Template talk:LGBT rights table Europe

United Kingdom
Same-sex couples have not a right to marry. Civil partnership it's not a marriage. Ron 1987 (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ron is correct; the UK article goes into detail about this (and how marriage is a near-term possibility). Yes, they provide equivalent rights/responsibilities, but the name matters to people, as silly as that may be. AV3000 (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the reversion. Deciding that some partnerships are to be considered marriage and some are not, when they're not officially marriage, seems like an OR-ish insertion. The problem could be solved by adding a note either by the specific case or as a general part of the header that some "recognitions" of unions confer more rights than others, sometimes approaching the same number of rights as marriage. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Civil partnership in the UK is equivalent to marriage and has been declared so by a court of law (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5230708.stm). It's not almost the same, it's the same.
 * While I think it is fair enough to not give a tick in the marriage column if you guys really don't want to (because of the name) including a cross is also misleading to our readers as it implies the rights are different - which in many other parts of the world they are.
 * The fact that you have said "sometimes approaching the same number of rights as marriage", means that you are clearly actively being misled by the current article as in the UK the rights given are the same, not approaching the same. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think if it is officially called something other than marriage, that's what it should be listed here as. C T J F 8 3  10:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that UK civil partnerships provide almost identical rights to marriage (indeed, the only differences are things such as peerage titles that are symbolic rather than substantive). However, the current big controversy over same-sex marriage in the UK illustrates the significant difference between civil partnerships and marriage. Socially, they are different concepts - civil partnerships are a "separate but equal" scheme that do not have the same connotation as marriage and that constantly remind same-sex couples that they are of a different status to opposite-sex couples. Until the UK actually allows marriage for same-sex couples, it is totally correct to put a cross and say precisely that it does not offer same-sex marriage. Ronline ✉ 12:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really, because it isn't helpful to our readers to not make clear the difference between civil partnerships which offer less rights and those that offer the same rights.
 * There also isn't a "big controversy" over same-sex marriage in the UK. No-one I know cares. Even in the media there certainly is far more excitement over the VAT status of cornish pasties. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The name makes all the difference, as the previous posters have stated. If I understand correctly, civil partnerships are not eligible for church ceremonies, unlike current opposite marriages. Hekerui (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As of December 2011 that's down to individual churches - some churches do offer civil partnerships. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It is true that civil partnerships are now also allowed on religious premises, just like marriages. As to the "big controversy" I mentioned before, I mean the fact that same-sex marriage is currently an important political issue. Both the UK Government and the Scottish Government are running a public consultation on it, and there is quite a lot of debate within the Conservative Party particularly (as well as a petition against marriage equality signed by over 400,000 people). If there was no difference between civil partnerships and marriage, there would be none of this debate at all. The reason why it exists is because marriage is symbolically different from civil partnerships. Furthermore, there are other countries/states that offer registered partnerships with identical rights to marriage that are not listed under the marriage section of the table - for example, Denmark (which is about to legislate for marriage equality very soon). Ronline ✉ 14:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Turkey
In the process of rewriting the Turkish constitution, the opposition party BDP, called for the liberalization of the marriage policies, which would include same sex marriage. The biggest opposition party in the Turkish parliament,CHP, supported the idea. The largest party in the parliament, the AKP, is against same sex marriage, all tough Premier Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the leader of the AKP, supported full equal rights for LGBT citizens in 2002. Same sex marriage will soon be discussed again by members of the parliament, since all political parties gather in committees to establish a new constitution.


 * With less than 10% of its territory in Europe, and being a country with a very different culture, how come is Turkey is listed as part of Europe?????--Karljoos (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2015 (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)

Croatia
Croatian Constitution does not ban same-sex marriage. It defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. That is not a ban. Ban would be if the Constitution said SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS BANNED. I don't know why is someone insisting on writing things that are simply not true? And another thing. Some countries have a year when same-sex couples were first recognised, and some have a form of legal recognition. Why double standards? Can't we just have the same for all?


