Wikipedia

Talk:Same-sex union legislation/Archive 2

< Talk:Same-sex union legislation
Latest comment: 11 months ago by Thesavagenorwegian in topic Japan
Archive 1 Archive 2

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Same-sex union legislation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 27 external links on Same-sex union legislation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Paraguay (discussion could also apply to other jurisdictions with constitutional bans)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

So there is a movement to create marriage equality in Paraguay and a bill will be presented to Parliament by August. However, there is a problem: there is a Constitutional barrier to any form of same-sex union. Should we put this on the page or is it pointless? Spanish citation[1] English translation[2] TenorTwelve (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Definition of "Proposed"

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Question:

Does the category of "Proposed" apply only when a politician proposes it or would it also qualify if an advocacy group proposes it?

Via our folks at Equality on Trial an article was posted that suggested that Durango, Mexico could potentially be "Proposed" though this seems it could be more on the advocacy side than the politician-proposed side, though that is debatable. I want to run this by you folks first before I make another error on posting and to help establish definitions for what "Proposed" means.

User:Ron_1987 do you have any feedback?

Here are my sources [3][4]

Thanks,

-TenorTwelve (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that we should just abandon the "proposed" thing entirely and list only the bills which were actually introduced in the parliament. Ron 1987 (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you. --Baronedimare (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree also. RivertorchFIREWATER 04:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.metro.pr/pr/noticias/2017/07/01/comunidad-gay-exige-matrimonio-igualitario-paraguay.html
  2. ^ http://www.equalityontrial.com/2017/06/30/equality-news-round-up-breaking-news-and-more/
  3. ^ http://www.equalityontrial.com/2017/08/01/open-thread-63/
  4. ^ http://durango.notigram.com/local/2017/08/06/colectivo-gay-volvera-a-impulsar-el-matrimonio-igualitario-en-el-congreso/
I agree as well. --joe deckertalk 00:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Same-sex union legislation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Coman Case

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am wondering if the maps on need to be changed on pages Same-sex union legislation, LGBT rights in Europe, LGBT rights by country or territory , for  ,  ,   or the template template:Same-sex unions

(Sorry the maps are not in link form)

The EU Court of Justice just ruled that the word Spouse includes same-sex couples and therefore same-sex couples have residency rights and freedom of movement. Would this count as foreign recognition of marriages? This ruling affects Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, and Slovakia. States that recognize civil unions would not be affected, if I understand this correctly.

This ruling does not require said counties to perform same-sex marriages, only to recognize them, if I understand this correctly. I think there are also parts of the policy that limits it to EU citizens and possibly only if performed in EU countries, though I'm not sure on that, so we may need to add an asterisk on an article or two.

Would this mean those countries would be green/green-striped on the marriage maps?

[1][2][3][4][5][6]

Thanks!

-TenorTwelve (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Saskatchewan

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Does anyone know if Saskatchewan has codified marriage equality? All of the other Provinces and Territories of Canada have done so already according to this page and its citations. Is there a bill or a law or has nothing happened so far in this regard? -TenorTwelve (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Non-binding referendums

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi friends,

I'm wondering if we should start a segment on the page on non-binding referendums. Australia had a non-binding referendum; Taiwan just had multiple non-binding referenda questions.

Currently the Taiwan referendum on same-sex marriage is listed under national legislation; yet it is non-binding so the Court ruling is still scheduled to go into place. I am wondering if we should add a category on this.

Was the Irish referendum binding? Or any other referendums?

Am I mistaken on this being non-binding?

Does anyone have thoughts on this?

Thanks, -TenorTwelve (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Baja California

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello friends,

I am wondering if this should be included and if so, how? A bill[7] has been filed in Baja California to repeal the Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. I'm not sure if this would also Constitutionally codify marriage equality (Can someone please check?). If there is a repeal bill with no subsequent marriage legislation attached to it, should it be mentioned? I know for Vietnam (a slightly different scenario), we have not mentioned the repeal legislation of its Constitutional Amendment except in the footnote because it did not legalize marriage through the process; it only decriminalized it. Yet Administrative action legalizing marriage has already been taken in Baja California, meaning that anything in favor of marriage equality would technically be codification (I think---unless we only count legislation following court rulings as codification).

Thanks and have a great day!

