Talk:Same-sex marriage in Costa Rica

Requested move 3 February 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus as to the most appropriate name for the article at this time, and thus reverting to the stable title (Recognition of same-sex unions in Costa Rica) that was in place before the WP:BOLD move in January. Please note that this could have been reverted prior to discussion through a request at WP:RMTR. Presumably, when some time has passed and the effects of court decisions become more clear, it will be easier for a specific title to gain consensus. This closure takes the nature of the IP edits (which included one !vote) into account. Dekimasu よ! 02:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Costa Rica → Recognition of same-sex unions in Costa Rica – Move made way too early. The description for the change was "renaming like in other countries after approval" but the approval has not yet been made by Costa Rica itself, despite the Inter-American court ruling. Per consistency with other countries that have not yet legalized same-sex marriage. This page should be moved after laws are actually changed in the country. 174.114.211.255 (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – same sex marriage is not legal (yet) in Costa Rica. Move to proposed title, per WP:CRYSTAL.  CookieMonster755 ✉  18:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Let's wait until there is clear indication that marriages are permitted to happen. In the meantime, this new title is fine. Isseubnida (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Against. The legality of the issue is a fact, the Court in charge which is the TSE already announced that they will abide to the IACHR ruling and they are only waiting for the elections to happen to begin the aplication and write the normative. Considering that elections are tomorrow the waiting would be a couple of days. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Once this happens then the change can occur. No need to try and predict the future, per WP:CRYSTAL. --2607:FEA8:559F:FA30:4CF1:3279:8ED:2255 (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a prediction, this is the equivalent of the US Supreme Court ruling. I say that as a lawyer, there's no possible way how the IACHR's ruling is not going to be applied in the near future and the TSE already annunced that they will start marrying same-sex couples after the elections. Is really necesary to wait for a change that would come in a few weeks? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Whatever happens tomorrow in the election is arbitrary to the TSE's and IACHR's decision. The TSE is going to start marrying same-sex couples after the election because trying to both conduct an election AND grant rights to a certain demographic is no easy job. Wikipedia is always up to date (that's why we editors exist, don't we?) and our job is to communicate and exhibit whatever new info arises.
 * Covering the results of the election is not easy and Dereck's help is crucial for the election article's quality, thus, we'll both spend a great deal of time regarding that article. Changing the name of this article is being efficient in our work. -- Maho713(talk) 4:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It has already been said that regardless of the ruling, same-sex marriage needs to be passed by the local legislation first prior to any marriage taking place. Theoretically that can be voted down and it is not up to us to predict how that will turn out until it actually happens. The change of moving the page to be called "Same-sex marriage in Costa Rica" should only happen after that legislation gets passed. --2607:FEA8:559F:FA30:4CF1:3279:8ED:2255 (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, the ruling is irreversible and does not requires local legislation. As others said before the TSE has already ruled that they would apply the ruling thus setting the issue. A Court ruling is enough for the application. I'm pretty syre same-sex weddings would begin in the following months. --TV Guy (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There does indeed need to be a local legislation passed in Costa Rica before same-sex marriage is legal. This is supported by these sources , there were already attempts to register a same-sex marriage but that did not happen because this required a legislation to be passed. The fact that you say you’re pretty sure that same-sex weddings would begin in the following months is not supported by any reliable source and is WP:CRYSTAL which is exactly why the title should be reversed back to “Recognition of same-sex unions in Costa Rica” until same-sex marriage is actually legalized. --2607:FEA8:559F:FA30:45A0:9F9F:A959:79C5 (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you even read your sources? here some quotes from them:


 * First one: That, until there is a legislative reform, until lawmakers or the constitutional court formally adopt new laws


 * Second one: The minister pointed out in the letter that CIDH’s opinion, emitted on Jan. 9, is binding for all member states, and that Costa Rica’s government institutions must comply.


