Template talk:Same-sex unions/Archive 20

Suggested solution for denoting future legal recognition
I have a compromise solution for how to present the fact that certain jurisdictions are going to allow same-sex marriage in the future per legal rulings. At the moment the asterisk marks laws "not yet in effect", as in the case of Austria (it's passed, it's immutable, it's finalised, just the marriages haven't started happening yet because the date hasn't arrived). This is slightly different in the case of Costa Rica and Taiwan, as the ruling has obliged another body to do something about it, but nothing's actually happened, nothing has passed, no date is known for when any hypothetical law will come into effect. So can't we just make that clear in the footnotes, eg. another symbol representing "Automatic deadline set by judicial body for legislation to be completed" (or whatever exact wording would be best). Rather than having to have this discussion about whether or not to include every time. I'll try to make the changes to indicate what I mean. Jdcooper (talk) 10:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This wording "Deadline set by judicial body for action to be taken by parliament" suggests that legalization depends on the parliament's action, which is not true. And no, Austria is not different from Costa Rica. In both countries same-sex marriage will become legal regardless of parliament's actions. Ron 1987 (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And in Taiwan, it is entirely possible for a much weaker version of Civil Union to be passed that would satisfy the Judicial Body.Naraht (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That is why it is completely inaccurate to portray Taiwan as having judicially-mandated action on (specifically) SSM. That edit, adding this new category without consensus, should be reverted (I would, but I can't). 50.37.121.190 (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Ron 1987, change the wording then, that was just a first attempt, as I said. If the Austria and Costa Rica cases are the same then change the wording on both articles to make it clear. At the moment it reads like SSM was legalized by the court in Austria, but an automatic deadline was set by the court in Costa Rica. Jdcooper (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:Ron 1987, the sections I referred to from the Costa Rica article are: That sounds a lot more like the Taiwan case to me, the way it's worded. If you are saying it's the same as the Austria case, then what's the deadline date? I will rewrite it if you like. Jdcooper (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) (from the lead) "...a ruling by the Supreme Court on 8 August 2018 declared unconstitutional the sections of the Family Code that impede same-sex marriage, and gave the Legislative Assembly 18 months to reform the law accordingly, otherwise the sections of the Code would be abolished automatically."
 * 2) (from the main body) "On August 8, 2018, the Sala IV declared all three of the articles in question unconstitutional, and gave the Legislative Assembly 18 months to amend the laws accordingly. If the Assembly does not comply, both same-sex marriage and same-sex de facto unions will automatically become legal when the deadline passes. The ruling was welcomed by President Carlos Alvarado Quesada, but several lawmakers expressed doubts that the legislature would amend the law before the deadline." (why would that matter if it's gonna be automatic? Why would they say that?)
 * The deadline date is not yet known. The Court's statement says about 18 months counting from publication of the full ruling in the official journal, which is not yet done. It would take several weeks. It's not like Taiwan, because the Costa Rican parliament was not given the right to pass some form of civil unions, instead of marriage. Yes, it's gonna be automatic, but LGBT groups and ruling party lawmakers are not happy with the deadline, saying that this is unnecessary delay. They hoped for immediate legalization. Given its compositiion, it looks like the parliament will do nothing, and there will be no sooner legalisation, just like in Austria. Ron 1987 (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, so it sounds like the situation in Costa Rica will be like Austria, when they name the date. But nothing's happened yet. And the article about Taiwan doesn't mention anything about civil unions, it says the court ordered the parliament to legislate for civil unions. Is that a mistake? If so it should be changed. Jdcooper (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Section about the ruling includes such a claim, but after reading the ruling, I doubt whether the court indeed gave the parliament the right to choose other form than marriage... The parliament can either amend the Civil Code or pass separate law. The latter option is a little bit confusing. Ron 1987 (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I originally took that to mean that the court didn't mind whether the parliament amended the current law, or made a new law specifically for SSM, as long as the result was SSM being legal.. Jdcooper (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

There seems to have been agreement that Costa Rica would be like Austria when the decision was published, starting the official 18-month clock: that happened on Nov. 14 (media are imprecisely reporting the effective date as 'mid-2020' ). However, Taiwan has become even more ambiguous. With today's three referenda reportedly going against, we now have a constitutional conundrum that will have to be resolved. I previously favored removal of Taiwan before, and now even more so, but at a minimum the symbol-note should be modified to reflect the uncertainty (with a change of Costa Rica's status to '*', the '+' would only be used for Taiwan and could thus be optimized). 50.37.104.202 (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Presentation
Are the footnotes not sufficient? Do we really need countries like New Zealand and Netherlands further broken down into "New Zealand proper" and "Netherlands proper" and UK "3 out of 4 countries". The terms are unfamiliar, expand the literal size of the template and defeat the purpose of the footnotes. As I mentioned in the edit, a cleanup of this type of formatting was made 12 months ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Same-sex_unions/Archive_19#United_States_and_United_Kingdom_notes). Global-Cityzen (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I guess it depends on how much we want to dumb down the article, because our readers can't be expected to know basic geography, vs how much we expect an encyclopedia to be accurate. I mean, we could replace "UK" with "England" (as we call it here in the US) because the difference is confusing and doesn't really matter anyway.


 * If we're going to say SSM is performed in the UK, and then add a footnote that they aren't performed everywhere in the UK, then we should do the same with Mexico. The situations are quite similar. If we're going to add a line indicating where in Mexico, then to be consistent we should do the same for the UK.


 * I don't mean the UK territories. They aren't actually in the UK, so I have no problem with a footnote for them. But N.Ireland is an integral member of the UK. It's the whole reason for the "United" in the name "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" -- without N.Ireland, there is no UK, just Great Britain. I don't see how 3/4 countries in the UK is different in any relevant way from 13/32 states/'entities' in Mexico, or 1/3 countries in N.Zealand, or 1/4 countries in the Netherlands.


 * — kwami (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I moved the Mexican entities to a fn as well. SSM is not performed in the UK, just in GB, but I'll concede it's close enough if we treat states consistently. — kwami (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I like it. Of course Northern Ireland is an integral part of the UK, in a way that the territories are not. Templates like these are supposed to summarise information that can be read in detail on the relevant pages. Does that mean the way we treat the "United Kingdom" in this template differs from Mexico, where SSM is performed only in some part of the country (like UK) but recognised everywhere in the country (unlike the UK)? Sure. But that's what the footnotes are for so I think your recent changes accomplish this with as minimum a fuss and with as little extra info as possible. Global-Cityzen (talk) 04:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

That's good, then. Since SSM is recognized across Mexico, it's more important to list the regions of the UK and NZ than of Mexico, the opposite of what we had. As you say, you can be married in Yucatan even if you can't get married there, but you can't be married in N.Ireland at all. — kwami (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

It's really 15 states in Mexico, if we go by the standards of the country listing. But I can't think of a more concise way of saying 3 of them are judicial decrees not yet in effect. That would make the note a bit long. Any ideas? — kwami (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Poland
Hi Sorry but the law and constitution specefically without doubt ban same sex marriages and uses man wome The law was not striken down by the suoreme or constitutional court of the country The statuoary ban still exist and as u know u doubt that the right conservative parliament and goverment will never change the law nor accept itvesides the same marriage was not recognised so

Is it wise to assume as many did like in marriages ban or recongnition in europe or european union pages that poland no longer still has a constitutional marriage ban I think it does have and will have it So editing wrongly other pages on that is wrong? Should we revert them to point that poland still has the ban it dasnt striken down or changed u know What do u think?

