Template talk:Same-sex unions/Archive 12

D.C.
Could anybody change title of that article to Same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia? Ron 1987 (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please conduct the discussion on its talk page. gidonb (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

California recognizes some same-sex marriages
Shouldn't California be added in the "recognized" section?

Someone needs to edit this section, so that this fact would be known. Native94080 (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * uhh they don't anymore so no it doesn't need to be added. C T J F 8 3  chat 05:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My bad, must have been Vicodin confusion. C T J F 8 3  chat 20:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As proposed, it would be a selective inclusion of a previous situation. gidonb (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, California does recognize the large majority of extant same-sex marriages. They recognize not only all of the marriages entered into in California during the period of legality in this state, but all of the marriages entered into in any authorized jurisdiction, so your Canadian, Massachusetts, or wherever marriage is valid here as long as you entered into it before late 2008. See Same-sex marriage in California for more details. - Nat Gertler (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why I wrote "as proposed". Technically you could put it next to NY under "recognize, not perform", limiting the recognition in time, without adding a "recognized" section. Get across that previously recognized SSM remains recognized, without concentrating on the previous situation itself. It is somewhat complicated to put it very consisely. However, you can use the example of Isle of Man further below for a reasonable format when limiting in space and take it from there. Also adjust the other way around. Space and time limiting formats should correspond in the same template. gidonb (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was working under the assumption that that was the section intended, and thus why the initial poster was saying for it to be added in a section, not for a section to be added. It seems the best fit there. - Nat Gertler (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We agree on how it can be done! gidonb (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. - Nat Gertler (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I reorganized. It was just too fuzzy. gidonb (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I undoed at least part of your reorg. The template should reflect current status, not all of history. As such, CA is "recognized, not performed". - Nat Gertler (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Theoretically it can be done, but it is very complicated to place it with the correct exclusions. However, you just put it in without any exclusions. Very misleading. I found another solution. Easiest is not to include it at all. It does reflect a historic situation. gidonb (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the current situation is that California recognizes the large majority of SSMs that have been entered into. All SSMs that were legally recognized where they were performed are legally recognized in CA... so long as they were performed before a date in November, 2008. We don't need every fine-tune point possible in this overview sidebar; that's what the links are for. - Nat Gertler (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a current situation that reflects a past situation. California does not recognize new SSM. Unlike New York that you listed together. Why do you use discussion pages if you just enforce all your opinions through edit warring and without connection to what is being discussed? gidonb (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? It was suggested that California be added to the "recognizes" section. I said that it should go in that existing section. You said you agreed. I made the change - and then you unilaterally moved California to another section, against consensus reached on the talk page, repeatedly following whatever appeared to be your whim of the moment. So you'll pardon me if I don't embrace your claims of who is ignoring what is being discussed. - Nat Gertler (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We discussed that California would be included under recognized with limitations yet you placed it there twice without limitations. This is not how things should work. Your overly assertive style in discussions and repeated reverting is not the best way to interact with your colleagues. gidonb (talk) 09:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We agreed that it should be put under "recognized". I put it under recognized. You, working against anything that had been discussed here, moved it to "performed". I restored it to "recognized" as per the consensus reached here. You again, against anything that had been discussed here by anyone,moved it to "performed". I again move it to where it had been agreed to be placed in discussion, with a note that such recognition was "conditional", to address your apparent concerns that it might be thought to be without limitation. The alterations that you made not only varied from any agreement in this section, it varied from the very intent of this section: that it be listed that CA recognizes SSMs. Putting in that they performed them in 2008 does not make any statement as to whether they recognize them now. - Nat Gertler (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather than put the word "Conditional" in parenthesis next to California, wouldn't it be better to put asterisks next to the initials CA and indicate the notes beneath it? Please look at Template:Same-sex_unions_in_the_United_States Native94080 (talk) 08:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that if we start getting into that level of notes for every jurisdiction that has some kink in it, we end up with something that is far too notes-heavy for what is not supposed to be a central document, but a summary document with wikilinks in it where details are to be found. (Having said that, the descriptor used in Template:Same-sex_unions_in_the_United_States is a good one if we need go that path.) - Nat Gertler (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Portugal
Portugal legalized same sex marraige today, 1/8/09 and should be added to the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.220.65 (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, they didn't, although they took a substantial step toward that. There was a vote in parliament, but the bill still has to go hrough committee, then back for another vote, and then I think a presidential signature (or potentially a veto with veto override) before becoming law. See this. - Nat Gertler (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Next week Portugal will vote on the Equal Marriage Code 2010 (a bill to allow same sex marriage) again for the second reading in the unicamerial legislator (one house). Then the president might either sign it into law or veto it - if a veto is done there can be an override. The president is a conservative right-wing person so my guessing he will veto it (but there is more than enough votes to override him).

