey?
 * Armenia: The supreme court has ruled that the govt must recognize foreign SSM, but no-one's ever even applied. Should that be solid or striped?
 * Thailand: a couple gets married by their priest at temple, and live together as a married couple. The govt accepts that this is happening, but seems to afford none of the rights of marriage.

Assuming I could even recover the sources for this, should this be lt blue or grey? (If it's going to be grey anyway, I'm not going to bother looking for the sources.)
 * Definition of light blue: should we change the wording? We used to use "registered partnership etc", but that was problematic, because RP is a synonym for CU:
 * "Two cases are identifiable: registered cohabitation and registered partnership. Registered cohabitation usually applies to any couple independent of sexual orientation. [footnote: For example, such a regulation is in force in Belgium, France, Aragona, Navarra, and Valencia, whereas in Catalonia there is a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual couples; a registration system also works in Scotland and it applies mainly to homosexuals in California, Vermont and Hawaii.] Registered partnership confers the same rights as those derived from marriage: mutual assistance, that is, social security and welfare rights. Except for those who reject any regulation at all, Italian jurists accept registered partnership, because it does not interfere with marriage nor with the notion of family as stated by Article 29 of the constitution."
 * But if it's "unregistered cohabitation", what do we do when people register them? It's a bit counter-intuitive to speak of a registered unregistered cohabitation.
 * — kwami (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@kwami

The claim: "If you register your same-sex cohabitation, does that count legally as "registered cohabitation"? (citation needed)

Please present your evidence that same-sex couples in Vietnam have to register their same-sex cohabitations. Once again, I remind that anyone can leave a note on the talk page asking for a source. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.

As for Iceland, Registered partnerships (Icelandic: staðfest samvist) for same-sex couples were introduced in Iceland in 1996. The law was adopted by the Althing on 4 June by a vote of 44–1 and entered into force on 27 June 1996. The legislation granted the same range of protections, responsibilities and benefits as marriage. Notable Icelandic individuals joined in a registered partnership include former Prime Minister Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir and her partner Jónína Leósdóttir. On 27 June 2010, they had their registered partnership converted into a recognized marriage.

As you can see, symbolic weddings in Vietnam are not similar to Registered partnerships in Iceland. Icelandic same-sex couples have been fully recognized and protected under the law, while Vietnamese same-sex couples are not.

"Should that be it blue or grey?" - It should be grey because nothing in the sources provided, or in "Recognition of same-sex unions in Vietnam" supports any colour other than grey.

The terms used to designate civil unions are not standardized, and vary widely from country to country. Government-sanctioned relationships that may be similar or equivalent to civil unions include civil partnerships, registered partnerships, domestic partnerships, significant relationships, reciprocal beneficiary relationships, common-law marriage, adult interdependent relationships, life partnerships, stable unions, civil solidarity pacts, and so on.

As for Thailand, "there were news reports that the govt recognized that SS couples were having religious marriages."

Religious weddings in Thailand are entirely symbolic. The government accepts that this is happening, but doesn't recognize same-sex couples nor provide legal protection to them. It should be changed to gray immediately.

As for Armenia,

The claim: "Armenia: The supreme court has ruled that the govt must recognize foreign SSM, but no-one's ever even applied. Should that be solid or striped?" (Citation needed)

Are you for real? What Supreme Court rulling are you talking about? "Marriage certificates registering the union between two people of the same sex abroad are valid in Armenia, the justice ministry (not Supreme Court) told PanARMENIAN.Net in an emailed statement on July 3."

I mean, it quite clearly says, "the justice ministry" not "The supreme court has ruled". Please provide sources about "Supreme Court rulling in Armenia". Please stop misleading.

"Should that be solid or striped?" - It should be striped because South Korea has recognized New Zealand Ambassador and his husband for residency purposes, while there have been no cases in Armenia. Maybe that was just a fake news.

By the way, In July 2020, the Barbados government launched the "Welcome Stamp" visa program, allowing foreign workers to stay on Barbados for up to one year. After receiving criticism that the program only allowed workers to bring their opposite-sex spouse with them, the government changed the program rules to allow same-sex spouses as well.

Should Babados be pink? No because the government recognition is quite minimal.

Please, update the map. Thailand and Vietnam should be changed to gray and Armenia should be striped. All of this is supported by the sources I have presented above. Provide sources of the opposite if you disagree. Cyanmax (talk) 05:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


 * kwami (talk) 06:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Don't insult me. Not only does that make me dislike you more, it's contrary to Wikipedia's policiy on personal attacks.