Thank u AdamPrideTN (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It sounds like a court in Poland did rule that there was no constitutional SSM ban in Poland. Like you, I expect that the government will now move to reinstate the ban, but until they do I guess we can leave them off the list. It's easy enough to add them back if that does happen, but until then we can't assume (see WP:CRYSTAL) Jdcooper (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * AFAICT, there is no need to reinstate the ban. They didn't determine that the ban was unconstitutional, just that SSM was not banned by the constitution. The leg is free to provide for SSM or ban it as they see fit, with no need to amend the constitution. — kwami (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Armenia, again
Guys, Armenia has a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and is one of the most conservative countries in Europe for LGBT people. How could it possibly be listed under 'recognized abroad'? Again, registration of a foreign certificate does not mean recognition of rights. We only have one very poor source about the registration of marriage certificates. As long as further clarification is provided, Armenia should be under 'limited or partial recognition' IMHO, or not listed at all as this is probably a mistake of the Armenian ministry with no intention of legalising marriage. Finedelledanze (talk) 09:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The Armenia source I presented states: Armenia's Ministry of Justice declaring earlier this year that international marriage licenses, including for same-sex couples, are valid in Armenia. Then: It is time for Armenia to expend the same rights to its own citizens. This is as clear as it can be (note also that this is from an Armenian gay activist). As for Estonia, the source is also very clear, in that Estonia recognizes same-sex marriages performed abroad, but decides each case individually. So I do believe a note should be added. Maybe Assessed on a case-by-case basis? Grouping these two countries in the limited and partial recognition section is misleading. For starters because we have no evidence whatsoever that Armenia and Estonia treat gay couples married abroad differently than straight couples married abroad. Assuming they do simply because they're "conservative" is extremely deceptive. And secondly because they are grouped with countries such as Taiwan or Japan which simply recognize hospital visitation rights and certain property rights, which again is misleading.Panda2018 0 (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Panda, for Armenia we need to find direct sources (a law, a decree, an official statement from the Government, an explanation of a jurist), we have none of these, just a news website. Armenia has a constitutional same-sex marriage ban, which makes recognition of foreign same-sex marriage extremely unlikely from a legal point of view. For Estonia, several sources cited in the Estonia article explain that recognition happens on a case by case basis or it is limited to EU nationals: this is why recognition is limited (and add to this the notion that registration of a foreign marriage is not per se recognition of rights, just transcription of a foreign certificate to unknown domestic application - laws or courts need to indicate how domestic law should treat foreign contracts). Also Estonian civil unions are problematic because they lack implementation legislation, but there is evidence and wiki-consensus that they are regularly performed. Finedelledanze (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Both of these cases bother me, but we can only go by the sources we have. If they are inaccurate, please come up with other sources to indicate that. The fact that Armenia has a constitutional ban is irrelevant -- god knows how the law is interpreted. It could simply mean that SSM cannot be conducted in Armenia. We can't interpret the constitution ourselves, that would be OR.

On the other hand, both may 'recognize' SSM couple without accepting them as married, e.g. for residency rights as is the case in Romania. If that's the case, we'd presumably remove them from this table and change the coloring in the map from solid to striped. But it would be OR to do that without sources. — kwami (talk) 07:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not trying to pass this off as a source, and I don't read Armenian anyway (I'm plugging into Google Translate, which is giving surprisingly coherent results), but the Armenian WP article states,
 * Հայաստանը, Էստոնիան և Իսրայելը չանաչում են նույնասեռ ամուսնությունները, որոնք կատարվել են այլ երկրներում։ Նույնասեռ ամուսնությունները օրենքով պատրաստվում են ճանաչել նաև Ավստրիան, Կոստա Ռիկան և Թայվանը։
 * Armenia, Estonia and Israel do not recognize homosexual marriages that have taken place in other countries. Similarly, homosexual marriages are also legally recognized by Austria, Costa Rica and Taiwan.

The article is clearly just a translation of some other wiki, but the 'not' seemed odd, especially give the following 'similarly'. Turns out that it was changed, without sources or even an edit summary, from,
 * Բացի այդ, Հայաստանը, Իսրայելը և Էստոնիան ճանաչում են նույնասեռ ամուսնությունները, որոնք օրինականացվել են այլ երկրներում։
 * In addition, Armenia, Israel and Estonia recognize homosexual marriages that have been legalized in other countries.

So, WP-hy would seem to be just like here, w people insisting on the 'truth' without providing any evidence. If anyone should be able to dig up evidence that the reports are inaccurate, it should be the people at WP-hy. I've also asked on the talk page for them to let us know. I do suspect that Armenia is more like Hong Kong than like Israel, but we do need sources. — kwami (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

followup - evidently no actual cases are known, so so far this is a theoretical point. — kwami (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

balanced...
Well, getting another nation to have SSM is *one* way to balance to columns. :)Naraht (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

"Recognized"
Under "Marriage", we have "performed" and "recognized". Israel, Mexico and theoretically Armenia recognize out-of-state marriage as marriage, so it makes sense to have them under "Marriage". Estonia, Aruba, Italy, Switzerland etc. etc. also recognize out-of-state marriage, but do not treat them as marriages. To me, it does not make sense to include them under "marriage", but under the category they treat them as. After all, this is about people's rights, and the higher in the chart a state is, the more rights it accords. St Maartin does not give you the rights than Israel or even Italy does, so IMO it should not be above them in the chart. Also, if we're not going to restrict "recognized" under "marriage" to mean treatment as marriage, what is the cut-off? Romania and Lithuania "recognize" out-of-state marriage, so if we're going to do that, shouldn't both the CU and 'limited rec' sections simply be merged into the "recognition" section? What other non-arbitrary cut-off is there? — kwami (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Recognized" section should stay as it is. Do you have any proof that Aruba does not recognize same-sex marriages performed in the metropolitan Netherlands as marriages? Recognition of such marriages was established by the court ruling years before the island enacted registered partnership law. And no, unequal treatment is not a proof, as we are talking about the designation of "marriage" itself. Ron 1987 (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Our own article says they do not. If they do, then of course they should be in this section, but then our article should be corrected. — kwami (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The article says no such thing. Same-sex marriages have been recognized since 2007, and Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten have been listed under "Recognized" ever since. Like Ron 1987 said, partnerships were established long after the SC ruling. To suddenly claim that these marriages are registered partnerships is absurd and certainly unsourced. Panda2018 0 (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * To quote the ruling itself: "Article 40 of the Statute entails that a deed drawn up by an official, such as a marriage certificate, in the Netherlands, the Netherlands Antilles or Aruba has the same legal force and effects in all parts of the Kingdom. The Kingdom counts as one jurisdiction on this point. That is why the Aruban court must accept the legal force of this Dutch marriage certificate." Panda2018 0 (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Then why do we say "partially recognized by Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten"? From what you just said, it sounds like they're fully recognized. Similarly, in the lead of the article we say, "they don't have to give same-sex marriages the same legal effect as opposite-sex marriages", directly contradicting what you just quoted. We even have a section "Non-equal treatment of married couples", where we summarize a court statment that such marriages do not have the same legally force as opposite-sex marriages. So, did we get it wrong in the article and footnote here? Has the ruling you cited overridden the ruling our article and fn ref? — kwami (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

BTW, the claim that moving the islands to 'limited recognition' is "ludicrous" because they have more rights thn the residency-only rec of Romania etc is silly -- we could just as easily compare them to Israel, Cambodia, the Caymans and Taiwan, all of which are in that category and all of which would seem to offer rights that Romania etc do not. The table is crudely divided, but it seems obvious to me that a country should not appear under 'marriage' if it does not allow marriage (counting recognition of out-of-state marriage), and if Aruba et al. do allow marriage, then yes, they belong at the top under 'marriage', but we need a good 2ary ref and then we need to reword the footnote and correct the article. If they do not allow marriage -- if they register it and file it away and don't act on it, as our article currently implies -- then they don't belong under 'marriage'. Their recognition should be listed in the section appropriate for the actual rights conferred. Northern Ireland and Italy also recognize out-of-state marriage. The CU's in Italy were partly designed for just that, and the CU's of Ireland are partly intended to accommodate SSM from elsewhere in the UK. Since that's similar to how our article describes Aruba, then if the article is correct and we include Aruba, we need to include N.Ireland, Italy et al. And if we include Curacao and St Maarten, which apparently don't even confer the rights of CU's, then we need to include Romania, Latvia and the rest. Either that or clarify in their article how Curacao and St Maarten confer all the rights of marriage. — kwami (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * According to this interesting article right here, "the recognition of the marriage certificate also means the recognition of the legal consequences of said certificate". This seems to be pursuant to a 2008 court ruling in Willemstad (which isn't mentioned on our WP article). It does seem like our article might need some updating. Jedi Friend (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it would be nice if they did recognize fully. But that article's from over a decade ago! Are we that out of date, or was the matter never settled? I've written all 3 govts for clarification. We'll see if they get back to me. [A wedding-planning site said they'd get back to me. No govt response as of Fri 4/19.]
 * Anyway, it seems to me that from such rulings, we should simply list the islands as we do Mexican states, that they rec SSM performed in the kingdom, without qualification. But we need to confirm that this is de facto the case and not just de jure. — kwami (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, this is from the LGBT org in Curacao.
 * Traditionally as a married couple you are able to register as a married couple at the civil registry if you are married by law. We only do not perform the wedding (civil union) yet. When the marriage equality bill is introduced you will have to reaffirm your status under Curacao laws.