 * Constitutional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman ("between a woman and a man" if we want to be completely accurate) is DE FACTO ban on same-sex marriage and I don't know why is that bothering you so much. Other countries like Hungary or Montenegro also have only definition of marriage in their constitutions but that definition is here treated like a ban, which is correct. By your criteria, no country in Europe constitutionally bans same-sex marriage because no country in Europe explicitly has "same-sex marriage ban" in its constitution. But de facto, they have!


 * When we speak about Croatia, I would also write "Registered partnership" instead of "Life partnership" because Lp is only a different name for something that is known as Rp in other legal systems. Germany also has Lebenspartnerschaft (Life partnership) and it is still labeled as registered partnership. It could be said that "life partnership" is only one particular form of registered partnership which is general term and thus more suitable for this table.


 * I agree with you that we shouldn't have double standards, but with your interventions, you're not helping the situation. --Emir234 (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Well yes, countries that have a definition of a marriage in the Constitution is not a ban on same-sex marriage. And it's not just Croatia. I am talking about Croatia here because I personally know their law system very well. Some countries do have explicit ban on same-sex marriage, and that is completely different. From the law point of view to say the definition is a ban is simply wrong. That is my problem. There is a difference between DE FACTO and DE JURE. What happened in Croatia is that definition from the family law was simply copy/pasted to the Constitution. But in the past we wouldn't say same-sex marriage was banned cause it wasn't. So nothing changed.

And Life Partnership Act is the name of the law, so you can't just change the name cause you think so. UK has civil partnership, but you wouldn't call it registered partnership cause that is NOT the name of the law. Croatian judicial system will call and treat same-sex partnerships as life partnerships because that is the definition of the law. Not registered partnerships. Of course it will be noted in the article that same-sex couples will register their relationships as life partnerships.

And another thing is this; The table says "recognition of same-sex relationships", so what is the point of writing what sort of recognition for some countries, and then for other countries we just have the year when they were recognised? Doesn't make any sense. It is much better if we just state the year, and if reader wants to find out more he or she will simply click on the country and read about the history of same-sex relationships in that particular country.

What I am trying to do here is to give the reader a neutral and accurate description of what constitutions and laws say. Not my personal interpretation of the law, which as you can see most often gives a completely different story.

Countries that do not have a constitutional definition of the law still have family laws that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but you wouldn't say for those countries that they ban same-sex marriage, simply because they don't. We are not here to interpret laws but to write down word by word exactly what they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11raccoon1 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, if you think so, you should also change Hungary, Montenegro, Belarus, Latvia, Moldova and others from "Constitutional ban since..." to "Constitution defines marriage as..." because as far as I know, they also don't have an explicit ban in the Constitution but only a constitutional definition of marriage, just like Croatia. I highly doubt that these eastern European countries explicitly banned gay marriage in the early nineties like it's said here, when gay marriage as a term didn't exist at all. When we talk about legal recognition of relationships, we should be focused on the current situation. So it should be current form of recognition and a year when the current form was introduced. For example, when the law on life partnership is passed in Croatia, it should write "Life partnership since 2014". Unregistered cohabitation becomes irrelevant.

--Emir234 (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes that's fine, but if we are going down that road then it should say unregistered cohabitations since 2003, replaced by life partnership in 2014. And the reason for that is to give the reader idea of how long same-sex couples have been recognised by law in Croatia. If you remove unregistered cohabitations then the reader will not be aware that same-sex couples have been recognised by law for over 10 years. 11raccoon1 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Intersex / 3rd Gender situation in Germany.
Well as I am trying to change the column Laws concerning gender identity/expression for Germany I am asking myself if other users agree with the following depiction of the situation:

I wrote: Parents of babies of the third gender can choose to avoid choosing a gender. The gender has to be declared male or female at a non-specified point in the future. Personenstandsgesetz § 22 Fehlende Angaben

For further information about the current situation I recommend to read:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender#Germany
 * http://www.dw.de/third-sex-option-on-birth-certificates/a-17193869

So I am open to changes of the current version, and even to completely remove this part of article if response wishes this. But I personally believe that this is worth of mentioning in this article and it fits into the category Laws concerning gender identity/expression! Thanks. --Areatius 17:19, 15 December 2014 (CET)

