Talk:Same-sex marriage legislation around the world/Archive 1

Latvia, Switzerland
I noticed that Latvia and Switzerland's entries do not have any indications of whether they failed in the upper or lower house, so I just wanted to check and see if they were even voted on. If they were never voted on, I feel they should be removed, as I think it would be a bit too much to include all bills that have been 'proposed' but never voted on. Thanks. VoodooIsland (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Switzerland - never mentioned anything about SSM. Only registered partnerships. --haha169 (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As for Latvia, using the same link, it simply died in committee. --haha169 (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up. :) I'll remove them, as even if the Swiss proposal could be sourced, it likely died in committee as well. VoodooIsland (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Subnational divisons
Can subnational divisions be mentioned? Like in court cases, Halpern et al. v. Canada (legalized SSM in Ontario, 2002) and Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (Massachusetts, 2004). In federations where family law is under provincial jurisdiction, this is usually the only way for same-sex marriage to pass. The Homosexualist (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is only for the status in various countries, and so far, only Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States exists for such. I think we could include rulings in United States states on the Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States article and add in other rulings under LGBT rights in Canada or create "History of same-sex unions in Canada" to specify. VoodooIsland (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Australia
The status of same-sex unions in Australia, and debate surrounding it, has undergone rapid change since the Rudd Labor Government has come to power. I have removed the references a Civil Union bill in Australia, since no such bill or legislative proposal has been introduced. Instead, what happened is this: on August 1, the Labor Party's National Conference took place in Sydney, and one of the proposals was that the Labor Party Platform (the party's central policy document) be changed so as to support either same-sex marriage or civil unions. None of these proposals passed. Thus, it is currently not Labor Party policy to support either. What the Labor Party supports currently is a review of Australia's same-sex union laws, as well as a nationally-consistent relationships registry.

Alongside of all of this, the Greens have introduced a same-sex marriage bill in the Australian Senate. The bill has been sent to a committee, which is currently conducting a public inquiry on it. The inquiry is expected to report in November 2009. Even if the committee recommends that the bill be passed, it is somewhat unlikely that the bill will be approved by both Houses of Parliament, considering that both major parties (Labor and Liberal) are opposed to same-sex marriage. (They both support the status quo, which is providing same-sex couples with nearly all of the rights of marriage through an unregistered cohabitation system). Ronline ✉ 09:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Primary sourcing
I am worried about the links to primary documents, such as the Constitutions of Japan instead of a story like "President Signs Anti-Gay Constitutional Amendment" story from Latvia, because Wikipedia is doing the analysis that the constitution bans same-sex marriage. I see the words "husband and wife" in the Japanese constitution, but it only says that to mean the equality of the sexes, and can be read in a different way. It does not say, explicitly, like the constitution of some Latin American states, that "marriage is defined as the union between one man and one woman..." His male lover (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

yes..you're right! otherwise we had to add half of europeans countries..Olliyeah (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly sure that all of the European countries that imply such have been listed, and in order to clear up confusion, I included a note beside each country that could be in a gray area. Let me know if you think it solves the problem or if I should find another solution for clarification. Thanks for bringing out these concerns and helping with the article! VoodooIsland (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

''Marriage shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes and it shall be maintained through mutual cooperation with the equal rights of husband and wife as a basis. 2) With regard to choice of spouse, property rights, inheritance, choice of domicile, divorce and other matters pertaining to marriage and the family, laws shall be enacted from the standpoint of individual dignity and the essential equality of the sexes.'' Article 24, Constitution of Japan

Whether this could be interpreted as banning gay marriage is up for debate. It manifestly wasn't the intention, the article is about ensuring equality of the sexes within marriage. If article 9 can be interpreted as to still allow for a military then I don't see why this article must be seen as to ban same-sex marriages. Unless there's a secondary source provided that the constitutions listed actually do ban SSM then I think they should be removed as otherwise their inclusion could be considered original research. MaesterTonberry (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Strongly I not agree. Use terms wife and husband means that marriage is defined as a union between a man(husmand) and a woman(wife). Compare to military issue is ridiculous. Ron 1987 02:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron 1987 (talk • contribs)


 * Using marital terms and assuming that the married couples would be of different sexes does not mean a ban on gay marriage. Lithuania was one of the county's listed but its own article states there is disagreement about whether or not their constitution does ban same-sex couples from marrying and that there was a drive to amend it to do so. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and it's not our job to interpret things, that's why for these sort of controversies secondary sources are needed. MaesterTonberry (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Terms husband and wife means that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. If these terms are using in constitution it mean that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. In that case terms husband and wife must be us during civil wedding ceremony. Two men can't get maried, because are not husband and wife. Legalize same-sex marriage without removing terms husband and wife is impossible. 83.24.7.102 (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Dates and state of play
Hi. I think that it would be better to change the date of most of the "October 2009" or "Autumn 2009" entries into a more general one, like "2009" or even "2009-10". In most cases, there is no certainty, or even a probability, that a bill will be voted on within that month, and I think it ends up giving a rather misleading picture of the timeframe for future same-sex union recognition.