When I asked for what rights you get (taxes, adoption, inheritance, medical decisions, etc.) by registering as a married couple,
 * It is more like a registered partnership..still no rights granted. Until they introduce the equality bill [only] then you will have the rights you mentioned as a married couple regarding taxes, adoption etc.

When I asked for clarification (translation problem of 'until' with or without a negative),
 * You have no rights. You can register as a married couple but you have no rights (taxes etc). You cannot get married legally in Curacao yet. When they introduce the marriage bill you will have rights like (adoption,taxes etc) under the Curacao law.

So it sounds like Curacao only recognizes you marriage in the literal sense, the way the US might recognize a plural marriage conducted where it's legal, but without according it the status of a marriage. This is more like Romania 'recognizing' a SSM conducted in the EU. I'll move Curacao to the 'minimal rights' list (though I don't know if there's even that). Presumably Aruba would recognize them as the local equivalent, a civil union, so that's already covered. — kwami (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * That cannot be true. Gay and lesbian couples do enjoy rights when registering their Dutch marriage in ACS, such as health insurance.

http://www.curacao-law.com/2008/08/07/dutch-same-sex-couples-have-the-same-rights-as-dutch-caribbean-couples/


 * That's a decade old. If it were true then and since, why do our articles still say rights are not equal? Something's very wrong here. It would be nice to have recent RS's as to what's actually going on. — kwami (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Japan [and Cambodia]
As Japan has no legal recongition of same sex partnerships. I removed it from the list. (certificates issued have no legal value)

--Paullb (talk) 03:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The registries are inscribed in local law, and provide certain limited legal rights, such as hospital visitation. Panda2018 0 (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The registries are inscribed in local law but provide no legal benefits, they are purely symbolic. Shibuya City forces registrants to have a contractual relationship between the partners but that is not bestowed by Shibuya City but rather by the contract entered by the two parties. Hospitals are under no obligation to respect the certificates. The English language media often gets it wrong. Please do not put Japan back as there is no legal recognition of relationships

Paullb (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Why would it matter if they hold no legal weight? The certificates are valid and provide benefits (hospital visitation, housing) which the couple would not be enjoying had the city not implement these registries. To not show Japan is misleading and dishonest to the 400 or so couples who have their relationship recognized. Japan is listed under Limited or partial recognition. That is exactly where it should be. Panda2018 0 (talk) 12:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The certificates do not guarantee any benefits, hospitals are not bound to respect the certificates. These (349 as of Jan 1, 2019) couples have a piece of paper (and I'm sure I would got get one if I had that special person in my life) but the reality is papers are entirely symbolic. No jurisdiction anywhere in Japan has any legal recognition for same-sex partnership therefore Japan doesn't belong on this template at all because there isn't Limited or partial recognition there is zero recognition. I so wish it was different but this is the unfortunate truth of where we are. Hopefully the 13 couples filing suit can change that. Paullb (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "hospitals are not bound to respect the certificates." But what about those that do? Are we just going to ignore them? If the city did not issue said certificates, the couples would not be enjoying hospital visitation rights in any hospital. The rights provided by these certificates are therefore (very) limited, exactly why it should be listed under limited or partial recognition. Panda2018 0 (talk) 09:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "The rights provided by...", these certificates don't provide any rights. That's why Japan doesn't belong on the list. Rights are something conferred by law, which these certificates don't do.
 * Until there is (even a small amount) of legal recognition for same-sex unions in Japan, Japan should definitely stay off the list. Paullb (talk) 11:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So no hospital visitation rights are provided at all? The certificates are thus absolutely meaningless? Panda2018 0 (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The Recognition of same-sex unions in Japan ariticle indicates that there are legal advantages provided by the registries includingfor Sapporo the ability to receive their partner's life insurance money. For Nakano, as a result of signing a partnership agreement, the couple receives "documentation recognizing a delegation agreement for medical treatment and nursing care, property management and other areas in which married couples share responsibility". So IMO, while all of these things *may* be able to be separately created, it does have some (relatively small) legal weight. So I support returning it to the list.Naraht (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Sapporo City's website: （http://www.city.sapporo.jp/shimin/danjo/lgbt/seido.html ）[translating] "This certificate has no legal power", "The certificate is stored for 10 years"
 * Nakano　City's website (http://www.city.tokyo-nakano.lg.jp/dept/101500/d026072.html )[translating] "This certificate does not attribute any legal rights or obligations...but Nakano City is working to increase understanding in it's jurisdiction"
 * Both cities explicitly state they their certificates convey no rights or legal obligations. I'll update the Recognition of same-sex unions in Japan to reflect reality. If anyone can find a primary source (i.e. a city page) that conveys that the certificate itself (and not the contract that the parties seperately enter) provides even the smallest of legal rights I'm happy to alter my opinion and we can add Japan to the list, but each City states that it's certificates are not legally binding documents and so as there is no legal recognition, Japan can't be added to the list (however much I wish the would). (FYI about me: I work in diversity at a major Japanese company in Toyko and the English media regularly overstates these certificates. I regularly see "Marriage legalised in XYZ [Japanese] City" which is wholly inaccurate. Paullb (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment This sounds very much like the situation in Cambodia. If we're going to have one, I think we need to have the other. I'm putting Japan back on the list.  Of course, we could remove both if people think that's best, but I think that we should have some sort of agreed standard as to how much recognition we require to recognize limited recognition. — kwami (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't unilaterally make changes that have been discussed on the talk page. I think Wikipedia should take the legal view of recognition. Are any rights conferred to the indivduals (couples) via the certificates. The unfortunate reality for Japan is that they do not. Consequently, there is zero (not limited recognition, but none) legal recognition and Japan can't be included on the table. As none of the currently in force partnership certificats confer any legal rights, I've reverted part of the changes you made that implied they did. Ibaraki has not released any details on their website to confirm that their certificate actually confers said rights. The English language media referernced is frequently inaccurate on this point. Once Ibaraki releases details we can revisit. I have reverted your addition of Japan to the template. Paullb (talk) 04:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how you call restoring Japan "unilateral" when you removed it despite no-one agreeing with you.

From our description of Cambodia, it sounds like things there are much like Japan. An LGBT group facilitates civil contracts, and a few communes accept them, though what they accept them for is unclear. But we list Cambodia.

We list states in the EU, and cities in China, where the only legal consequence is that your foreign spouse can get a residency permit, but you have no rights as a married couple otherwise. For people already living there, there's nothing at all. Is some hospitals allowing you to make medical decisions, or getting public housing together in Japan any more minimal than that? — kwami (talk) 06:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

From this, it sounds like local institutions in Cambodia may accept the certificates if they like, but there's no legal requirement for them to do so. Sounds like local institutions in Japan that may choose to accept the certificates without any legal requirement to do so. — kwami (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I can't comment on Cambodia but if there isn't any legal recognition there either it should be removed too. If you live in Cambodia, then I encourage you to maket he appropriate decision for that country. I live and work in the LGBT space here in Tokyo and the reality in Japan is that while some institutions may choose to recognise them, no rights are passed. In fact, as noted above municipalities specifically state the the certificates have no legal weight. Even worse, some (most of the ones I checked) throw away the record of issueance of the certificate after 10 years. Additionally, a partership certificate does not entitle a partner to a residency permit either. With no legal recognition on any level of government, Japan has no business being on the template. There is a bill in the Diet (which with an LDP government is unlikely to go anywhere) and a courtcase ongoing, it is looking a bit better for the future.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paullb (talk • contribs) 07:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Estonia
I cannot find a ref that Estonia recognizes SSM performed abroad. The claim in our article that they do is ref'd to this article from 2017, but that's a single case, not a general right. Also, this article from 2018 says that such unions are in general not recognized. I have therefore removed Estonia from the SSM list (but left it in the CU list). — kwami (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * From the wikipage it appears that the recognition of foreign SSMs is far from automatic and some marriages are downgraded to cohabitation agreements. Estonia should be listed under 'civil unions'. When the Estonian Supreme Court or Estonian law states that 'EU SSM marriages are recognised as such', then we may apply an asterisk stating 'only if performed in other EU countries'. Agree? Finedelledanze (talk) 10:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * (Re. Armenia, it appears that there is such a ruling. But I can't find any indication that it's ever been taken advantage of, that there is even a single SS couple living as married in Armenia.)

