Talk:Same-sex marriage in the Republic of Ireland

Proposed article change realignment/suggestion

Could (or should) the structure of this article be changed? I'll explain why I think it should but here's how I would have it looking:
1. Civil partnerships
1.1 Government legislation 2008–10
1.1.1 Recognition of foreign partnerships
1.2 Legal position before civil partnerships
1.2.1 Norris bill 2004
1.2.2 Labour Party bills 2006, 2007

2. History
2.1 Law Reform Commission (2000-06)
2.2 Constitutional review (2004-06)
2.3 Colley Report (2004-06)
2.4 Other statutory bodies and NGOs

3. Lawsuits
3.1 KAL Recognition case

4. Same-sex marriage
4.1 Government proposals 2011–present
4.2 Marriage referendum (new section detailing results of and arguments in the referendum)
4.3 Marriages (perhaps a section here detailing the first weddings to legally occur and when + future statistics - presuming of course, that the referendum actually succeeds)

5. Public debate
5.1 Public opinion
5.1.2 Polling

Why? Well I think the info under my history section is a bit cumbersome. Not a lot of what is discussed actually lead to any substantial policy outcome, and most of it is just somewhat relevant history of the debate in the mid 2000's about the nature of family in Irish family. I personally think they'd be better off in the one section. The other three seem to naturally fit together in a relatively chronological order. Maybe the history & civil partnerships section could be switched.

Anyway, what do people think? Jono52795 (talk) 08:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Gone ahead and made those changes, can easily be changed back to the way it was before if unpopular Jono52795 (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem - the article flow seems to work well. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

This article was very much in need of a restructuring. This change is an improvement imho. Thanks. SPQRobin (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 23 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request. As to the idea that the title should just be Marriage in the Republic of Ireland, that would impose a topical scope on content that is far more specifically focused. Of course, if the content changed to match that suggested scope, the title would properly be revisited (and would then be in a horse before cart relationship).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Recognition of same-sex unions in the Republic of Ireland → Same-sex marriage in the Republic of Ireland – It is now clear that the referendum was successful and same-sex marriage has been voted as legal in Ireland. The article title should conform to others, like Same-sex marriage in Canada, Same-sex marriage in Brazil, Same-sex marriage in France, etc. Kudzu1 (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support I understand it won't be in effect for six weeks (maybe they have to make revisions to the law to implement it), but even now it's a valid title for an article discussing the current state of affairs. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – The referendum result does not create "same-sex marriage", it merely allows marriage to be enacted without discrimination as to the sex of the participants. Therefore, the article should be moved to Marriage in the Republic of Ireland and expanded. If Ireland is not going to segregate certain marriages as being "same-sex", we shouldn't either. RGloucester — ☎ 18:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• I understand your position, but you're suggesting a rather novel approach. AFAIK, no country or jurisdiction in the world has created a separate legal class for same-sex marriage, and this and other articles don't purport to. The idea is covering the subject of marriages between people of the same sex. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
• RGloucester, I like the perspective behind your proposal, that the extension of marriage to same-sex couples in a country is merely part of the history of marriage in that country overall. But suppose that had been done in the first place. Wouldn't the quantity of information about the history of same-sex marriage contained in each "Marriage in Slobovia" article lead to proposals to WP:SPLIT them out into separate articles anyway? —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Such a split would imply a boundary that does not exist. Insofar as Lower Slobovia is concerned, I'm not aware as to whether marriage is an extant cultural practice there. RGloucester — ☎ 19:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "boundary". The extension of marriage to same-sex couples stands as a discrete topic of discussion and examination within the overall context of marriage. Do you think it's wrong that Women's suffrage in the United States stands outside of Voting rights in the United States on the grounds that women voting is no different from men voting? —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

•  Support: consistency in article titling is a good thing. As far as RGloucester's objection: marriage in the RoI is not the subject of this particular article, and neither is the referendum per se, except insofar as it was the method whereby SSM finally became legal. The article will continue (I assume) to cover the history of the whole thing, including the civil partnership era and the various movements that eventually led to the referendum. In other words, it is about same-sex marriage in the ROI, and should be named appropriately. Xtifr _tälk 19:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
• Wait for the law to be passed - the referendum amends the constitution, but the constitution is not the law: it is the framework around which laws are built; the amendment permits the Oireachtas to make a law which would otherwise have been unconstitutional. Once that law has been signed by the President, Support move to Same-sex marriage in the Republic of Ireland, to match all the other pages in Category:Same-sex marriage by country. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm indifferent as regards the move, but that isn't accurate. The wording of the amendment was designed to be self-executing. I.e. should the government fail to enact legislation (out of neglect or change of government) the courts will find the current restrictions now-unconstitutional. The reason it won't work that way in practice is no one is actually going to sue the State because the time it would take to get a (guaranteed favourable) judgement, would be longer than waiting for legislation. Once the amendment is signed into law, (next week, when the challenge-period expires) the change in law, whether by the Government or the courts, is a foregone conclusion. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support, I don't see any reason for thinking that the move into law is now not a foregone conclusion. The article title should be similarly formed as articles with parallel contents. I am similarly supportive of a move of content to the Marriage in the Republic of Ireland article. Either option is good. GregKaye 00:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support: - the same move was made to the Washington State, Maine and Maryland SSM articles following passage of their respective referenda, despite the change not going into legal effect for over a month in all 3 states. There is no court challenge which could scupper the result as in Slovenia, so I can't think of any reason to oppose the title change. Get it done I say! Jono52795 (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support - per Xtifr and others; no point delaying, and consistency is good. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support - as mentioned above, the amendment is self-executing. It doesn't say the state may enact same-sex marriage (in which case we should wait until the law is enacted), it effectively says the state must enact same-sex marriage. The title should be made consistent with the series of articles on SSM. - htonl (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support: - as said by Greg I am similarly supportive of a move of content to the Marriage in the Republic of Ireland article. Either option is good. Mariamullins (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd oppose that based on the names of the other articles. There is an implied consensus that articles on the topic be title Same-sex marriage in X. If they are all renamed that's fine, but I couldn't support that move unless it is part of a group move encompassing all such articles. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Everything has been updated to reflect Ireland's change in status (i.e. maps, tables, templates). I see no reason that the article shouldn't be renamed. While the law is not in effect, we have always made it a custom of sorts to show that it will be law soon. This referendum is binding, so there is no backtracking on it now. Let's just change it and be done.

P.S. Has anyone heard about the status of Slovenia? I feel like the Constitutional Court should have decided the fate of a referendum, but I can't find anything. If you do, please shoot me a link on my talk page. Thanks. Chase1493 (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support per Xtifr. CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 18:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Xtifr. Snappy (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Irish language?

Hi Panda2018 0. I'm unclear why Irish translations of the names of articles legislation or phrases like 'civil partnerships' are being translated into Irish? WP:USEENGLISH and WP:IMOS would seem to apply, and there's no need to include Irish translations. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Niall O'Loughlin - vote yes on marriage equality street art - Dublin, Ireland.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Same-sex marriage in the Republic of Ireland

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Lots of uncited passages, and the prose in various places in the "Same-sex marriage" section needs to be updated to expand upon the latest statistics listed in the tables. Z1720 (talk) 05:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.