Remember it does not include adoption rights (just like what Belgium did back in 2003). But adoption did come later in 2005 (2 years later) - the same will happen in Portugal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not necessarily certain that Portugal will achieve adoption equality in two years' time. The Socrates Government seems to place a lot of emphasis on sticking to its electoral platform. Same-sex marriage was only legalised after it was part of the Socialist Party's platform for the 2009 elections. Same-sex adoption was not included in the platform, and the Government explicitly cited this as the main reason why adoption rights were not included in the marriage equality bill (its rationale was essentially "voters approved same-sex marriage but not same-sex adoption"). Furthermore, public support for same-sex adoption is significantly lower than for same-sex marriage. Thus, it is unlikely that same-sex adoption will be legalised during the current term of the Socrates Government. There are, of course, several ways forward. One is that the Constitutional Court will impose legalisation of same-sex adoption, arguing that all marriages must provide the same rights, and that specifically preventing same-sex married couples from adopting violates the constitutional ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Another possibility is that same-sex adoption be legalised after the next elections (2013) if the Socialist Party wins another term. Ronline ✉ 10:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Does this law include IVF access and parentage for all women????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Nepal
Numerous media sources have announced in the past week that Nepal will be legalising same-sex marriage as part of its new constitution, due to come into force by May 2010. Despite this, I don't think the country should be listed in the template yet. The Constitution has not yet been approved and it is not even conclusively known whether same-sex marriage will be included. Nepal is currently at about the same stage that Luxembourg and Iceland are: there has been a relatively firm commitment that same-sex marriage will be legalised, drafting on the law has started, but the law has not been approved yet. I think Nepal should only be listed once the new constitution is approved by the Constituent Assembly, and only if this constitution expressly provides for same-sex marriage. Ronline ✉ 02:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that because there was a set date that the new constitution will come into force, that it had already been passed by the Constituent Assembly. Since you seem to know quite a bit about the subject, any ideas when such a vote would take place? The UN has also reported that they will pull out after May. --haha169 (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I've just found out that the Constitution will not even come into force in May 2010: this is simply the date by which the final Constitution will be released publicly (i.e. the drafting process will finish) . It must then be voted upon by the Constituent Assembly and will only enter into force at a date established (it could even be early 2011). However, what is a bit confusing is that some media seem to be suggesting that same-sex marriages will be taking place soon. It may be possible that Hindu SSMs (presumably unrecognised under the civil law) will be conducted in Nepal before civil SSM is recognised, in the same way that some Hindu ceremonies have already been conducted in India. In any case, Nepal is definitely a country to watch; I just think that it will take some time before SSM is finally implemented. Ronline ✉ 06:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