Agreed. Being listed in the registry if you're already a resident doesn't seem to correlate to getting residency even if your spouse is a citizen. If you have to get a CU to be seen as a couple to get residency, even if you were already married abroad, then the 'recognition' of the marriage doesn't amount to what we imply by listing Estonia on this chart. So, I've removed Estonia. As for Armenia, indeed -- a couple sources about the ruling, but no evidence that it's actually been used. And the govt might balk if someone tried. But that's all OR and CRYSTAL. — kwami (talk) 07:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I wrote to the Estonian Human Rights Centre to ask them if Estonia recognizes foreign SSM as marriage, or as equivalent to domestic CUs (kooselulepingu), as e.g. Italy does (except of course that Estonian domestic kooselulepingu have not been properly implemented). My specific wording was "I am not concerned about residency rights, which I think I understand, but whether a foreign same-sex marriage is legally treated as equivalent to domestic opposite-sex marriage in all other respects." I also asked a question per who can get married abroad, due to a ruling from 2009 that Estonian citizens did not qualify, but was told that currently an Estonian citizen can't get SSM'd abroad as a tourist, but can if they are a resident of the country. (As expected.) I can copy you on their response of February 24, 2019, if you have your WP email enabled.

There is no simple answer to your question, nor is there one right answer to this question. There is a lot of confusion around the topic due to missing implementation acts. ... these answers are provided based on some court rulings and since we are not a common law country, these practices can be changed by other rulings. Estonia recognizes foreign same-sex marriages. There is no uniform approach, it recognizes some and in some contexts. There have indeed been some cases when foreign concluded gay marriages have been entered into the national population register but there is no clear understanding if they have the same rights as married couples or as couples who have signed registered partnership contract. There is ongoing constitutional review at the Supreme Court of Estonia about the Aliens Act so as to grant residence permits to the same-sex partners of Estonian citizens. That ruling may change a lot in terms of residence permits. It sounds like there have been case-by-case recognition, as in Italy, and otherwise it's not clear if foreign rec is any more than in e.g. Italy. Since Italy is not listed as recognizing SSM, just as having CUs, I think the same treatment should be given to Estonia. Actually, they arguably don't really have CU's apart for those SSM they recognize from abroad. — kwami (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

From what I can tell from our article and the few sources I can find, those aren't CU's in Estonia but registered cohab, and it any case haven't yet been implemented. So the only current recognition is of marriages conducted abroad. Those are recorded in the registry, but what does that mean to the couple? AFAICT, it's quite minimal, like Curacao or Romania. — kwami (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Supreme Court ruled that the law is in force. See . Ron 1987 (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2019
Add Bulgaria to the countries recognizing same-sex marriage. 98.202.22.21 (talk) 05:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * See https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/07/25/bulgaria-same-sex-marriage-equality/?utm for the information. I think it should be similar to whatever we did with Estonia, which was one case and doesn't seem to have set a nationwide prescendent.Naraht (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done I've clarified point 7 since it applies to all EU citizens, not just citizens of the country (eg the case just ruled on was about a French-Australian couple residing in Bulgaria).--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Northern Ireland
I went through and looked at the bill. It appears to give the NI Executive until and including Monday October 21. The chance they will assemble on Monday is Tiny, but as such, changing it today appears to be WP:Crystal.Naraht (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * See section 2.2, it is on or before October 21. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/22/section/2.

You're right. Everything I'd seen up to now said "by" the 21st. Though if there's no call to convene tomorrow AM, I can't see how it could possibly happen. — kwami (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Section 2.2 isn't actually the relevant section here, not that it changes the end result. You want to look at section 13.4: "Sections 8 to 12 come into force on 22 October 2019, unless an Executive in Northern Ireland is formed on or before 21 October 2019 (in which case they do not come into force at all)." Section 8 is the section that deals with SSM. - htonl (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, but we should probably wait until Midnight Monday/Tuesday to restore it to what you had. Thanx for the catch.


 * BTW, I *think* this means that the closest place to Iceland with no Marriage Equality is Sark, but Sark is going that way (The Legislature (Chief Pleas) voted to have the Policy and Finance Cmte instruct the Law Officers to draft legislation) http://www.gov.sark.gg/downloads/agendas_and_minutes/2019_agendas-minutes/191002_agenda.pdfNaraht (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, htonl. Yeah, that clinches it.
 * Naraht, not sure what you mean by that -- how is Iceland relevant? Or was that a typo? If you meant Iceland, then the nearest after Sark is Murmansk. If NI, after Sark it would be Basel. — kwami (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Mostly that Iceland is in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean North American and European countries. I went back and verified what you said, Murmansk is slightly closer to Iceland than Switzerland. (Thank you great circle routes. :)) Thanx for the check.Naraht (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit Request November 21, 2019
Replace the current code with the code in the sandbox (Template:Same-sex unions/sandbox). The sandbox code converts the template to use Sidebar with collapsible lists as per the notice on the template. I'm unable to perform these actions due to restrictions. – Brandon XLF  (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 04:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Costa Rica
Costa Rica is still in Limited or partial recognition--190.5.179.180 (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "This 26 May, Costa Rica becomes the first Central American country, and 29th overall, where the right of people to contract civil marriages with others of the same sex is recognized. © Tb hotch ™ (en-3). 02:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

India (Uttarakhand) registered cohabitation
Registered cohabitation is basically just the state recognizing that you cohabit, right? So Uttarakhand should be listed? For that matter, shouldn't we add Vietnam? The police aren't going to break up your home once the state recognizes your right to live together as a couple, even if you have none of the other rights of marriage. That might seem minimal in Europe or America, but it's a big deal in a country like India, where being gay was illegal just a couple years ago. — kwami (talk) 10:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "Can Live together" is not "unregistered cohabitation". Can live together = same sex activities are not illegal, but they don't have any legal obligation from the goverment (same as Thailand, Laos, Mongolia, Phillipines... and more than 30 Asian countries, same as others India states, not only Uttarakhand. If you add Uttarakhand, you will must add more than 30 Asian countries and all of Indian states). Unregistered cohabitation = not married, but have some legal obligation from the goverment (adoption children, insurrance, tax breaks, etc...) Nguyenquocda (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

If you have evidence for those other states, we should add them as well. This isn't about getting a roommate. Even with formally registered cohabitation, there is often no legal obligation from the state. But this is still about a homosexual couple living together as a sexual couple. That is perhaps the most basic right of marriage -- to live together as a couple. It's more than just sex not being illegal. The state is granting SS couples that most basic right of marriage. Traditionally in human society that's all marriage is -- moving in together as a sexual couple. All the rest is just bureaucratic and religious fluff. — kwami (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Israel, Mexico and Cuba
Why was the "Recognized" section removed? Aren't foreign marriages recognised by the State in Israel? Why is only Tel Aviv mentioned? And where are the sources for Cuba? There's no mention of this whatsoever on the "recognition of same-sex unions in Cuba" article. Jedi Friend (talk) 08:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You right. Many countries/states in this list doesn not have the sourcesNguyenquocda (talk) 11:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Foreign marriage is 'recognized' in Israel, but not as marriage, and couples are not granted the rights of marriage. Only in Tel Aviv are SS couples recognized as married, with the full (local) rights of marriage. That ordnance was recently passed as a thumb in the eye of the state specifically because Israel does not recognize SSM.

We've been uncertain of Israel for years, with no good RS's either way -- recognition of foreign SSM was only ever demonstrated to be a rather minimal legal formality, but there were hints that informally it meant more than that. But it was never clear what exactly the reality was. The developments in Tel Aviv finally clarified the situation. There are some marriage or marriage-like rights conferred to couples married abroad, but they're due to independent decisions by various authorities and are not legally required by the recognition of the marriage itself. BTW, it's the same situation for interfaith couples, or for any Jewish couples who don't want to be bound by Orthodox law.

The only country that would be in the 'recognized' section would be Mexico, but that's only for domestic marriage, and so is redundant with the entry for Mexico in the 'marriage' section. So there's no longer any purpose to the 'recognized' section, unless Armenia qualifies, but we have no evidence for that. (Presumably, if it had to, Armenia would 'recognize' a foreign SSM the way Estonia and Israel do -- enter it into a form and confer as few actual rights as possible.)