I think that in 2009 (but probably not in October 2009) we will see the following countries voting on same-sex union bills:


 * Portugal - the Socrates government has pledged that SSM is a priority (indeed, the first major priority) for the new government.
 * Slovenia - the new SSM-inclusive Family Code has been drafted and has received support from the governing coalition and the President. A vote is expected soon.
 * Ireland - a vote on the Civil Partnerships Bill should take place anytime now; the draft bill was presented in July, with assurances it would be implemented before the end of the year.
 * Austria - the law is still in the drafting process (see ) but the governing coalition has pledged to implement it. A government representative has stated that it may only be voted upon in early 2010, since there is still disagreement about its provisions for a ceremony.

The other countries listed for October and Autumn 2009 are unlikely to vote for bills during this time period; no timetable to this regard has been officially proposed. The Isle of Man may make progress this year, as may Venezuela, Luxembourg and Iceland. Nonetheless, I think Albania, Uruguay and Andorra should definitely be given a different date. In Albania, no further annoucements have been made about the introduction of same-sex marriage. In Uruguay, members of the governing party merely stated they would discuss SSM if they won the elections (which is widely expected). In Andorra, the current governing party also made an election pledge to consider SSM, but has so far made no progress. Ronline ✉ 11:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Andorra
I found these two sources to Catalan. Very likely the Government will not introduce same-sex marriage bill in the near future. I think Andorra should be removed from list of bills. ~Ron 1987 (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Portugal
The information on Portugal in the table is incorrect. Same-sex (de facto, not de jure) civil unions already exist in Portugal despite the fact that the legislation was vetoed by the President. The parliament overturned the veto and the legislation was passed: Partially in 1996 and more comprehensively in 1999. Just look at the wikipedia article on the subject here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union_in_Portugal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaimot (talk • contribs) 18:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This is incorrect, de facto unions (União de Facto) do not get the same rights as married couples - for example in pensions and inheritance obligations. You have to get married to get inheritance and pension rights. The União de Facto expansion that The Portugal Government passed was vetoed by the conservative president was to increase the rights to people within a União de Facto so they can get pension and inheritance rights. There was no override (you can override vetoes in Portugal with enough votes).

On a seperate topic similar to this, soon same sex couples will be allowed to get married - but without adoption rights. Belgium did exactly that in 2003 - but then 2 years later in 2005 adoption was added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

National/Sub-national
I believe autonomous dependencies like Greenland, Wallis and Futuna and Jersey should remain in the national table. These aren't sub-divisions of one country like the federal states of Australia and the US but really separate legal entities. That's why when the UK introduced civil partnerships on the national level they were legalised in all its constituent nations but not in Jersey and the Isle of Man because these countries are self-governing and have complete control over domestic laws (that's why CP legalistion is currently being done individually). Wallis and Futuna and New Caledonia are listed with other countries on the Same-sex unions template for the same reasons. MaesterTonberry (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Greenland and other are not independent countries, only regions. Sphere of autonomy is not important. Ron 1987 15:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Jersey is not part of the UK and Greenland and Denmark separate countries under the banner of the Kingdom of Denmark. If these countries are only sub-divisions then by nature so are the UK, Denmark and the Netherlands as these countries couldn't have legalised unions at the 'national' if it only effected their constituent country. MaesterTonberry (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It secondary question. Greenland and other are not independent states, nations. Only independent states should be included. National is national.Ron 1987 16:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Jersey and the Isle of Man are not part of the United Kingdom they are merely possessions of the The Crown. It makes no sense to put them in a table which lists them as being so when that isn't the case. We should no more list them as sub-national than we should list the Netherlands as a sub-division of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. MaesterTonberry (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That comparison it completely nonsense. Independent states to one section, all other territories to second section. I do not agree for that very doubtful proposition. Ron 1987 21:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * According to its article the Netherlands is a constituent country of the Kingdom, of course for all administrative purposes its an independent state (like the countries moved are). Jersey and the Isle of Man are not part of the UK, this fact isn't debated, so we can't put them on table which says that they are. MaesterTonberry (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC0
 * I sill believe it is very doubtful proposition. Territorries which have no power in all areas including foreign policy or defence are not independent states. The Netherlans have that power. Jersey or Greenland not. Ron 1987 22:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry my power cut out while I was in the middle of editing, before it seemed you were ok with the change but now you've gone back on that? The fundamental point is that Greenland and Jersey are autonomous countries. Jersey and the Isle of Man are not part of the UK.. MaesterTonberry (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Autonomous, but not independent. Jersey and the Isle of Man have no power in all areas. Foreign policy and defence it UK's responsibility. Ron 1987 23:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Italy
Several regions and cities of Italy have approved common law statuses in the last couple of years, but they just have a symbolic value and are not legally binding - only few offer very limited local benefits. Should I add them?!Olliyeah (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)