New York in Unregistered cohabitation section?
,,  What do you think? New York should be included in Unregistered cohabitation section or not?. Ron 1987 20:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Buenos Aires
I don't think Buenos Aires should be included in the template, for the same reason that it wasn't included when the first same-sex marriage was authorised in the city, and for the same reason that Tierra del Fuego, where a same-sex marriage has already been performed, is not included. Jurisdictions should only be included when they perform same-sex marriage under the general law, rather than only offering them to specific couples. Ronline ✉ 02:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As per my edit summary, which unfortunately was cut off due to limits; but my interpretation was that the judge struck down the law, saying that "it was not in line with the modern day" or something like that. --haha169 (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.medindia.net/news/Argentina-Has-Allowed-Its-Second-Same-Sex-Marriage-65529-1.htm A second couple has tied the knot in Bueno Aries. --haha169 (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The court judgement, like the previous one, only applies to the particular plaintiffs. Of course, the judge found the law to be invalid; this was the only way in which she could have decided that the couple had a right to marry. However, unlike in the United States, this does not mean that any other couple can now simply go to a civil registry office to get married. Ronline ✉ 14:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Another reference:
 * http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jQoV_ctXiWM-0kpkWLH_tBRJDV6A Native94080 (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And to discourage further insertion attempts, let me note that the second marriage has been revoked. -Nat Gertler (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"Status in other jurisdictions"
This section makes no sense. This template is about same-sex unions. The page title is "Template:Same-sex unions", the title of template output is "Legal recognition of same-sex couples", and that text links to Status of same-sex marriage. Previously, there were two sections where the "Status in other jurisdictions" one is: Marriage debated and Civil unions debated. The only possible problem with that formulation was that people tended to exclude some jurisdictions where debates had petered out. The current list appears to simply be a list of every country or US state that has an article about gay rights but isn't listed above. A navigation template about gay rights around the world already exists, so it isn't necessary here. What's more, such a list isn't germane to this template. This template is aimed at navigating among discussion of same-sex unions, not overall gay rights. I've changed the title back to something actually related to debate, and will start weeding out non-germane articles tomorrow. -Rrius (talk) 10:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not agree. The list already included only jurisdictions where recognition of same-sex unions is or was debated. Ukraine, Burundi or Lousiana and some other contries and states are included because these countries implemented a same-sex marriage constitutional bans. Debate about a same-sex marriage ban it is debate about same-sex unions. Articles such as "LGBT rights in Ukraine" or "LGBT rights in Burundi" are included because distinct articles about status of same-sex unions in these countries not exists. Ron 1987 13:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your point. You say that those qualify because SSM was debated, but you oppose having the heading refer to debate. The "status" heading promises something it doesn't deliver: some notion of the current status in those jurisdiction. If the list broke out the different forms of bans, there would be something to, but it doesn't. What's more, there was a real benefit to having links to places where there was a meaningful debate occurring. There was some residual, though I admit debatable, value to listing places where debates had petered out because they were the most likely to resume. The current list has no value as regards SSM because it makes no differentiation at all among the various categories of jurisdictions. -Rrius (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Since this template is already long, and that information duplicates information available in other articles and in templates already likely to be at LGBT articles, I've removed it.
