Template talk:Same-sex unions/Archive 21

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2023
Panda2018 removed "India" from the Common Law marriage section on the 09:49, 31 December 2022‎ despite it being sourced and without providing a reason. The vast majority of Indians practice Common Law marriage and it dominates over registered marriage (western style), so it matters to LGBTQ in India. Septemberisnottheseptmonth (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Lemonaka (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Namibia
I have looked at news articles about the court decision and the case *only* seems to affect couples of the type "One Namibian and One person from country X married in county X". Is there *anything* in the court's decision that would either A) Allow two Namibians of the same gender to go to another country (presumably South Africa) and marry and have their marriage recognized by the Namibian government *or* B) allow married Canadians of the same gender be recognized by the Namibian government in the same way that married Canadians of different genders.Naraht (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * You're correct, I'll revert to my previous edit. MisterElection2001 (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Civil unions
Dear and, I recently added all the countries that allow any kind of civil union. This template is also used in the civil union article. I have been doing a lot of research on which countries allow civil unions and which do not, creating with their corresponding references to the legislation itself. And in fact, this research started because this template and the maps on equal marriage did not make it clear whether all countries that provide same-sex marriage also allow civil unions or not. So I think that indicating in the template if a country allows one type of union or both, gives much more valuable and encyclopedic information than if it is necessary to investigate country by country if it does or not. And also the template makes more sense for the civil union article. -DaddyCell (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * We'd reduced the list of CU countries to those which did not allow SSM, as that's what makes sense for the SSM article. But you're right that that doesn't make much sense for the CU article.
 * However, we have a further problem. Currently, in the lead at Civil Union we state that CUs were "created primarily as a means to provide recognition in law for same-sex couples."
 * I don't believe that's true. There are many countries that created CUs as a form of informal marriage for straight couples, and (originally at least) didn't make them available to SS couples. Some of them date to before the movement for SSM picked up steam. So CU != SS union. The SS-union template is therefore not necessarily appropriate for the CU article. I think perhaps we want a separate CU template, one that distinguishes CUs offered to SS couples, to OS couples, and to everyone. We might further distinguish those intended for OS couples and later extended to SS, or intended for SS and later extended to OS. — kwami (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Nepal
Tagged Nepal as dubious; started discussion on the main SSM article. — kwami (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I found the interim order in the news. After decoding and translating it, I think Nepal does not recognize same-sex marriage yet, but just residence rights for couples married abroad. --DaddyCell (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's dated to the month पुस Paush of this past year, so presumably it's the January 2023 ruling I recall (though it could be December 2022). — kwami (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch Article
I found https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/07/05/nepals-historic-achievement-marriage-equality. It starts out with Hundreds of same-sex couples in Nepal will soon be able to legally register their marriages following a landmark Supreme Court ruling on June 28 which cleared the way for marriage equality in the country.

Although Nepal’s civil code currently describes marriage as being between a man and a woman, Justice Til Pradad Shrestha ordered the government to immediately begin registering same-sex marriages while it prepares legislation to amend the law.

Sunil Pant, who was previously Nepal’s first openly gay member of parliament and is a leading campaigner on the issue said, “People are already celebrating. They are rushing back to their villages to collect documents for their marriages.” He estimated that around 200 same-sex couples may register their marriages in the coming months.

That seems pretty definitive in favor of Nepal being a Full Marriage Equality situation and Sunil Pant would be about as good of a source on this as anyone not actually on the Supreme Court of Nepal.Naraht (talk) 05:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * https://www.jurist.org/news/2023/07/nepal-supreme-court-legalizes-same-sex-marriage-in-landmark-verdict/ seems to agree.

The phrasing "register their marriages" might be a way to avoid implying that they aren't already married. That is, it might be equivalent to "recognize" their existing (informal) marriages and record them formally, at which point they'll be treated legally as any other marriage. However, it might also mean registering them the way Romania or Curacao register external marriages, granting them only minimal rights. Since none of the sources have bothered to go into any detail, I think we're going to have to wait and see what actually happens. Remember how nothing ever happened when Armenia announced the recognition of external marriages? — kwami (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The last sentence of the jurist.org article is "Nepal is now one of the only two jurisdictions in largely conservative Asia to allow same-sex marriage. Previously in 2019, Taiwan became the first in Asia to legalize gay marriage." And for the hrw.org article, why would an *external* marriage need documentation from the villages? And another article from hrw.org also seems clear = https://www.hrw.org/the-day-in-human-rights/2023/07/06 Naraht (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't say external marriages needed to be documented.
 * We have contradictory sources that don't go into enough detail for us to draw credible conclusions. Some say Nepal *is* the 2nd country, others that it likely *will be* the 2nd country. Looks like we need to wait for something more comprehensive. — kwami (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What are the "likely Will be" sources?Naraht (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Something above or on the other thread, I don't recall which. None of them are long. — kwami (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, this says, "A significant step towards marriage equality ... While same-sex marriage is still not yet fully legal in Nepal ... Parliament may take a while to pass the marriage equality law, but this order gives a practical solution to members of the sexual and gender minority communities who wish to register their marriage legally. ... If Nepal fully legalises same-sex marriage, it will become the second country in Asia to do so." — kwami (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * First, I'm not going to push to revert back, since WP:NODEADLINE *but* see https://www.bdtonline.com/news/nation_world/nepal-same-sex-marriage/image_dcfaf0ff-a986-5dd0-be20-c3caa8bf0504.html with the quote “At personal level, for those who are living together it is a huge victory. Practically, they can register their marriage and their rights can be immediately exercised,” said Pant. Can we at least agree that Pant is as close as we are going to get on a Subject Matter Expert here?Naraht (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, but you can also register a CU and exercise your rights. Or register a marriage and exercise limited rights that aren't equivalent to a "real" marriage, as in Curacao. I expected news of people registering their marriages this week, but there's nothing. And it's not like SC rulings for SSM haven't happened before in Nepal. Until we have reports of people actually becoming legally married couples, we can't responsibly say that it's now possible for them to become legally married couples. — kwami (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2023
The notes for the India section does not describe the reality of situation in India. The situation is that there are limited rights provided to homosexual couples by being a live-in couple. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-6583-same-sex-live-in-relationship.html https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/how-gay-and-lesbian-couples-in-india-cope-in-the-absence-of-same-sex-marriage/articleshow/81637450.cms Arind7 (talk) 11:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lewcm Talk to me! 17:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Thailand
As I understand it, Marriage Equality has passed the Cabinet in a way that if the parties in the Coalition vote in the same manner as their members of the Cabinet it will pass the legislature. Not sure of the other steps, but still *could* be derailed. Not ready to see in this template.Naraht (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with "Not Yet". However I do agree with one source that indicated that the most likely reason that there won't be Marriage Equality by mid-year would be another Thai Coup.Naraht (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Character for Nepal vs. (presumably) Thailand
Would it make sense to have another character (like #) for the situation that Nepal has where there has been a recognized marriage, but that each individual case needs to work its way through courts/multiple proceeding vs. (presumably) Thailand where if it passes, it will completely sweep through and at worst you'll have a "Kim Davis" situation? Naraht (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * how did we handle that for Mexico? — kwami (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)