I provided news sources, quoting legal organizations. What have you provided for your claims? Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. So, present your evidence. Cyanmax (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


 * POV tantrums are not "facts". Neither are opinions even cogently argued. But cogent argument can convince others that your opinions have merit. Tag-bombing the article will not. What you are arguing here is that the level of governmental recognition in Vietnam and Armenia is insufficient to meet our quite vague criteria for the colors we give them on the map. That's not something that can be 'proven' either way, but is an evaluative judgement. Since applying a specific judgement to WP requires consensus, we should see what others think. Simply repeating your demands that your judgement be given precedence over the existing consensus is not likely to get you anywhere, no matter how verbose you get.
 * Also, if you're going to repeatedly cite WP policy, you should look up assuming bad faith. — kwami (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Yucatan
No, Yucatan has not changed its constitution. To do that the changes need to be published in Yucatan's official newspaper as far as I know. They have not published the changes yet. So, the congress approved to change the constitution to legalise same-sex marriage, and the constitution has not been changed yet. I will correct the edit. Heikocvijic (talk) 04:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, changing the constitution does not legalize SSM, it only removes the constitutional barrier to legalization. The family code still needs to be changed. (Unless the state decides to ignore the law, as several have.) So once the constitutional change is published, Yucatan will be in the same situation as the 10 other states where SSM is illegal by law but not banned by the constitution. — kwami (talk) 08:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This article seems to suggest that the constitution change takes precedence over other laws and so will make SSM legal in Yucatan, though I'm certainly no expert in the area and I'm reliant on Google translate. Del U sion23 (talk)  21:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Technically, from what I understand, changing the constitution merely allows them to change the law later. (Otherwise the changed law would be unconstitutional.) But the constitution isn't the law: it needs laws to enforce it. But in this case the SC has declared the law to be in violation of the federal constitution. Other states have reacted to that by working around the law, and that's what it sounds like they're planning to do here. But someone announcing the future is always a bit iffy, even if they're in the middle of things. — kwami (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

This discussion should be continued at Talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_Mexico. — kwami (talk) 04:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Metropolitan
We have an IP edit-warring over deleting the word "metropolitan", saying,
 * I have never heard "Metropolitan" used to describe any portion of a nation other than France.

Since you aren't logging in, you have no talk page to use, so I'll start a thread here. Your ignorance is not an argument. You didn't actually search for this wording as you claim, or you would've found it within seconds. Take this, from the New Zealand House of Representatives (Parliamentary Debates, vol. 446, p. 3125, 1982):
 * All it means is that when the Bill refers, for example, to residence in New Zealand, that means metropolitan New Zealand, and not the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau.

Or more recently from Thomas & Postlethwaite (2016) Schooling in the Pacific Islands: Colonies in Transition, p. 265:
 * The youth are to be educated to succeed in two worlds — one the traditional Cook Islands and the other metropolitan New Zealand – with the choice of living in either setting being the optional right of every Cook Islander.

IMO, a word used to refer to NZ by the parliament of NZ can be properly used to refer to NZ. Again, if you have a better word, you can use that instead. You've refused that option, saying it's not your responsibility, but it is your responsibility if you edit.

It's not like this wording is novel. The Netherlands News, published by the govt of the Netherlands, wrote in 1945 (vol. 12, p. 109):
 * the Kingdom of the Netherlands is of major importance in the achievement of a common victory over the Axis. Metropolitan Netherlands is raising troops which will participate in the final struggle against Germany. ... If the Kingdom of the Netherlands is to make its full contribution to the war effort, metropolitan Netherlands must receive aid to enable its normal civilian life to resume functioning ... These [supplies] are for metropolitan Netherlands only.