For Cuba, there was just a legal case that both members of a SS couple must be recognized by the state as the parents of a child, even though one has no biological relationship to the child. This is rather minimal, but in the US fights over this kind of thing continued well past 2015. In summary, A 1-year-old boy born in Tallahassee FL via assisted reproduction to a married Cuban/US same-sex couple who live in Cuba has become the first person in Cuba with two legal mothers. (Estado cubano reconoce legalmente que Paulo tiene dos madres)

That is, the state is granting legitimacy to SS couples. And, after all, that's what makes SSM so important -- it's not really the rights of marriage themselves, but the recognition of society that SS relationships are legitimate. That's why teenage suicide rates drop when SSM is passed -- society is saying, 'we no longer think you're a pervert.' That's what Cuba just did, and to a lesser extent, Uttarakhand. — kwami (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In Israel, as far as I can tell, the situation is that for a Jewish woman and a Muslim man, or a Druze man and a Christian woman or a Jewish man and a Christian woman, the situations are identical when it comes to recognition because of the Israeli Supreme Court decision in 2006. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-nov-22-fg-samesex22-story.html . "'“I am glad we won and got what we wanted to achieve in this petition, which was the basic right to be registered as married by the Israeli Ministry of Interior, just as any couple marrying abroad does and takes it for granted,” Joseph Bar Lev, a 39-year-old dance instructor who was one of the petitioners, told Israel Radio.'"


 * Yes, AFAICT the situations are effectively identical. It's also the situation for Jewish couples who don't want to be locked into a marriage under Orthodox rules, since only Orthodox Judaism is legally valid. The question is, what does it mean "to be registered as married by the Israeli Ministry of Interior"? We'd assumed it meant "married", but the latest reports suggests it doesn't -- being registered as married by the Israeli Ministry of Interior does not mean being granted the full rights, privileges and obligations of marriage. — kwami (talk) 08:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * While there are a number of rights granted by marriage, I'd boil it down to two keystones as a start. Inheritance and the ability to make decisions in the hospital when the spouse is not conscious. If those are present, I'd count it as marriage recognized, if they aren't then it isn't. (If only one is true, I don't know.Naraht (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends on what we mean by "recognized". To me, if your marriage is recognized by the govt, then as far as the govt is concerned you are married, your marriage is accepted. That is the case in Mexico -- you have all the rights of marriage, legally you are married. I thought that was the case in Israel too (you had to go abroad to get married, but once you did you were simply married), but it seems I was wrong -- you can register that marriage, the govt acknowledges it exists, and you get residency rights, but it doesn't count legally as an actual marriage. It may count as a CU, or registered cohabitation. I'd be curious to know how the rights conferred by a registered foreign SSM (or interfaith marriage) compare to the rights conferred by domestic registered cohabitation. If the rights of a registered marriage aren't any greater than a CU, and you don't even have the right to get one in-country, then IMO we shouldn't place them above CU's in the chart. Iconically, the higher in the chart, the greater the rights.
 * According to Unregistered cohabitation in Israel, cohabitation confers residency rights, survivor benefits, pensions, insurance, tax exemption and inheritance, that they are treated as common-law marriage. That would seem to be most of the benefits of marriage, with the added benefit that you don't have to obey a specific religion re. divorce. So, do registered foreign SSM confer greater rights than registered domestic cohabitation? If they just accept a foreign marriage certificate as equivalent to a registration of domestic cohabitation, then IMO it's hardly worth mentioning. But people do go abroad to get married -- SS couples, interfaith couples, and Jews who don't want to abide by Orthodox marriage rules. So why do they go abroad to get married rather than just registering as a common-law marriage at home? (Real question. I don't know.) — kwami (talk) 02:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Re. recent rv of template, from unregistered cohabitation in Israel -- "Attorney General Menachem Mazuz said the couples will be treated the same as common-law spouses, recognizing them as legal units for tax, real estate, and financial purposes."

That's equivalent to what are called 'civil unions' or 'registered partnerships' in other countries -- actually, more rights than in some of them. I'm still not clear what the difference from a registered foreign marriage is, but this isn't the kind of 'limited recognition' you get in Hong Kong or Romania. Perhaps we could change the wording of the rubric if that's the problem. — kwami (talk) 05:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not the same, as common-law marriage, or de-facto union is, by definition, something not formalized, unregistered. Ron 1987 (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Nothing's ever "the same", and whether it's registered is beside the point. The table is divided into full rights, moderate rights (~ 2nd-class marriage) and minimal rights. The wording we give is just a way to capture that. We don't want minimal rights in the middle or moderate rights at the bottom. Over the years, we've changed the wording many times as changing politics shuffled things around. AFAICT, Israel is out of place at the bottom. Unless you have evidence that Israeli rights are minimal?

Also, re. "common-law marriage [is] by definition, something not formalized, unregistered" -- 'unregistered' just means 'not registered', not 'common-law'. If common-law marriage is unregistered, how could such couples receive tax and pension benefits? The govt would have to keep track of who they are. If that's not 'registered', it's so close as to make no effective difference, and we're just playing semantics. I could just as easily say "common-law marriage is, by definition, marriage" and move Israel up to the top category. — kwami (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, registration scheme or its lack is exactly a reason why two sections, not one, where established to list countries with recognition other than marriage. Ron 1987 (talk) 11:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The 3rd cat was always for minimal rights. Israel does not belong there. (And how 'registered' means 'not registered' I don't understand. AFAICT, everything in the 3nd cat is registered.) I created a new section for common-law marriage. Seems overkill, but at least it's not incorrect. — kwami (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Switzerland
and I have done the Bold Revert (Twice), So I'm moving here for the Discuss. Switzerland's Legislature has passed Marriage Equality like other Swiss laws may be overridden on a referendum. I think the LGBT_rights_in_Switzerland section is most clear: "Same-sex marriage is in the process of being legalized. On 18 December 2020, seven years after the Green Liberal Party of Switzerland introduced a bill providing for same-sex marriage, the Swiss federal legislature adopted corresponding legislation (which also provides for IVF access for lesbian couples), making Switzerland the 29th country to allow same-sex marriage.[7] However, in Switzerland's system of semi-direct democracy, the statute is subject to a popular referendum if its opponents collect 50,000 signatures demanding one within three months. The right-wing EDU party has announced its intent to do so.[8] A date of entry into force of the statute (after any referendum) has not yet been set by the federal government." and Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Switzerland says The final vote in both chambers took place on 18 December 2020. The Council of States approved the bill by 24 votes to 11 with 7 abstentions,[130] and the National Council approved the bill by 136 votes to 48 with 9 abstentions.[131]

The right-wing party EDU announced its intention to collect the 50,000 signatures needed to trigger a referendum,[132] in which case passage of the bill would require a simple majority of the popular vote.[133] To me, this its into the "not yet in effect" meaning of the note in the template: "Not yet in effect or automatic deadline set by judicial body for same-sex marriage to become legal" as such, I feel Switzerland should be listed in the Template with an asterisk. --Naraht (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think it should be listed until the legislation is 100% confirmed per WP:CRYSTAL. While it is extremely unlikely that even if a referendum was called, the majority of voters would vote against marriage equality, the hypothetical possibility remains nontheless. As Wikipedia users I don't think it's our place to rush past these existing legilsative formalities. --Ratherous (talk) 06:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn't it WP:CRYSTAL to assume the opposing party will collect the requisite number of signatures within the timescale to get a referendum called? Del U sion23 (talk)  19:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The most important phrase is that "a date of entry into force of the statute has not yet been set by the federal government." The bill has been passed, but because it is still open to statutory challenge, the process is not finished. When the referendum fails, or the deadline passes without the referendum being called, there will be a date set. As I understand, that is the meaning of "Not yet in effect." It's WP:CRYSTAL to assume either way what will happen next in the process, but when they set a date, that's an objective fact. Jdcooper (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Agreed with Jdcooper's argument. I'll keep a watch out for a date of entry.Naraht (talk) 12:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thailand
Court recognition of couples recently. Been in the news, trying to track down the articles. Minimal rec -- just saying that they're allowed to live together, not conferring any other rights. But that's all they get in Vietnam too. — kwami (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