Same-sex civil unions in Portugal
Contrary to what the template stated, same-sex civil unions are legal in Portugal since 2001 (Law 7/2001, from 11th May). I corrected the error on January 23rd and provided the reference link to the relevant Law text (in Portuguese). Two days later another user (AHC300, if I'm not mistaken) changed it back to "No" (forbidden). Once again, I corrected the error. I would request that user not to change something from right to wrong. Being ignorant of the Portuguese language and thus unable to read the legal text is no excuse, on the contrary. Gazilion (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Kosovo de jure same sex marriage

 * The Constitution of Kosovo does not define marriage between a man and a woman, and in fact says that anyone can enter into marriage. In 2014, the President of the Constitutional Court said that Kosovo de jure indeed allows same sex marriages.


 * The "Family Law of Kosovo" or Law nr. 2004/32 was published on January 1 2004 by the UNMIK, so it's invalid with the adaption of the new constitution in 2008, and therefore can't be a justification that same-sex marriage isn't de jure legal in Kosovo.

--PjeterPeter (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Adoption of the constitution does not mean that the family law is invalid. The law was approved in 2006, not 2004, and it was done by the Kosovo's parliament. Citation from the Kosovo Assembly site: "Law is approved by Assembly of Kosovo, date 20 January 2006 and promulgated by UNMIK Regulation no. 2006/7 of date 16 February 2006". It is on the list of laws on the Ministry of Justice website. No information about invalidation. See, . Ron 1987 (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Poland
Article 18 of the Constitution can be interpreted as a ban (due to its vagueness), but the lawyers question this interpretation, for the same reason --82.132.236.222 (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Belarus Constitutional Ban - Yes or No?
This is the source for the Constitution of Belarus: After reading it, I cannot find the explicit ban on same-sex relationships. I see terminology of "husband and wife" but this is merely in regard to the nature of a heterosexual marriage (equality of the sexes). Other than that, it completely ambiguous towards same-sex relations and given the fact that attitudes towards homosexuality are not as open there, I doubt it will come before the Courts anytime soon. Any one have their own thoughts? Chase1493 (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Donetsk and Luhansk
User:Chase1493, You have undone my revision once more, stating that "no sovereign state recognises them" - this is precisely why they have been added to a table for "Partially recognised or unrecognised states". These entities are de facto independent and in control of their territory. They have received recognition from South Ossetia, itself a state with limited recognition (recognised by several UN members). They have the capacity to enforce their anti-LGBT laws. Thus they should be included in the table. AusLondonder (talk) 02:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah I see. I honestly never noticed that it also said unrecognized. You make good points, I'll change it back. Chase1493 (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that and thanks for being cool about it. AusLondonder (talk) 03:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, how long they remain rebellious against Ukraine remains to be seen. Last time I checked, they had lost ground in their own jurisdictions. I wonder if Russia will come to their aid if Ukrainian forces risk overtaking them. Chase1493 (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Ireland
I don't know where the previous editor's information that stepchild adoption is illegal in Ireland came from, but I checked on a government website (which I added as a reference) and it appears as follows: "Can I adopt my partner’s child? If you are married to your partner, and the child was born to your partner outside of a marriage then it may be possible to make an application for adoption. You make an application as a couple to adopt the child; this is usually referred to as Stepfamily adoption." Though this is technically a "joint" adoption, the result is exactly that of what is called a stepchild adoption: The pre-existing parent and their partner end up being the two legal parents of the child. Sigur (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Sigur, I have posted an article for reference: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/change-sought-to-anomaly-in-adoption-law-1.1848049 The article appeared as follows 'Under current legislation, if a husband wishes to adopt his wife’s child from a previous relationship, the woman must give up her legal rights and adopt her own child as part of what is known as the “step-family” process'. On top of that, I have also posted a source from ILGA, which clearly stated that only joint adoption is available but not any forms of second-parent adoption (at least for same-sex couples). Jonathankwanhc (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC +8)