You can also find references to metropolitan Denmark, Spain, Portugal, United Kingdom and other countries that had colonial empires or still have the vestiges of one. The reason you hear it most often in reference to France is that France has the largest post-colonial collection of territories referred to this way; the only contender is the UK, but the British territories are not part of the UK the way the French territories are part of France, so you can just say "UK". (Metropolitan UK excludes the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.) — kwami (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Isn't this use of the word pretty antiquated? Just say Netherlands or New Zealand. The addition of "metropolitan" is normally unnecessary. -- Valjean (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem to be antiquated, except in the sense that colonial empires are antiquated. E.g. from Chauvin, Clegg & Cousin (2018) Euro-Caribbean Societies in the 21st Century,
 * the results of a large opinion survey that was conducted in the BES islands in late 2015 are used to examine the attitudes of the island populations regarding the reforms, and the contemporary relationship with the metropolitan Netherlands.
 * The problem with just saying 'Netherlands' or 'NZ' is that SSM is not available or even recognized across those polities. If the larger entities are members of the UN, then SSM is not available in the UN states by those names. (I'm not sure if they are or not. I've asked on that article's talk page, but the answer may be different for the two states.) But regardless of UN status, the bare names are ambiguous.
 * It's not normally necessary because it's not normally important, or because people ignore the smaller constituent countries. But it can be confusing in situations like this, where different laws apply at different levels.
 * 'Metropolitan' is not precisely accurate, because there are distant islands that are part of each constituent country. 'Proper' has the same problem. We could say 'the constituent country of X', though to me that seems unnecessarily confusing. — kwami (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the UN member state is the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Thus SSM is not legal across the Netherlands in the sense of UN membership or as a sovereign state. I'm still not clear about New Zealand. That's a free association, and so may be different legally. — kwami (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Split the situation in each country
The article is very long already, despite my removal of a bunch of content that is not related to SSM, and covers each country's legal situation in multiple places, both in maps, the timeline table and sections giving paragraphs of information that are relevant for each country, but not necessarily the topic as a whole. A list of countries was already split from Sexual orientation and gender identity in military service so that the overall article can focus more on the general aspects. In place of the by country sections, which should be moved to Recognition of same-sex unions by country, I propose to add a few paragraphs to the "history" section explaining how legal recognition of same-sex marriage has increased in the last few decades. (t · c)  buidhe  16:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreed that most should be removed as a content fork. But I don't see the need for a new 'by country' article. That would just be displacing the problem. Who's gonna read it? If you're interested in a particular country, you read that article, and if you're interested in a region, it would still probably make more sense to skim the relevant individual country articles. — kwami (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Since there's no objection I'm going to carry out this edit. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Cutting down on the timeline
The "Timeline" section currently contains a lot of info on the legalization of same-sex marriage in fairly small subnational jurisdictions. It's questionable whether this information is WP:DUE on a broad overview article such as this one, especially when summary style would suggest moving less important information to the dedicated Timeline of same-sex marriage. Therefore, I suggest adopting one of the following requirements to limit mentions to sovereign states or subnational jurisdictions that are sufficiently significant, excluding either:
 * 1) Subnational jurisdictions whose population is less than a certain amount (say 1 million)
 * 2) Subnational jurisdictions whose legalization of same-sex marriage is not notable or does not have a separate Wikipedia article. (t · c)  buidhe  05:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Remove all subnational jurisdictions; replace the first with "began legalization" and the last with "completed legalization". The flag would appear with the latter. — kwami (talk)
 * Option 3? I oppose the POV that some countries are less important than others. Why not omit sovereign states with populations less than 1 million? They're not important either. Although in reality of course a state like Sweden or Chile has little influence in the world, we attempt to treat all states equally. The same should go for the constituents of those states. If we're going to cut back, we should do so equitably, and remove all sub-national entities: England, California, Mexico City. There are 50+ primary constituents in the USA, 30 each in Mexico and Brazil, and a dozen in Canada, which is already a lot of detail. We could do something like "began legalization" when the first constituent of a state legalizes, and "completed legalization" when the final constituent does. — kwami (talk) 08:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd support this also. (t · c)  buidhe  11:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't find it too big, to be honest. If it was 50% bigger maybe. Anyways, even if it were too big, it would be better to be at least kept as it is on the timeline page. It's the most concise and fully informative list on this matter than can be found anywhere. To have it deleted would be a big loss, imo.--Aréat (talk) 11:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't support removing this detail from the timeline page, just question whether it's appropriate in this article per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. (t · c)  buidhe  11:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with it here either, and I use it all the time. I was objecting to deleting some countries or nations because they're "not important". Is Navajo really less important than Monaco? If we reduce the table here, then I agree with Aréat that it should be copied in full to the main timeline article, where it could serve as an intro/summary.
 * Also, I've noticed that I seldom go back more than a year in the list. If we do remove subnationals from the table as a whole, I would modify my proposal to retain all jurisdictions legalized during the previous year and pending/TBA, and only remove them after some time has passed and they're no longer newsworthy.
 * I also think we might have POV problems with the Netherlands not having a flag because it hasn't finished legalization. Once that happens it will look like the UK and Denmark, but that won't be for years. — kwami (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the issue with subjective importance could be dodged by using my second suggestion to use notability as a guide to inclusion. Thus the sources decide what's notable, not us. Currently the Netherlands is listed with a flag. I would keep the flag but change the wording to "metropolitan Netherlands". (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If we only list entities that have WP articles, and I feel that the sovereign nations of the US are as notable as the micro states of Europe, then I just split up that article into dedicated articles for each nation, and now we're back to listing them in this table.
 * Also, why allow subnational jurisdictions only for the Netherlands? Why not list England, Wales and Scotland separately, or Denmark, Faroes and Greenland? Or the states of a federation like the USA, Mexico or Brazil? It's quite difficult to characterize those federations in a way that would allow us to objectively accept one but reject another. — kwami (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sdesilva11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Factual errors on the map
I would like to point out some errors on the map. First, according to the map, same-sex marriage is due to become legally performed and recognized in Haiti. However, this allegation is not backed by evidence. According to "LGBT rights in Haiti", the country does not recognize same-sex marriages, civil unions or similar institutions.