In India
The situation in Odisha is the same as in Uttarakhand, according to this--190.5.185.180 (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! They mention a couple other states too. — kwami (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Vietnam
Where's Vietnam? I see Vietnam, Thailand and Namibia on the map, but not here. That's really weird. Cyanmax (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Mexican State count
The change here has been from 20 to 21, the first reference that I can find in English is https://yucatanmagazine.com/yucatan-gay-marriage-equality-bill/ which says it is 22nd. Any ideas? Naraht (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, https://www.equalityontrial.com/2021/08/23/8-23-open-thread/ I *know* it counts as a blog, but it has a *lot* of links to News sources as it goes. And there seems to be consistent use of 22nd but with the *however* that they have undone the chance to the state constitution, but they still have to change the family code. (so the count would still be 21)Naraht (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Not yet legal in Yucatan. It had been both illegal and unconstitutional; now it's just illegal, like the other 10 states where SSM is illegal.
 * As for the count, the discrepancy of 1 is 'states' vs 'federal entities' (states + CDMX). It's now 20 out of 31 states, 21 out of 32 entities. — kwami (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And just making it illegal isn't going to fly with the Supreme Court. Ah. I'm in Maryland which actually has the same situation, the City of Baltimore isn't a county, it is a county equivalent. (so 23 counties, 24 county equivalents). At this point, there appears to be growing support for actually giving the supreme court the ability to make National decision because everyone involved is getting sick of the Supreme Court having to deal with all of them separately.Naraht (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It's just a matter of time, either way. But some states won't budge until the court threatens to start fining them. Though I think Veracruz is trying to legalize to avoid the embarrassment of that happening. — kwami (talk) 02:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Switzerland revisited
Switzerland legalized same-sex marriage, but it's premature to have it listed how it currently is, because so far, same-sex couples aren't able to marry. The law hasn't taken effect yet. Prcc27 (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's marked as not in effect yet. That's how we handled previous cases like this. — kwami (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing that! It wasn't like that when I intially created this section. Prcc27 (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I only noticed your comment here some time after I fixed it, didn't realized that until after I responded. — kwami (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

In Chile
Chile just approved same sex marriage. The national congress ratified it on 7 december 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.100.231.106 (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Still needs to be signed into law. Won't take effect until 90 days after that, so presumably some time in March 2022. — kwami (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

three columns now?
Does it make sense to try to change the template so that the countries show up in three columns? I tried changing the width to 6em, but the UK and US went outside the border with their footnotes numbers.Naraht (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Too wide for my browser, or columns too narrow for indented contents. — kwami (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If the United Kingdom becomes UK and the United States are USA, then the Marriage section looks OK. However, I can't seem to get the other sections to the same setup. (I tried adding the entry with 6em to the front of the remaining sections and got wierd overlap)Naraht (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Cleanup of usages and links?
In *General* a template should be on the pages that it links to. I know there are exceptions, but this template seems to have a particularly large number of issues in that regard. There are 153 Wikipedia pages that this template is on that aren't links, and 13 that it links to that it doesn't appear on.

https://templatetransclusioncheck.toolforge.org/index.php?lang=en&name=Template%3ASame-sex+unions

Most of the pages in the first group (153) are pages about Same Sex Marriage in subnational entities that may have been linked from the template at one time, but no longer are, for example: Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, Same-sex marriage in Manitoba, Same-sex marriage in Oaxaca and Same-sex marriage in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. There are also others where the state of Marriage in the country is so low that they don't make the template such as Recognition of same-sex unions in Serbia.

The second group, where the template links to but aren't on the page are a more eclectic mix....


 * Surely this template is an over-arching navigation template for same-sex marriage articles in general? If I am on the SSM article about Serbia/Mali/Andorra or wherever, I would find this template useful. Jdcooper (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't believe so. That would be Template:Status of same-sex unions which isn't a sidebar. When one of these two should be used and when the other should be used, I'm not sure. I can take a look to see if that Template is OK for links vs. Inclusions.Naraht (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't say what I meant to say! I meant for countries that have same-sex marriage (or civil unions etc.). I really don't see the problem with this being on more articles than it links to. Jdcooper (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Adoption
Adoption may be seen as a right of marriage, so I added notes that in some countries with SSM, only opposite-sex couples are allowed to adopt, so they don't have complete marriage equality. — kwami (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

This was reverted without discussion as "not relevant". Relevance: by law, "married couples" can jointly adopt, but same-sex married couples cannot, ergo in that situation they are not legally married couples. — kwami (talk) 06:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Mexico, listing the ones remaining in the Notes?
At this point, Mexico has 5 states left without state-wide Marriage Equality: Durango, Guerrero, México (state), Tabasco, and Tamaulipas. At *some* point, I think it will be appropriate to have a note that looks like (All states except Tabasco) or something like that. Are we there now, or how many states should be left before we list them specifically in the Notes?Naraht (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * You could see how it looks now. Marriage for 40% of pop of Guerrero, per last estimate we have (haven't heard anything recently). — kwami (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I would support this. It's a manageable list to include, and is slightly simpler to update. As for stats within states, I think as long as we specify state-wide, that's enough detail I would say. Interested readers can always delve deeper if they wish. Jdcooper (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Made the change. Moved Mexico City to the front because otherwise it became unclear whether it was part of the except grouping or not. Removed the parts of Guerrero clause. Not sure it is the best phrasing, feel free to change to what you think is better. It is a *little* longer (2 more characters), but OTOH, gives information on *which* 5 states (and will be shorter than the original concept when Marriage Equality comes to one more state).Naraht (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the nationwide recognition is the key thing and I agree should be first, though given nothing up in the main section about subnational parts, it might be expected. And from what I can tell, there is no possibility of the number of states not allowing increasing barring a *complete* shakeup of the Mexican Supreme Court.

Armenia

 * The claim that Armenia offers minimal recognition doesn't seem quite right. We should have evidence before we make the claim. Due weight here is questionable. Same-sex marriages are not actually legal. That dubious information was reported in July 2017. It's been 5 years. That was never confirmed by the government. On 26 August 2019, the Minister of Justice Rustam Badasyan, actually refuted those dubious claims, stating that Armenia does not recognize same-sex marriages. No case had so far occurred in practice. 212.97.4.68 (talk) 11:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless if its been 5, 10, or 15 years is irrelevant. The MoJ confirmed that foreign marriages are recognized in Armenia- with no mention of gender. This article also makes it very clear that no same sex foreign marriage has been registered in Armenia to date. Therefore, your concern is already addressed in the notes. Archives908 (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you have sources that anyone registered their foreign same-sex marriages in Armenia? Not just generic statements that they can be, but that the practice being used? I wouldn't be surprised, just think we should have RS's to back up our claims. I think it's misleading to include Armenia for "minimal recognition" if no-one's actually registered their foreign same-sex marriage. Zero evidence for same-sex couples being actually registered, means we shouldn't include Armenia. It's been 5 years with no evidence presented. It's time to remove Armenia from the "minimal recognition" list.
 * The situation is kind of similar to Romania. For a long time, we believed that Romania recognizes foreign same-sex marriages. However, we were wrong the whole time.
 * IP user- read the notes. Your concern is already addressed, the notes state that none have yet to be registered. Archives908 (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree the situation is dubious. But that's why we have a big question mark on the map. It would be interesting to see what would happen if an Armenian citizen tried to register their spouse, but until that happens or the govt reverts itself, we're left with the last official statement. — kwami (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * This is where we left off, for all those who seem to have forgotten. The consensus reached back in December 2021 was that we should defer to the last official statement made by the Ministry of Justice. Which is that the Government of Armenia recognizes foreign marriages, regardless of sex. Just because a foreign marriage of a same-sex couple has not yet been registered, it does not mean that the MoJ announcement is invalid. It is WP:CRYSTAL if we assume the MoJ has changed their stance to only registering opposite-sex foreign marriages. And that is precisely why we have notes explaining this peculiar case for Armenia. Yes- it is slightly vague and ambiguous. However, until more updated information/reliable sources become available- the last official statement is what we should defer too (at least for now). Archives908 (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * According to this source, foreign same-sex marriages are not recognized in Armenia.