 * Very doubful edit. I reverted that. Ron 1987 02:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If we list those countries, why not list every country in the world, and their status? I think it makes the template too long.  C T J F 8 3  chat 02:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The list already included only countries, where recognition of same-sex unions was or is debated.Ron 1987 02:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it didn't. The template originally had a list of only places where was or recently had been a debate. That list was replaced with the "status" list, which is a catch-all. The template is too bloody long to just include a very long list of, essentially, every other country-specific LGBT article out there. This is a list about same-sex unions, not LGBT issues. Finally, do not revert people on the basis of the edit in question being "doubtful". That means nothing. If you have an actual reason, state it, if don't act. -Rrius (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that list included only countries where same-sex unions were or are debated. I reverted that per reasons I stated above. It is sufficient reason. Ron 1987 03:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is only places where it has been debated, then why was my original attempt to rename the section "doubtful"? Also, why don't you see a problem with the extreme length of this template? -Rrius (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It should go without saying, but apparently it doesn't, "Jurisdictions with current or recent debates on SSUs" includes debates to ban. -Rrius (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is good resolution.Ron 1987 03:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that is the initial edit you reverted and responded to here, so we've come full circle. You still are not answering the question about the length of the template. -Rrius (talk) 03:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Rhode Island
I have read in a few different sources that Rhode Island recognizes same sex marriages performed else where. http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=102799 None of them have been very deffinative, mostly new synopsis of current recognition. Does anyone know of any conclusive, citable evidence one way or another? It was my understanding they don't and I imagine its confusion over the state recognizing them as civil unions or something. Goodleh (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are references confirming that RI does recognize SSM:
 * http://www.marriageequalityri.org/www/learn/marriage_faq/
 * http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/publications/ri-marriage-guide.pdf
 * http://www.freedomtomarry.org/states/ Native94080 (talk) 05:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Unregistered cohabitation in Poland
Hi. I'm wondering if we should include Poland under unregistered cohabitation. In the recent case of Kozak v. Poland, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that tenancy succession benefits provided to those in "de facto marital cohabitation" must also extend to same-sex couples. See here for a brief overview of the case. The ruling appears to be very similar to Karner v. Austria (2003), on which basis Austria was included in the "unregistered cohabitation" section of the template before it passed registered partnerships. See Recognition of same-sex unions in Austria. The reason why I'm unsure of adding Poland is that I don't know whether the decision has any applicability beyond the particular plaintiff in the case. I think Poland should only be included if, as a result of Kozak v. Poland, same-sex couples are now recognised as being in "de facto marital cohabitation" for the purposes of tenancy succession law. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 07:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the decision does seem reminiscent to the Austria ruling. However, I agree with you that we do not know whether the ruling applies broadly. --haha169 (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rulings of ECHR does not apply automatically to all cases. Everybody who wants to execute rights implyinf of this ruling needs to go to court. Furthermore, in Poland, doesn't exist something like "unregistered cohabitation" in the sense of family law, so this ruling doesn't change anything so far. A Man from Poland (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, well clearly there is some recognition of "de facto marital cohabitation" under Polish law. Does this only apply to tenancy succession, or also to other areas of law? (e.g. inheritance, social security, etc). Ronline ✉ 14:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Informations about status of cohabitations http://fragolina.pl/artykuly/Konkubinat_405 http://www.kancelaria.home.pl/images/artykuly/konkubinat.html Ron 1987 17:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Currently it is only tenancy succession under this ruling, but it does not work the way as it is in USA for example. In Poland only rulings made by Polish Supreme Court or Constitutional Tribunal have the power of law. Ruling by ECHR applies only to situation in which was made until the parliament enact proper legislation. But everyone who will go with similar case to ECHR will win. A Man from Poland (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It is still not clear yet, whether the Polish law recognizes same-sex unions
These are judgments for one case of a homosexual couple in which the Supreme Court held that a homosexual relationship is not a cohabitation (defined solely as the union of man and woman). However, the court described same sex union as a partnership. Besides, it found, that there is no basis for this to cohabitation and partnership be treated differently by the law. Polish law generally does not cover informal cohabiting couples, but some laws on different topics also include couples living in informal relationships. (see: Sytuacja prawna i społeczna osób LGBT w Polsce/Uznanie związków osób tej samej płci on Polish language wiki site))