Second, Namibia is pink asserting that the country recognizes same-sex marriages performed abroad. However, according to "LGBT rights in Namibia", same-sex unions are currently not recognized in Namibia. Several court cases on the issue have been filed with the High Court, and await a decision. The article states that a judgment is expected on 20 January 2022. Therefore, I suggest to avoid premature conclusions and to await the decision of the High Court.

Next, according to "Recognition of same-sex unions in South Korea", the country recognizes neither same-sex marriage nor any other form of legal union for same-sex couples. In 2019, the Government of South Korea announced it would recognize the same-sex spouses of foreign diplomats who come to live in South Korea. However, the recognition does not extend to same-sex spouses of South Korean diplomats living abroad, much less to South Korean same-sex couples. As of May 2021, the only beneficiaries of this scheme have been New Zealand Ambassador Philip Turner and his husband Hiroshi Ikeda. Thus, South Korea doesn't fit the description of "minimal recognition".

Finally, Kwamikagami asserts that the government of Thailand recognizes same-sex couples as families. However, this seems opinionated and the statement is not backed by any credible sources. Besides, Thailand does not have specific unregistered cohabitation/domestic partnership laws. According to "LGBT rights in Thailand", the country currently does not recognize same-sex marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships. Same goes with Vietnam. This country also does not have specific unregistered cohabitation/domestic partnership laws. The Wikipedia article "Recognition of same-sex unions in Vietnam" states that "same-sex marriage is not legal in Vietnam, nor is any other form of same-sex union recognized."

The map contradicts with other map "Worldwide laws regarding same-sex intercourse, unions and expression". (See "LGBT rights by country or territory") In conclusion, Haiti, South Korea, Namibia, Thailand and Vietnam should be uncolored. Please, edit the map. Cyanmax (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * You exaggerate. Arguments about qualifying criteria are not "facts". Your argument is that SS couples have some rights, but not other rights, so we shouldn't note that they have any rights. The question therefore is what are our criteria for minimal recognition/cohabitation. This is something we've revisited multiple times over the years. In Vietnam, SS couples register their cohabitation, just as everyone else is required to do. At the time SSM was decriminalized in Vietnam, I asked if such registered cohabitation was adequate for inclusion on the map as "registered cohabitation", and there was no objection. For Thailand, I couldn't retrace my news sources, which is why I asked in the thread above if anyone else knew the situation. (You obviously don't, since you use WP as your evidence.) In South Korea, you yourself admit to the law, so that country definitely belongs on the map. It's even striped because of how limited the recognition is, and the situation explained on the key. This was all accepted by the WP/Commons community at the time. Haiti was a high court case and Namibia was a court recognition of the kind that we've used for other countries. I'd need to review those countries to recall the details / cite sources, maybe tomorrow. They may indeed be too marginal to qualify for the map. But that's a judgement call. There's no problem with revisiting our criteria, of course, as we judge best reflects the global situation. There have been other occasions where some new development has led us to change or reinterpret the criteria for the map.
 * There are two reasons why such situations may be of interest. One is the quality of the rights themselves. But the other is that they are indications of a legal shift in the country, part of a global shift toward greater LGBT recognition and rights (and of course also a global backlash, though thankfully a smaller one). Showing even minimal recognition on our map gives the reader a sense of that global shift. — kwami (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