 * But now the list says "Stepchild adoption is not legal for same-sex couples." That's technically true but misleading, since it implies that it is legal for opposite-sex couples, and your Irish Times article says otherwise. Surely it should say "Stepchild adoption is not legal for any couples." - htonl (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It should say neither: Anyone who only reads the table, will almost necessarily conclude that it is not possible for a birth parent and their partner to obtain joint parental status and responsibility by way of adoption. And that is clearly the wrong conclusion, as is also confirmed by the Irish Times article. There are certainly serious flaws in the procedure, but that can't be the point. One way or the other, we need to get the information into the table that it is indeed possible for a birth parent and their partner to obtain joint parental status and responsibility by way of adoption (at least under certain conditions). If you don't want to call this "stepchild adoption" (which I still think is the most straightforward way to put it), then let's at least add something along the line of "but a birth parent and their partner may be eligible to be joint adopters of the child". I would like to point out that the most important restrictions are that the child must not be older than 7 years and that the child must not have been born into a marriage (i.e. that the original legal parents were married to each other). This means that one of the most frequent "stepchild adoption" situations, namely a lesbian couple having a child by way of sperm donation, is clearly covered by the possibility to obtain joint parental status and responsibility in this way. We definitely should not leave the table in a state that seems to imply that this is not possible. Sigur (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Something else: I just realised that the Rainbow Europe site says that "automatic co-parent recognition" is available. Which means that you don't even need adoption in lesbian couples in case of sperm donation. I had looked for that and hadn't found the relevant legislation, but I assume ILGA doesn't say that without a reason. However, that begs the questions whether this information should not be given in the table generally. It is a possibility offered by more and more jurisdictions, at least for lesbian couples (in Europe at least Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, UK, Netherlands, Belgium and Spain). I've listed references to relevant legislations here (references 1 to 10). Adding another column might be too much, but we could mention "automatic co-parent recognition" (where applicable: "for lesbian couples") in the "Adoption by same-sex couples" column. For sure, it's not "adoption", but in order to avoid an additional column, it might be the least bad place to put it. Sigur (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Poland 2
Discuss your edits here.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As you can see here, HumRC constantly reverts my edits which clarify that the situation regarding the legality of same-sex marriage (At least according to constitutional language) is ambiguous and unclear amidst a recent dispute after the Warsaw Administrative Court issued a ruling in January of this year, which ruled that if specific legislation is introduced to amend the family code to recognize same-sex couples and grant the plaintiffs marriage, then Article 18 of the Constitution will not be an obstacle in any way, and thus it doesn't explicitly rule out the possibility of same-sex recognition, even if it does emphasize the right of a marriage between a man and woman, which is protected and guaranteed by the state. Howewer, HumRC insists that there is no dispute because the WSA is "an insignificant court" and thus rapidly reverts my edits with canned edit summaries, sometimes verbatim repeating what he said earlier, without providing any coherent justification or evidence as to whether there is a consensus that the Polish Constitution does ban all forms of same-sex marriage and that they "definitely and explicitly" ruled it so, hence I reverted his latest edit and issued a warning for possible vandalism, which led to this whole debate. That is my opening statement. Adrian Fey (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no judicial dispute. The highest courts have no doubts about the definition of marriage included in Article 18 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Tribunal and the Supreme Administrative Court sufficiently, clearly and definitely stated that the Constitution limits marriage to opposite-sex couples. The decision of WSA regarding the meaning of Article 18 is not binding and does not undermine judicial consensus settled by the Constitutional Tribunal and the Supreme Administrative Court. WSA has no power to undermine or change the interpretation of the Constitution settled by the highest courts. No constitution in the world contains "The right to marriage shall be withheld from homosexual deviants". So according to that erroneous and ridiculous logic, no state in the world prohibits same-sex marriage.


 * On 11 May 2005, the Constitutional Tribunal ruled that:
 * "The Polish Constitution specifies marriage as a union of exclusively of a woman and a man. Thus, a contrario, it does not allow same-sex relationships."


 * On 9 November 2010, the Constitutional Tribunal held that:
 * "The doctrine of constitutional law also indicates that the only normative element that can be decoded from Article 18 of the Constitution is the principle of heterosexuality of marriage."