 * What do you think? Dustssics (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * On 26 August 2019, the Minister of Justice Rustam Badasyan, stated that Armenia does not recognize same-sex marriages. That is the last official statement made by the Ministry of Justice. Dustssics (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing in that source comes directly from the Ministry of Justice. According to Article 143 of the Armenian Family Code, it states that Armenia recognizes foreign marriages as long as they conform with the legality of the territory where they were celebrated, not excluding people of the same sex. This has been confirmed by the last official statement from the MoJ on 3 July 2017, which states Marriage certificates registering the union between two people of the same sex abroad are valid in Armenia. Archives908 (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Dustssics, where are you seeing that? I'm not finding anything that corresponds to your statements -- the name, the date, nothing apart from a ref to RA Family Code, Article 152, that "where foreign country norms in relation to family rights contradict the legal framework of Armenia, the legislation of the Republic of Armenia is applied", which they interpret as meaning foreign SSM will not be recognized. But they're not trained in Armenian constitutional law, so who knows? — kwami (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think @Dustssics' source is from 2009 and shouldn't be considered up to date. However, ILGA-Europe publishes an annual report tracking these issues every year and it has never once reported that Armenia offers any recognition whatsoever for same-sex couples, foreign or domestic. ILGA-E works with LGBT organizations on the ground in Armenia, so they would know what the actual legal situation is. https://rainbow-europe.org/#8620/0/0
 * I've been clear in the past. I do not think we should take this one dubious report that Armenia recognizes foreign same-sex marriages at face value, absent any actual examples of same-sex marriage recognition, and absent any corroboration by local LGBT groups. Armenia should be colored to reflect that same-sex marriage is banned by statute, there is no foreign recognition, and that none of this is in doubt. Robsalerno (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * 3.2. Same-sex partnerships/marriage

According to the Family Code, marriages between the citizens of the Republic of Armenia and those of other countries, once legally in order, will be recognized. However, where foreign country norms in relation to family rights contradict the legal framework of Armenia, the legislation of the Republic of Armenia is applied. In short, this means that same-sex marriages recognized in Belgium or elsewhere will not be recognized in Armenia. Dustssics (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, your interpretation is not a WP:RS. You need to provide a valid source from the Ministry of Justice retracting their earlier statement from 2017. Otherwise, the consensus from December 2021 should remain in place. Archives908 (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The template implies that foreign marriages are available or recognized in Armenia. That's clearly not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustssics (talk • contribs) 15:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not true- read the notes. Archives908 (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How does that support your claim that "On 26 August 2019, the Minister of Justice Rustam Badasyan, stated that Armenia does not recognize same-sex marriages. That is the last official statement made by the Ministry of Justice." I expect that when you provide a ref for a claim, that the ref supports that claim. — kwami (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * — kwami can you please ping or name who you are referring to when you respond, since there are multiple people in this conversation its hard to keep track. This is the last source that I found coming from the MoJ. It confirms that Marriage certificates registering the union between two people of the same sex abroad are valid in Armenia. If you have found something else from 2019, please link it in your response. This source does not cite anything from Minister Rustam Badasyan as far as I see. Archives908 (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I was responding to Dustssics. Yeah, it's hard to see what lines up with what. — kwami (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would appear to be a RS, at least as of 2017. — kwami (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * haha all good :) thanks for the clarification! Archives908 (talk)



1.

Use translator

2. Dustssics (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've read both these sources, Dustssics. Neither bring any validity to this discussion. The first article referrers to marriages taking place within Armenia, not foreign marriages. The second article, again, makes zero mention of foreign same sex marriage. As far as I can see, the 2017 MoJ statement is the last official announcement we have regarding foreign same-sex marriage. Archives908 (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Therefore, the consensus reached in December 2021 should be maintained until additional information becomes available. Until then, the notes section provides readers with clarification of this ambiguous case. Archives908 (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Isn't that WP:CRYSTAL if we assume Armenia "recognizes" foreign same-sex marriages? Dustssics (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope. Because we have a valid source. Archives908 (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Are there any other sources except panarmenia.net? Dustssics (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Some coverage- but panarmenia is the most reliable out of the lot.  If you find any that contradict the source(s) we do have available, please share. Archives908 (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Is it actually "recognized" in practice? Dustssics (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, a same-sex couple would have to register first. That is why we have notes for Armenia, as this is a peculiar case. Archives908 (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a doubtful case. Well, anyway, we'll see what happens. Maybe something like in neighboring Georgia. Dustssics (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree- the best thing we can do for now is wait. Cheers, Archives908 (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Andorra
The bill in Andorra has passed the legislature and does not come into effect for 6 months *AFTER* it is signed by one of the co-princes. Given that Bishop of Urgell is *not* going to sign this, it should not be added to the template until French President Macron signs the bill. Note, I think the chance of Macron *not* signing it is fairly small, but I think that it is non-zero, especially considering that the approved bill is not quite just "allow same sex marriage". (and there is no override for both princes refusing to sign, so even though the entire bill was approved unanimously, it doesn't matter ) Naraht (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree, per CRYSTAL, we shouldn't add it until Macron signs off, then leave an asterisk until it takes effect.
 * There actually is an override if both princes refuse: Andorra could declare itself a republic and treat it as enacted law. About as likely as Macron refusing to sign. — kwami (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed.Naraht (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the chance of Macron not signing is zero, but that's not the point. IIRC, by long-standing practice we don't say that the law is passed until it has completed every part of the legislative process. Jdcooper (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that that is the point. The Note is less important.Naraht (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Slovenia
Definitely confirmed. https://www.total-slovenia-news.com/politics/10254-slovenia-legalises-same-sex-marriage-adoptions. I have put in for a move of the current Recognition of same-sex unions in Slovenia to the current redirect Same-sex marriage in Slovenia. The redirect actually has a history, so it will be a technical move. We'll need a redirect in the other direction when we are done.Naraht (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * If I can point it out, it's a similar situation to Andorra. The ruling is effective now, but it needs to pass via Parliament, which can probably deliver not full marriage equality, but a parallel legislation (spoiler: i study law, so while I'm not an expert in Slovenia, as I read the articles the situation is a bit ambiguous.) Touyats (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's similar to Andorra at all. The Andorran law has not yet finished its legislative process, and will not take effect (ie. marriages be allowed) until six months later. Whereas Slovenia, the govt has been instructed to update its legislation, but (from the article cited above): Announcing the news on Friday, the court gave the National Assembly six months to amend the law accordingly, but until the law is amended its ruling stands as the law and means that marriage is a union between two persons regardless of gender, and same-sex partners living in a civil partnership may adopt a child together under the same conditions as married spouses. So the government's mandated actions are a constitutional obligation, but the law is already in effect either way. Jdcooper (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Definitions of same-sex marriage, civil unions, cohabitations, and/or differentiating between real marriage equality and non-quite-equal marriage equality.
I asked this on Help Desk, but I was referred to as here.

A couple of days go Andorra reformed its family law to define "matrimoni" (marriage) as either the (already existing) Roman Catholic canonical marriage or a new "casament" legal instrument that is said to be open to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples, and fully equal to Roman Catholic canonical marriage. Except, as I pointed out in the discussion pages of the article, the use of a different term for religious and secular "marriage" may point to the fact that indeed what Andorra just passed is a form of civil-unions law which just happens to be extremely similar to marriage. The page is being renamed to **Same-sex marriage in Andorra**, and the Same-sex union map that is often found in LGBT and Europe related articles will probably be changed to portray Andorra.

Likewise, the Slovenian high court recently declared limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples inconsistent with the equality clause in Slovenia's constitution, and "legalized same-sex marriage". The ruling is said to be immediately executive, but then the Parliament has to pass law to amend the family code, and it's not entirely impossibile IMHO that the Parliament may chose to go the path of further making already existing same-sex civil unions closer to opposite-sex marriage, while keeping the two things separate. The same-sex unions map of Europe has already been changed to portray Slovenia as a country with same-sex marriage. All the sources for this news seem to be copied from one single source (perhaps a press-release from the consititutional court itself).

A similar case happens with Italy where the same-sex civil-union law passed in 2016 is meant to create a legal device that is 80% equivalent to marriage, but is not marriage itself. Wikipedia correctly describe this case as a civil-union case.

So we are having a bit of inconsistencies here, both because of how the laws of each country are made, and/or because we assume that still in-fieri legislation is being finalized when editing.

1. How do we define Civil Union? Is there a need to differentiate Civil Unions in two grades, one for civil unions that are "almost" like marriage but not, and another grade for civil unions that are weaker in rights given?

2. How do we define Same-sex Marriage? Only as full Marriage Equality (same law, same terms, just the code is update to remove rules or wording that requires people to be of opposite sex) or for "parallel" legislations that may be in different law than where marriage is definied, or with suspicious wording that may point to same-sex and opposite-sex marriage to be different or meant to diverge over time?