This seems opinionated and none of the statements above are backed by any credible sources. Cyanmax (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Of course it's opinionated, as are we both. We're talking about opinions. — kwami (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Still, none of the statements above are backed by any credible sources. Vietnam, Thailand, Haiti...what's next Myanmar? Bangladesh? Jamaica? The map should reflect the reality, and not your fantasies. Please, verify sources. Cyanmax (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Again, quit exaggerating. No-one is proposing that we should claim recognition where none exists. If you want to go that route, I could argue that the US, NZ and Netherlands should all be removed from the list, because they all refuse to recognize SSM. The question is how we deal with the many cases that are not clear-cut.
 * According to our article, the Namibian courts have already recognized SS couples for the purpose of residency. Thus Namibia is more or less equivalent to Romania (apart from it being a domestic rather than foreign court). Additional cases are before the court. So, do we color Namibia for the case it has already recognized, or not color it in because of the cases that are pending? That's an opinion of what our criteria should be based on the facts. AFAIK there is nothing equivalent in Burma, Bangladesh or Jamaica.
 * In Thailand, the govt recognizes religious ceremonies establishing couples as couples. It does not recognize their marriages, but it is more or less equivalent to Vietnam, which we have consensus to include.
 * Vietnam, as I noted before, quite literally has registered cohabitation. If you want to argue that registered cohabitation should not count as registered cohabitation, fine, but present you argument for why.
 * As for Haiti, the green reflects the presidential decree. The media reported that he had decreed that SSM will be allowed in the new constitution. ([Church] ministers were "outraged", claiming this would require them to perform SSM in their church or go to prison, which no-one had ever proposed.) But I'm not sure the legalities were accurately reported. And even if the decree does allow SSM, parliament has a year to override it, so coloring it is premature. Though the same is true of Switzerland -- why no objection to coloring Switzerland green?
 * Anyway, I reverted Haiti pending events. — kwami (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for these events in Haiti? Last thing I've read about the country was an outcry against a presidential decree making discrimination on the basis of sexuality illegal, but no more.--Aréat (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I could try to hunt them down, but considering that the same clergy were claiming that the presidential decree legalized sex with dogs (because it took its wording directly from the laws of Canada and Belgium, which as we all know are popular with dog-fuckers), I'm not sure it's worth the effort.
 * There were a number of apparently RS's that said it would legalize SSM, but there was so much nonsense being thrown around it was hard to verify anything. I never saw a copy of the actual decree, though I expect you could find it. Anyway, the decree wouldn't go into effect until 2022, and a number of MPs have promised to override it. — kwami (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So there's no source whatsoever for Haiti having incoming SSM? It shouldn't have been added on the map. I searched for one in french, and found none. --Aréat (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Switzerland can not be compared with Haiti. The referendum is scheduled for 26 September 2021. In November 2020, a poll conducted by the gfs group found that 82% of respondents "strongly" or "somewhat" supported same-sex marriage, 17% were opposed and 1% were undecided. SSM will be approved, just like in Ireland and Australia.

Please, provide sources with detailed information for Namibia, Thailand, Vietnam, and add them to "LGBT rights in Namibia", "Recognition of same-sex unions in Namibia", "LGBT rights in Vietnam", "Recognition of same-sex unions in Vietnam" and "LGBT rights in Thailand". Your assertion contradicts the corresponding articles and creates confusion. Cyanmax (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's the way to go. We shouldn't have to ask around for sources on this page in the first place.--Aréat (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so that means anyone can do whatever they want and just say, "I'm not obliged to provide sources! I can do whatever I want! Leave me alone!" That's what you mean? Now, where is the logic in that? Kwamikagami's allegations cannot rely on rumor or assumption, they must be supported by reliable evidence. If there's no proof, then it's just a groundless rumor. Cyanmax (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly. If you have a different interpretation of the matter than someone else, they must be trying to substitute unfounded rumor for verifiable fact in a blatant attempt to vandalize WP. They're completely irrational. There's no other explanation as to why someone might have a different understanding than you do.
 * It's hard to take your hyperbole seriously. I suspect you would have more success if you engaged in good faith and assumed good faith of others.
 * I pinged all editors from the past 2yrs and hope for some constructive feedback.
 * Re. your first point, of course Switzerland can be compared to Haiti. Treating it differently is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. It's highly probable, of course, that SSM will pass with the referendum. Much more likely than that SSM will go through in Haiti. But per CRYSTAL we can't assume that it will pass. — kwami (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Are you answering to me? I agreed with the need to have properly sourced pages backing the map. Users shouldn't have to come here to beg for some source. It should be sourced on the country's page, and the map a mere reflection of those page's content. There shouldn't be claim on the map that aren't first backed on the own country's page. Such discussion on whether Haiti has or hasn't SSM in work should happen on Haiti's LGBT right page, not on this random map page.--Aréat (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I've been maintaining the map but not the country articles. Things do need to be ref'd there. So far no-one's responded to the RFC on Commons. — kwami (talk) 06:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think an RFC at Commons is the appropriate venue. The map doesn't need to be sourced to be hosted at Commons, but it does need to be sourced to be used on Wikipedia. But to answer the question you asked there: Does anyone have arguments why these (or other) countries should be removed from the map, or to justify their inclusion? I think it's fairly straightforward: they should all be removed unless we have reliable secondary sources that characterize a country's laws as falling somewhere on the spectrum of SSM rights. Where we do have such sources, we should use them to guide how to describe the rights provided. Characterizing a country's laws by applying our own criteria to our understanding of the legalities of the jurisdiction is far into the realm of original research.
 * A country's individual article on same-sex relationship rights is the appropriate place to start; that content, with sources, should be summarized here, and reflected in the "Legal status of same-sex unions" template at the top of the article and the map.--Trystan (talk) 13:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

