Template talk:LGBT rights table Americas

heads up to other editors about the section edit links problem (possible cause)...
I think the section edit links aren't showing up because of the "if" coding scheme that is currently having to be used on the section titles. (if table is called from the world article, it uses ====North America====, etc. and if on the Americas article, it uses ===North America=== , etc. (or something along those lines).. for now, the vde link above the first table allows edit access, but if the "History of..." section on the world article ends up being split off, a side effect would be raising all of the tables on that page up one section level and removing the need for if codes in this template. (unless someone that knows wiki code better than me can make the edit section links work w/ the "if" codes) Outsider80(User0529) (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Immigration equality for same-sex couples
"Immigration equality for same-sex couples"—this does not yet have an article, as Immigration equality is broader than LGBT. What did the editor who added this column mean exactly by this? The right to bring a partner to the country? Citizenship? HIV travel ban? How can this be separate from legal recognition of same-sex relationships? Niew (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy of Laws concerning gender identity/expression and Immigration equality for same-sex couples columns
I'm wondering whether someone more knowledgeable than me about these two particular subjects could proofread this template for accuracy in the last two columns. I ask because:

1) In the Africa and Asia templates, the Laws concerning gender identity/expression is generally not filled in and the Immigration equality for same-sex couples columns is generally filled in. In the Americas template it's the other way around.

2) The Central America table has an extra, blank column which I've attempted to remove.

Thisisnotatest (talk) 08:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

LGBT rights in South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands
It seems rather silly to include a countr/territory like South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands. No one lives there, no permanent population at least. Wouldn't it be better to delete this territory?

HansMadalmaad (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Canada: Same-sex sexual activity information in table
The table cites this page here: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-73.html, and while that is valid for the first part of the sentence, for the second, which states: "prohibition of anal intercourse in some cases" does not have any obvious citation and doesn't really apply to the citation, as this table is for homosexual marriage and the laws mentioned in the link apply to minors (specifically those under 16). As anti-sodomy laws have been associated with anti-homosexual stances, I think this statement should definitely be cited. Also, considering homosexual marriage is legal in Canada, it raises the question of: how can it be legal if homosexual sex between men is banned in some cases? If this is only for minors under the age of 16 -- which is what the citation gives reference to -- that is not a relevant point as sex between an adult and minor is often illegal regardless of sexual orientation. This is because it has more to do with the abuse of power (the age differential) than it does with sexuality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.30.123 (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Column headers
You may be interested in the discussion at Talk:LGBT rights by country or territory regarding the column headers of this table. - htonl (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Kansas
Same-sex marriage isn't legal statewide in Kansas. Prcc27 (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Mexico
Please review the full article on the Mexico page. Recognition of same-sex unions in Mexico and specifically, the discussion on the talk page Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Mexico. The situation in Mexico may start changing rapidly, but unless you can verify with Mexican press that a state has changed their constitution, it is probably a judgment for a single couple or a group of couples. 5 individual rulings on the same issue must have the same verdict before a state can be forced to change their constitution. Almost every amparo (injunction) issued states that the state law is unconstitutional, that does not mean that it has to change because the couple has an injunction that says that law does not apply to them, but only to them. SusunW (talk) 06:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Please do not make changes to Mexico without checking the renamed talk page Talk:Same-sex marriage in Mexico. The situation in Mexico IS NOT the same as in the US. Anticipated action may or may not happen. A court order may say that something must happen, but that does not mean that it will not be delayed. We'd love your participation on the Mexico page, but you need to make yourself familiar with the situation first. It is very complex. SusunW (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)