 * On 25 October 2016, the Supreme Administrative Court stated that:
 * "The Act on Publicly Funded Healthcare Benefits does not explain, however, who is a spouse. But this concept is sufficiently and clearly defined in the aforementioned Article 18 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, which refers to marriage as a union between a woman and a man. The literature emphasizes that Article 18 of the Constitution establishes the principle of heterosexuality of marriage, [...] which prohibits lawmakers from statutory granting the status of marriage to relationships between persons of the same sex. Therefore, it is obvious that marriage in the light of the Constitution, and hence, in the light of Polish law, can only be, and is only a heterosexual union, and thus same-sex individuals cannot be spouses in a marriage."


 * On 28 February 2018, the Supreme Administrative Court ruled that:
 * "Article 18 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, which defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman, [...] requires to treat only a heterosexual union as a marriage in Poland."
 * HumRC (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

What I read here about Poland reminds me of Germany before 2001: The constitution simply stated (and still states) that marriage is under the special protection of the state, and the Constitutional Court had repeatedly mentioned that "marriage" as understood by the constitution is between a man and a woman. At that point, there even was a clear scholarly majority saying that this "special protection" ruled out civil unions. Then we had civil unions, and they were validated by the Constitutional Court. Over time, these civil unions became more and more marriage-like (sometimes even due to a decision by the Constitutional Court itself) and outside administrative contexts most people just called them "marriage". Finally, we now have same-sex marriage, and there is little doubt that if anyone tried to invalidate that on grounds of constitutionality, the Constitutional Court would turn them down. This was a gradual process over twenty years, of course, and if you time-warp back to, say, 1995, it would have been proper to say that the constitution prohibits same-sex marriage. Because for all practical purposes it did. Today, with the same text, it does not. Therefore, I think that writing something along the lines of "The Constitution is generally said by case law and scholars to prohibit same-sex marriage" would be adequate. And I would then still mention the Warsaw Administrative Court decision in one of the footnotes. On a side note, HumRC, some constitutions explicitly define and limit marriage as between a man and a woman; therefore it is far from erroneous and ridiculous to say that only those actually "ban" same-sex marriage, because case law can and does evolve (And as I can see the question coming: It is easy to see how case law would get around Article 18 in twenty years' time: That provision only defines the word marriage in order to say to whom the "special protection and care of the Republic of Poland" applies; it does not prohibit legislation from giving the same protection to others and use the same label on the ordinary law level.  The day you want it because the general consensus has evolved to be in favour of it, it's simple to do). Sigur (talk) 08:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Or maybe, even if it gets a bit long for a table, we should quote the constitution: "The constitution refers to marriage as 'being a union of a man and a woman', and that is generally said by case law and scholars to prohibit same-sex marriage." Sigur (talk) 09:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Polish Constitution explicitly defines and limits the institution of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the German Constitution does not. This is a fundamental difference. The purpose of the introduction of Article 18 was to prohibit lawmakers from statutory establishing marriage for same-sex couples. Law books or journals clearly state that the Polish Constitution bans same-sex marriage.   Only a tiny number of scholars question that. The justification of the Warsaw Administrative Court ruling concerning the meaning of Article 18 is not binding. The sentence is binding only on the parties in the proceedings. HumRC (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There are two reasonings about why same-sex marriage is (now) constitutional in Germany: (1) The societal concept of marriage has evolved and there is no definition of marriage in the constitution; therefore the meaning of the word "marriage" in the constitution can actually change without a formal change of the text. (2) While the constitution only gives special protection to opposite-sex unions and only calls those marriage, there is nothing to prohibit the legislator to give equal protection to same-sex unions as well and call them by the same label on the ordinary-law level. Now, reasoning (1) is ruled out by the text of the Polish constitution, but there is nothing to stop any court from using reasoning (2). Granted, it seems obvious that this would run counter to the intention behind the provision, but that wouldn't be the first time.  So, I think the fairest way to put that in a relatively short way into a table is to quote the actual text (which is impressive enough), but to only talk about a prohibition "generally" understood to flow from there. You admit yourself that "a tiny number of scholars" question the majority view; this makes "generally" an adequate way to convey the right message. (But you will have to fight that out with Adrian Fey. I'm not going to change anything; I'm just trying to give some inspiration.) Sigur (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Adrian Fey has been blocked permanently for disruptive editing. HumRC (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)