Definition of cohabitation by the Supreme Court:
Według Sądu Najwyższego: „konkubinat to wspólne pożycie analogiczne do małżeńskiego, tyle, że pozbawione legalnego węzła. Oznacza to istnienie ogniska domowego charakteryzującego się duchową, fizyczną i ekonomiczną więzią, łączącą mężczyznę i kobietę. Konkubinat nie odnosi się więc do związków osób tej samej płci, które najczęściej określa się jako związki partnerskie. Konkubinat pełni podobną do małżeństwa rolę, przy czym brakuje mu cech sformalizowania woli wzajemnego pożycia.”

Some judgments for gay coupe:
WYROK SĄDU APELACYJNEGO W BIAŁYMSTOKU

z dnia 23 lutego 2007 r. Sygn. akt I ACa  590/06 1. Pod pojęciem konkubinatu należy rozumieć stabilną, faktyczną wspólnotę osobisto-majątkową dwojga osób. Bez znaczenia we wspomnianym aspekcie jest płeć. 2. Nie ma podstaw do stosowania odmiennych zasad przy rozliczaniu konkubinatu homoseksualnego niż te, które mają zastosowanie odnośnie konkubinatu heteroseksualnego. http://bialystok.sa.sisco.info/?id=1352

WYROK SĄDU NAJWYŻSZEGO W WARSZAWIE

Wyrok Sądu Najwyższego - Izba Cywilna z dnia 6 grudnia 2007 r. IV CSK 301/2007 Jeśli osoby pozostające w związku partnerskim dorobiły się majątku, to po jego ustaniu należy go rozliczyć zgodnie z przepisami o bezpodstawnym wzbogaceniu.

Wyrok Sądu Najwyższego - Izba Cywilna z dnia 6 grudnia 2007 r. IV CSK 326/2007 Do rozliczeń majątkowych po rozpadzie związku nieformalnego sąd nie może stosować reguł prawa rodzinnego o podziale dorobku małżeńskiego. Skoro nie ma przepisów, które regulowałyby konkubinat jako trwałą wspólnotę osobistą i majątkową, do ich rozliczeń majątkowych mają zastosowanie wyłącznie przepisy kodeksu cywilnego. http://dziennik3rp.blogspot.com/2007/12/nie-ma-wsplnoci-jest-bezpodstawne.html http://www.rp.pl/artykul/4,74934.html

SSM IS NOW LEGAL IN PORTUGAL. PLEASE UPDATE THIS ARTICLE.
I tried to update it by myself but apparently this page is semi-protected!

Registered users, do proceed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.58.77.84 (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, is not legal yet. Ron 1987 13:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Mexico
All the mexican states recognize the SSM performed in Mexico City because there is no DOMA in that country. So it should be Mexico (performed in mexico city only) in the section of recognized not performed. and the map should be changed as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.26.6.145 (talk) 06:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This has not been legally tested yet, and there is no precedent yet. --haha169 (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Jurisdictions with current or recent debates on SSUs
Does it make sense to list all the countries, which proposed same sex unions in the past? Shouldn't we just list the countries which are NOW considering some legal recognition of same-sex unions? otherwise the list will become way too long in some years! Instead of this list we should make a list of the countries which are now considering to adopt same-sex marriage and in another one which are considering registered partnerships/civil unions - I bet that the list wouldn't be so long!Olliyeah (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Too long? I don't think it is problem. Ron 1987 00:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it is. This template gets transcluded to pages that aren't very long and also include other LGBT-related templates. Minimizing the footprint of this template is important, and should be done if possible. the simplest solution would be to remove the debate section altogether and put it in a bottom nav template placed on articles that discuss those debates. -Rrius (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Asterisks
Ok, if you’re going to use an asterisk to indicate that something needs qualification you need to put a following asterisk somewhere, most likely the bottom of the chart, that explains what that qualification is. Goodleh (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Splitting of Civil unions and registered partnerships
I believe this section should be split as these two sub categories are very different and convey the wrong impression.

Civil Partnerships (as in the UK's case) is akin to Same Sex Marriage as widely discussed on the talk page there, whereas a registration of partnerships (for example in NSW's case in Australia) is nothing more than signining a book in the town hall. It offers nothing in the way of legal rights.

This section really needs to clearly set out those countries and state which have:-


 * Same Sex Marriage (exactly as heterosexual marriage)
 * Civil Unions / Registration (affording the same or very similar rights as heterosexual marriage)
 * Registered Partnerships (affording some or no legal rights)
 * Co-habitation (affording the same or very similar rights as heterosexual co-habitation)

and the recognition of each of these categories.

It is important to be able to see "at-a-glance" where each country/state falls. At the moment it is getting very messy.

Also the headings need to be succinctly explained (at the moment the reader has to wade through several pages to work out what is what). The exceptions and asterisks also need explanation.