 * Third one: (translating the Council's estance) That, until there is a legislative reform, or an annulment sentence is issued in a constitutional way
 * Your own sources are supporting our position. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Against: The article in Spanish (and Chinese) have the same title and the change would cause confusion. --TV Guy (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The name for the article in other languages has nothing to do with what we'll call it here. Different wikis have different policies on these issues. The policy on the English Wikipedia is that we change the name after same-sex marriage has been legalized, which has not yet happened in Costa Rica. --2607:FEA8:559F:FA30:4CF1:3279:8ED:2255 (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I still keep my vote as against because if the policy is changing the name after same-sex marriage was legalized that's the current situation. As mentioned above the Court's ruling is biding and local Courts already informed that they will apply the ruling, thus it is legal, it just need the normative to be completed. --TV Guy (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That is false. Legislation still needs to be passed before same-sex marriage will be legal in Costa Rica. Same-sex marriage is currently not in any way legal in the country. --2607:FEA8:559F:FA30:45A0:9F9F:A959:79C5 (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If worth something, I'm a lawyer, and no, legislation is not needed, a court ruling is more than enough which would probably come both from TSE or Sala Cuarta. Same-sex marriage is legal and the first same-sex wedding most likely would happen this year. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You don’t have to be a lawyer to be able to read and understand a ruling. That’s not the point. As already posted above, legislation is in fact needed before same-sex marriage becomes legal as per these sources , one case already tried to be marry but could not not because local legislations needs to change before this happens. Same-sex marriage is not legal in Costa Rica and will not be until local laws are changed. The page should not be called Same-sex marriage in Costa Rica” until that happens. --2607:FEA8:559F:FA30:45A0:9F9F:A959:79C5 (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't have to be a lawyer but certainly helps as you are clearly misreading the position of the National Council of Notaries, in their communication they explicitly say that no same-sex marriage can be done until new legislation or a Court ruling is in place, which is what several of us are saying. Both the TSE and Sala IV are courts and just with their ruling would be enough for the measure to take place, thus, again, making unnecessary new legislation. In fact that's exactly what your sources say. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Strongly Support - Same-sex marriage is not legal in Costa Rica as of now. --184.151.190.128 (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Just here to notice that the three IP voting here were discovered to be sockpuppets of the same account as I requested a quick check here and were blocked due to edit warring and disruptive editing. So please notice that their vote count only as one, if counts at all. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

So apparently vandals with lots of suckpuppets can make change a title even when it made no sense. Jeez when the first gay wedding start in a couple of months I'm really going to have my day comming back here with a big I told you. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There was no great option here, but it is not necessary to disparage the established editors who supported returning the page to the original title for the time being alongside the blocked IPs. All that happened was reinstating the status quo pending further clarification in reliable sources. This is a normal case of WP:BRD and when there's consensus to change the title I'd be happy to process the move. WP:RGW. Dekimasu よ! 06:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Currently legalised or soon to be?
I find the article unclear on the current situation. Does "expected to soon become legal" mean it will soon be legalised, or does it mean it has already been legalised, but not yet implemented, like currently in Austria or until last year Finland? From all the sources and informations, it seem to me to be the former. If the IACHR court ruling de facto require the governement to actively make their own steps - we haven't even heard of any such move in all but two of the countries members! -, then it is not per se that ruling that will make SSM legal in each of them, but their governement's laws, decrees or national court's decisions. As a second point, I think we need to point out that the court ruling is described as being binding in most if not all english sources, yet consultiva, meaning advisory, in the spanish ones. Is there some sort of "Lost in Translation" taking place here?--Aréat (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The case is similar to that of Austria, Finland and Taiwan, or even Mexico, places were their respective Supreme Courts mandate the legalization but is yet to be implemented as it requires a by-law from the Electoral Court (Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones) which handles marriage registry and that already announce is working on it. Costa Rica's government by law (article 7 of the Constitution) can't contradict the IACHR rulings is the equivalent of the US/Mexico/Brazil's Supreme Court ruling on the same matter.
 * As for the difference between binding and advisory, they're not mutally exclusive in Spanish, the issue here is that Costa Rica and other 22 countries recognize the IACHR as the highest appealing court on their own jurisdictions, that mean the opinions of the IACHR can't be disregarded and are binding even when given advise. There are precedents about this like the IACHR's ruling on profesional association of journalist and IVF were the Constitutional Court mentions the binding nature of all IACHR's opinions. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Then, like these others countries you mentioned, we should indicate SSM in Costa Ruca as "Legalised, yet to take effect", right?--Aréat (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess so. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

current Legislative Assembly
In the current Legislative Assembly, eight of the ten PAC deputies and José María Villalta, the sole Broad Front deputy, support same-sex marriage.

Is this still the current Legislative Assembly? --LaserLegs (talk) 11:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes is the same LA, however after the court ruling most deputies just went along and left the issue at the hands of the Court, not wanting to legislate on it nor in favor nor against, and refuse to vote a motion that would request the Court to extend the term. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 02:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)