Talk:Same-sex marriage in Slovenia

Inferior Status
I wonder if Slovenia's civil unions shouldn't be classified as a lesser type of union. The rights and benefits to civil unions in Slovenia further entrench second class status of gay and lesbian couples as they are insultingly limited. Enzedbrit 21:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Slovenia approves Gay marriage and adoption
http://ilpiccolo.gelocal.it/dettaglio/slovenia-via-libera-ai-matrimoni-tra-gay-approvato-dal-governo-il-nuovo-diritto-di-famiglia/1808628

On 18th December the bills to approve gay marriage and adoption was approved by the Slovenian parliament. The article above comes from a Trieste (Italy) newspaper. I think it's safe to say that the comments above are no longer relevent. Well done Slovenia!--Xania talk 13:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the artilce says the "government" approved the bill (google translate so can't be sure). Outside of the US this often means the executive branch, meaning the Administration approved the wording of a bill and has submitted it to parliment for consideration.  Notice toward the end of the title (once again, google translate) it says IF approved by parliament.  134.243.205.94 (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Legalization in May 2010.
The page says that the Slovenian Parliament would vote upon the Same-sex marriage bill again in May 2010. However it's July and no vote has occured. Does anyone know what is happening? Also should the page be updated to indicate that the vote hasn't occured? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.142.73 (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have any updates? 68.227.163.169 (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Well as 2010 has also passed, the article should be edited again to indicate so. My goodness why is it taking so long? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.143.184 (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Marriage legislation
I would like to mention few things, which might be helpful to understand the situation in regard to the same-sex marriage bill.

The final reading in the National Assembly (lower house) is expected on 3 March. If passed, the bill will go to the National Council (treated as upper house, but not so much...). The Council cannot to reject the bill, but have the authority to force the Assembly to vote on a bill again. The Coucil have 7 days to make a decision. If the Assembly is forced to vote again, then a bill would become a law, if approved by an absolute majority. The President is obliged to promulgate it within 8 days. See articles 91 and 97 of the Constitution.

There is another matter, which could complicate the situation: possibility of a referendum. According to the referendum rules, amended in 2013, the referendum may not be called on laws eliminating an unconstitutionality in the field of human rights and fundamental freedoms or any other unconstitutionality. See article 90 of the Constitution. Nevertheless, the opponents of a bill already announced intention to collect signatures in order to force a vote. See. Probably the Constitutional Court will have to clarify this. Ron 1987 (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's official now: the Parliament has approved the bill 51 favour-28 against. The fact that there's "the possibility" of a referendum, shall not be considered as an "impediment", for the very simple fact that, until that referendum is actually called for, the law will be totally in force. Here's the news: .--L736E (talk) 07:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not finalized yet. See a second paragraph of my comment above. Ron 1987 (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well it's been seven days since the law was passed and I cannot find any news on the decision of the national council. What should we do? Perhaps their inaction on this means they're allowing it to proceed to the president? I'm not entirely sure because I don't know for certain how this system works. Anyone care to clarify for me? Chase1493 (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Motion to force Assembly to vote on the bill again will be voted today. Ron 1987 (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah I see, thanks. So if they don't make the assembly vote again, will the President have an additional eight days to promulgate or will that be tomorrow (the eighth day since its passage)? Chase1493 (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it will be tomorrow. Ron 1987 (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I have searched few last issues of the official gazette to find out whether the bill was published. Other laws approved by parliament in early March were published. Apparently, either promulgation or publication of marriage law was halted due to the referendum petition. Ron 1987 (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC) UPDATE: The bills approved by the parliament on 3 March, except the marriage measure, were sent to the President on 11 March. It looks like the marriage bill won't be sent for promulgation and publication until the fate of the referendum effort is determined. Of course, that would never happen, if the referendum is allowed and the law rejected by the voters. Ron 1987 (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Has there been any news about the referendum? Whenever I try to search, it all gets overshadowed by Ireland's legalization. Considering its been almost two months since the petition was filed, I would think that the Constitutional Court would have issued a verdict. Chase1493 (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, there is no a ruling and is not expected for another few weeks, as the Court issued a ruling in Patria case on 23 April. Earlier, the court's president said that the court will not start to consider the marriage issue until the case mentioned above is resolved. The National Assembly and United Left party filed their responses to the challenge in mid-May. Ron 1987 (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Recognition of same-sex unions in Slovenia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121023181358/http://www.b92.net/eng/news/globe-article.php?yyyy=2006&mm=07&dd=25&nav_category=123&nav_id=35807 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/globe-article.php?yyyy=2006&mm=07&dd=25&nav_category=123&nav_id=35807
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160429142810/http://www.primorski.it/stories/STA/275152/ to http://www.primorski.it/stories/STA/275152/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151208061223/https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/29884850/slovenia-court-allows-referendum-on-halting-gay-marriage/ to https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/29884850/slovenia-court-allows-referendum-on-halting-gay-marriage/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

2022 same-sex marriage ruling.
According to the rtvslo article, the constitutional court DID NOT legalize same sex marriage. Rather, it said that the constitution cannot be Ibterpreted to ban same sex couples from marriage or a similar instrument, or to ban parliament to legislate on the matter (extending marriage to same sex couples). The Slovenian parlament may still decide to go the Italian way, aka make a new legal instrument for same sex marriage that is 99% equal to marriage but not marriage itself. Touyats (talk) 11:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The first Slav-majority state
has three times edited the sentence "Slovenia was the first country of former Yugoslavia to legalise same-sex marriage, the first of the former Eastern Bloc (excluding East Germany), the 18th in Europe, and the 31st worldwide" to add the words "and Slav-majority state" after "Yugoslavia". I object to this addition for the reason in my edit summary: all Slav-majority states are in Eastern Europe, so it is redundant with (but narrower than) the following phrase. I also think that it makes the sentence harder to read, is of extremely limited interest, and is less sourceable than the other claims in the sentence (though regrettably none of those claims appear in the body of the article, with or without sources). After I reverted, Aight 2009 has restored the text without explanation. It would be helpful if other editors could comment on this question. JBL (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that has removed it again, as well as adding corresponding text and source to the body -- thanks! --JBL (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)