I suggest a summary section similar to Status_of_same-sex_marriage explaining the differences *as used to categorise countries* listed in this template. Paul Jeffrey Thompson 08:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjthompso (talk • contribs)


 * The distinction drawn between "civil unions" and "registered partnerships" above is for the most part a problematic one. All of the schemes listed on this template confer some rights on the parties signing them. The NSW registration scheme, for example, does confer on partners nearly all of the state and federal rights of marriage, and is thus very similar to the UK civil partnership scheme. The only difference is that the NSW scheme does not contain a ceremony, while the UK scheme includes a ceremony. There are indeed some schemes that are purely symbolic and afford no rights (e.g. domestic partnership at the municipal level in the US, or the symbolic civil partnership registries established by some Italian provinces). However, these are not listed on this template at all.


 * I think there are two ways in which registered partnership schemes can be categorised (and I use "registered partnership" as shorthand for "civil union", "civil partnership", "domestic partnership" etc):


 * Ceremonial vs non-ceremonial: this is a useful intuitive distinction, but I don't think it's significant enough to warrant a new division in the template. Furthermore, it is often difficult to draw a line between a ceremonial scheme and non-ceremonial one. In some cases (Denmark, Finland, UK, etc), a statutory marriage-like ceremony is compulsory when the partnership is signed. In other cases, a ceremony is possible, but optional (Tasmania, ACT); or a ceremony is only offered in some parts of the country as an administrative discretion (France, Germany, Austria); or a ceremony is offered but is very different to/much weaker than a marriage ceremony (Slovenia). The ceremonial/non-ceremonial distinction can also provide a misleading impression, since it suggests that ceremonial schemes confer more rights, which is not always the case. For example, the NSW and Victorian schemes, which contain no ceremony, provide more rights (IVF, parentage presumptions, joint property and social security rights) than the Czech and Slovenian schemes, which are ceremonial.


 * Full rights of marriage vs partial rights: this is perhaps a more important substantive distinction, but again it is difficult to draw lines in the sand. Very few registered partnership schemes provide all of the rights of marriage. To my knowledge, only the UK and Iceland are in this category (this may also be the case in Denmark since joint adoption by registered partners was legalised recently). Thus, a more useful distinction may be between schemes that offer "all or almost all" of the rights of marriage (Category 1), and those that only offer "limited or enumerated" rights (Category 2). However, it is again difficult to determine a set of criteria for including a scheme in Category 1 or 2. Registered partnerships in Hungary and Switzerland, for instance, offer all of the rights of marriage except adoption, IVF and a common surname. Would these be included in Category 1 or 2?


 * For the reasons above, as well as the fact that adding a new category will only make the template more fragmented, I don't think it's a good idea to disaggregate the current "civil union or registered partnership" category. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 09:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It is reasonable enough not to fragment the panel any further. The distinctions between Full rights of marriage vs partial rights and Ceremonial vs non-ceremonial' are I believe very important. This touches on the whole debate of the equality of the various "civil unions" and "registered partnerships" with heterosexual marriage. For example with the NSW vs UK case again, my understanding is that the NSW legislation is largely rejected by LGBTI community as it locks into law inequality between same sex couples and opposite sex couples. I don't have statistics but I gather there hasn't been a rush. The NSW scheme look similar but is quite different to the UK Civil Partnership Act which conveys (for all intents and purposes) the same set of rights.


 * Maybe a better way to convey the similarities and differences between the various schemes is a table (maybe as a supplement to the timeline page) which illustrates how same sex partnership legislation compares with opposite sex legislation within each state and country.  Paul (Paul Jeffrey Thompson 20:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC))  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjthompso (talk • contribs)


 * The NSW legislation also confers largely the same rights (except adoption), except it is also open to opposite-sex couples. The main reason why the NSW scheme has been less enthusiastically received than the UK scheme is because it lacks any ceremonial component. Within NSW, it is often compared to a "dog register" for this reason. I agree with a comparison table, I think it would be a good idea to have a brief overview of each scheme: the extent of rights in provides, whether it is ceremonial/how it is formalised, etc. Ronline ✉ 13:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)