3. Likewise, how do we define lesser forms of recognition of same-sex unions?

4. What are the watersheds?

5. What do we do for Andorra and Slovenia, until it's clear the legal status of same-sex "marriage" in those two countries? Touyats (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Last point being discussed in the previous section, for what it matters for Andorra. Touyats (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Years ago we tried two grades of CU's, i.e. almost-marriage and clearly-less-than-marriage, but found the distinction to be unworkable.
 * Normally if there are two separate laws, one for straights and one for LGBT, we count the second as CUs. But we don't mark a distinction for religious exemptions from performing SSM. In the US, for example, the Catholic church is not forced to perform marriages, but that's irrelevant because Catholic marriages have no legal force. What matters to the state is whether you file with the county clerk, and all that requires is that you declare yourselves married. In many Latin countries, we have an apparently intermediate situation, where religious marriages have legal force but you can also get a secular marriage. Since secular marriage is available to both straights and LGBT, I believe that counts as marriage equality. But you're right, there's the possibility that casaments may not be legally equivalent to matrimonis. But if so, are they less or more? I think we'd need more info.
 * IMO, marriage inequality may enter in other ways. There may be a single marriage law, so marriage looks to be equal, but those marriages are only accepted by certain institutions if you're opposite-sex. In Ecuador and I believe multiple states in Mexico, 'married' couples can adopt, but SSM couples are not accepted for adoption, so although there is a single marriage law, they don't have marriage equality. In Taiwan there's been a lot of debate over their SSM not granting marriage equality, and they're chipping away at the differences, but not there yet. I've tried making that distinction on the maps but have been overruled.
 * (Looks like by my def above, Taiwan should be colored as CU rather than SSM, but all our sources call it 'marriage'.) — kwami (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I doubt we will ever find a cathegorization that works for each and every country. However, I can't understand why religious marriages are brought into the discussion every time. The pages on Wikipedia about the recognition of same-sex unions are *by country* aka they describe what a State allows or not. If we want to document what a particular religion/religious movement/sect allows or not for same-sex couples, I would rather create pages like "Same-sex unions in Judaism/Christianity/Islam/Shintoism". So I would keep the relationship between what religions and a (secular) State as the last thing to worry (in general).
 * Likewise, I would ignore adoption in deciding about the specific flavour of a marriage as there are still too many different ways adoption for same-sex couples are codified in law and their limits (for example: at least in the EU it looks like there are very few legal problems ussually to extend adoption to lesbian couples since that does not involve surrogancy, so you'll probably have even the most equal of marriage laws that still discriminate gay male couples vs. gay female couples). Also, often (existing, non-equal) adoption law does not even require people to be married, and I think this is another reason not to focus on adoption when defining
 * I would rather focus and patrimonial, fiscal, and kinship aspects (who "comes first" in the family hierarchy), since in secular countries secular/civil/common-law marriage is (mostly) a patrimonial agreement between two people and the ancillary benfits the two people get from being married (inheritance, survivor's pension, ability to tend to/take time off job for a sick spouse etc...) and marginally perhaps what happens at the dissolution of marrige (alimony, etcc... are they the same in the case of opposite-sex vs. same-sex?).
 * Andorra's case indeed is a very tricky one, because the if indeed Andorra did not have civil/secular marriages up to now, the news here isn't that Andorra introduced marriage equality, more like that finally in 2202 two non-Catholics can marry in Andorra too :) (the marriage of a Catholic with a non-Catholic was probably always possible even in Church via Canonical's Law "dispensation"), AKA, a secular form of something that "should be marriage" is introduced, and that it just happens that the newly adopted secular legal instrument is equal.
 * (To answer your part "But you're right, there's the possibility that casaments may not be legally equivalent to matrimonis. But if so, are they less or more?": I think we can be pretty sure that if the two legal flavors will indeed diverge, 'casament's will become the lesser sibling of the twos... )
 * Compared to years ago, it's now clear that CU's are usually the first step to eventually legalize full marriage equality. But it looks like that States will still occasionally play some tricks when "opening marriage to LGBT people" (...I'm concerned of what Slovenia's parliament will do). So I'd design the grades as (again: adoption is not considered; relationship with religion neither):
 * 1) Full Equal Marriage: two men or two women can marry, and their marriage is completely the same when it comes to rights and obligations between the two and society at large . Legal instrument is the same, and it would require the legislator to introduce text in law that is explicitly discriminatory to undo the equality.
 * 2) Almost Equal Marriage: two men or two women can marry, and their marriage is completely the same when it comes to rights and obligations between the two and society at large; the legal instrument is the same, however there is suspicious wording that points to the fact a divergence may easily be introduced if wanted, and other laws can easily ignore the equality between LGBT and straight people (however: still ignoring adoption and religious matters, i.e. it can be an Almost Equal Marriage even if adoption and religious issues are not equal).
 * 3) Civil Union Almost Like Marriage: a man and a woman can marry, two men or two woman cannot but can enter in an "agreement" that binds them. Legal instruments is different from marriage. Rights and obligations are the same of marriage, especially in relation to the rest of society/third parties, but lack some major aspects of rights and obligations given by (straight) marriage that clearly make them different to marriage (for example: a civil union does not create a "family" under civil law).
 * 4) Civil Union Clearly Less than Marriage: a man and a woman can marry, two men or two woman cannot but can enter in an "agreement" that binds them. Legal instruments is different from marriage. Rights and obligations are mostly the same of marriage, but there are notable differences compared to marriage, especially in relation to the rest of society/third parties. For example: kinship between the two families of the spouses is not established.
 * 5) Registered Partnership/Cohabitation: mundane rights and no obligations are given to two people; they must however "register" for this to happen.
 * 6) Unregistered Partnership/Cohabitation: very mundane rights and no obligations are given to two people; rights happen automatically by merely living together. Touyats (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll add: the problem with sources is that media outlet very often mis-represent things to increase engagement and their profits... Touyats (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Marriage equality means the marriage is equal. If it's not treated as OSM, then we don't have marriage equality. Adoption is crucial here. I'm not talking about surrogacy, as long as that's the same for SS and OS couples; I mean a married couple can go to a government adoption agency, and they'll say, "sorry, but you're not really married." If the government is telling you that you aren't really married, then you don't have marriage equality.
 * Religion is relevant when it's law. In Israel, you can only get married under a recognized religion. I don't know that there's any difference in law between SS and OS couples, but SS couples cannot get married because none of the recognized religions will marry them.
 * What of Mexico, where in several states with SSM it is still illegal. You can get married, and your marriage may be fully equal once you do, but the process for getting married is not equal. (May take more time, more paperwork, or be more expensive.)
 * For unregistered cohabitation, what about Vietnam? SSM is decriminalized, and SS couples register with the state. (Everyone has to register where and with whom they live.) — kwami (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Touyats, I see your point of course, we are dealing with a patchwork of laws and rights here, and what's in a name after all? But I fear those six "grades" are entirely unworkable for a Wikipedia article, and inherently subjective. I don't think there's really a problem with how we categorise these things until now. Explanatory notes are our friend. The terms used in reliable sources are almost always exactly what we should be using, no need for further original research on our part. Jdcooper (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment out "not yet in effect" when not needed.
The template goes back and forth between needing the "not yet in effect" note, so when it isn't being used, I think it should be commented out rather than removed.Naraht (talk) 13:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Cuba...
Did this go immediately into effect and if not, when does it go into effect?Naraht (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * According to Equality on Trial, the results will be announced on Sept 30, and if 'yes', then it will go into immediate effect. But preliminary results, apparently of a full count, are that it passed 2:1, so that's going to be a 'yes'. — kwami (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not doubting that it passed, *that* I have seen more than enough reliable sources. That the final results would be announced on September 30, I'm also seeing lots of RS. But when it goes into effect and/or that it goes into immediate effect, *that* I haven't seen an RS. I'm actually *on* EoT, and have asked there as well.Naraht (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Naraht@undefined Since you're on EoT, could you ask someone there for better coverage of adoption? I've seen conflicting reports for Mexico, that it's by state law, so many don't have adoption, but also that there's a single national law that all states must follow, so that all have adoption. Don't know which to believe. — kwami (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * . I did ask, the closest thing I got told to a WP:RS is in Spanish on a Swiss website. I'm seeing conflicting things now online, I figure this will be shaken out one way or another in a week.Naraht (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Bolivia
I see Bolivia got added to Civil Unions, but I haven't seen anything recently that has significantly changed.Naraht (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Feel free to revert, or ping me if you wart me to. I was just reverting the claim on the South America map that SSM is now allowed by the constitution, which AFAICT it is not. — kwami (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * SSM isn't the situation with Bolivia, some sort of widely accepted(?) Civil Union is, I think the current count of "managed to get something through" is 3 couples. However, I agree that little has changed.Naraht (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's why I reverted the SAm map: someone claimed that SSM is no longer unconstitutional at the same time they added CUs. — kwami (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Mexico
As we get closer to full ME across Mexico, I support getting more specificNaraht (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)