There are several unsourced and irresponsible statements by kwamikagami:

1. "According to our article, the Namibian courts have already recognized SS couples for the purpose of residency." !CITATION NEEDED!

2. "In Thailand, the govt recognizes religious ceremonies establishing couples as couples." !CITATION NEEDED!

3. "Vietnam, as I noted before, quite literally has registered cohabitation." !CITATION NEEDED!

4. "I could argue that the US, NZ and Netherlands should all be removed from the list, because they all refuse to recognize SSM." !CITATION NEEDED!

5. "Because it took its wording directly from the laws of Canada and Belgium, which as we all know are popular with dog-fuckers." !CITATION NEEDED!

How can we tolerate these irresponsible statements?

To ensure that all Wikipedia content is verifiable, anyone may question an uncited claim.

By citing sources for Wikipedia content, you enable users to verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources, thus improving the credibility of Wikipedia.

If you can provide a reliable source for the claim, then please add it! Cyanmax (talk) 06:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Anyone can leave a note on the talk page asking for a source. Please, present your evidence. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.

The accuracy of a statement may be a cause for concern if:

It has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic;

It contains information which is particularly difficult to verify; It contains information which is ambiguous and open to interpretation, either due to grammar, or opinionated wording; Cyanmax (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

A High Court in Namibia has ruled against two same-sex couples who were seeking to have their foreign marriages recognized for immigration purposes.

Sources:

1. https://76crimes.com/2022/01/20/namibia-high-court-rules-against-same-sex-couples/

2. https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/namibian-court-rules-against-gay-couples-seeking-legal-recognition-2022-01-20/

I told you that we should avoid premature conclusions and to await the decision of the High Court. You see, I was right. The map is full of blatant factual errors. Take for example Cambodia, Nepal, South Korea and Vietanam. Not to mention these questionable "individual cases rings". The definition for so called "limited recognition" is still ambiguous.

The map needs to be reformed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyanmax (talk • contribs) 06:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding change of Chile into the same-sex marriage list
Hi, This morning I changed Chile into dark blue in the image of the same-sex marriage list. User:Kwamikagami proceed to undo my change to make the same change afterwards.

Can someone explain me why ? As a Chilean this makes me quite sad to see how someone can take the change someone else made. I might be a noob at making changes into Wikipedia but still, this was a changed that was needed and someone took it out from me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafa1239 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 * You need to provide sources. Without sources you will be reverted. I could not verify that the law had actually gone into effect, only that it was scheduled to. That's no guarantee that it happened. When another editor provided a (German) newspaper acct of the first marriage, I restored your edit and updated maps as well. — kwami (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the Pblic Opion in Taiwan
Hello, After parctising same sex marriage for nearly 3 years, the public opion in Taiwan has changed quite a lot. Could the editor in charge of Public Opion kindly update it with many newest reliable and avaiable sources? Best regards,

Khhmel 08:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC) Khhmel 08:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khhmel (talk • contribs)

Marriage with full right vs partial rights
Which countries have SSM with full rights? E.g., in the USA, I believe that SS couples are simply married, and that there is no legal distinction. However, in Ecuador, SS couples may marry, and married couples may adopt, but SS married couples may not adopt. Thus SSM is not legally equal to OS marriage. (Somewhat similar in Taiwan.) I've been told that in Germany, SSM couples don‘t have access to IVF, as OS couples do, and in the UK divorce laws are different. So what are the countries where SSM couples have all the rights that OS couples have, and where are there exceptions? — kwami (talk) 04:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)