-TenorTwelve (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I tried to find the text of the bill on the state congress' website, but to no avail. Apparently, it was not yet formally submitted, or it takes some time for the bill being published there. We should wait and see.... Ron 1987 (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://theconversation.com/rights-for-same-sex-married-couples-to-move-around-the-eu-confirmed-in-landmark-ruling-96387
  2. ^ https://www.ilga-europe.org/resources/news/latest-news/coman-case-q&a
  3. ^ http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d0f130da03d186e3b70849dfb5b99fbc0f5bdce1.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4Pb3iPe0?text=&docid=202542&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=317853
  4. ^ https://www.ilga-europe.org/resources/news/latest-news/cjeu-verdict-coman2018
  5. ^ https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2018-06/cp180080en.pdf
  6. ^ https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/world/europe/romania-ecj-gay-marriage.html
  7. ^ https://www.uniradioinforma.com/noticias/bajacalifornia/551118/presentan-iniciativa-por-la-que-se-crea-el-codigo-familar.html

Haiti, Namibia, South Korea and Thailand

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The map is misleading. Haiti, Namibia, South Korea and Thailand don't recognize same-sex marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships. PLEASE, stop coloring new countries without providing credible sources.

LGBT rights in Haiti

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in Haiti may face social and legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Public opinion tends to be opposed to LGBT rights, which is why LGBT people are not protected from discrimination, are not included in hate crimes laws and households headed by same-sex couples do not have any of the legal rights given to married couples. Haiti does not recognize same-sex marriages, civil unions or similar institutions. In August 2017, a bill to jail same-sex couples who get married for three years, with a fine of $8,000, passed the Haitian Senate, but never became law.

LGBT rights in Namibia

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in Namibia face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is not banned in Namibia, and households headed by same-sex couples are not eligible for the same legal protections available to opposite-sex couples. Same-sex unions are currently not recognized in Namibia. Several court cases on the issue have been filed with the High Court, and AWAIT a decision.

Recognition of same-sex unions in South Korea

South Korea recognizes neither same-sex marriage nor any other form of legal union for same-sex couples. In 2019, the Government of South Korea announced it would recognize the same-sex spouses of foreign diplomats who come to live in South Korea. The recognition DOES NOT EXTEND TO SAME-SEX SPOUSES OF SOUTH KOREAN DIPLOMATS LIVING ABROAD, MUCH LESS LESS TO SOUTH KOREAN SAME-SEX COUPLES. As of October 2019, the only beneficiaries of this scheme have been New Zealand Ambassador Philip Turner and his husband Hiroshi Ikeda.

LGBT rights in Thailand

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Thailand may face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents.[2] Both male and female same-sex sexual activity are legal in Thailand, but same-sex couples and households headed by same-sex couples are not eligible for the same legal protections available to opposite-sex couples. Thai law currently does not recognize same-sex marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships.

PLEASE, stop coloring new countries without providing credible sources. Cyanmax (talk) 07:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

British Caribbean territories

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The constitutions of the 3 Caribbean territories do not explicitly ban SSM. Rather, they protect the right to OSM. They may have been intended to prevent SSM, much as making "unnatural acts" illegal may have been intended to target homosexuality, but it strikes me as OR to report them as bans. AFAICT the article are unreferenced. Do we have sources that (a) the constitutional courts of these countries have interpreted the constitutional wording as constituting a ban, or (b) that the wording is accepted by the courts or legislatures as de facto bans? — kwami (talk) 05:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2018 and 7 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kylawelch.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Japan

Latest comment: 11 months ago6 comments5 people in discussion

This article has gotten so big an unwieldy that it regularly crashes my browser when I try to edit it, or even to simply read it.

One thing that's made it difficult is the sheer number of separate entries for every small town in Japan that has passed a same-sex partnership certificate system. Since these municipal units are so small, and so unlike anything else covered in this article, and because the certificates are of little legal binding force, I suggest removing all of those entries for any Japanese unit smaller than a prefecture and placing them in a different article, for example Recognition of same-sex unions in Japan. Robsalerno (talk) 01:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  • What if we condensed them to have a monthly entry that says how many cities were added that month and a note or something could be expanded to list them? Could that be workable? If we are to reduce it, we definitely should keep the prefectures. For what it's worth, Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States does not list the multitude of cities and counties that had/have domestic partnership agreements, though it is listed on the state level. Reducing the content for Japan is regrettable as it features Asia, though I can see why as there are a lot of cities and I will admit it is very tiring to maintain. -TenorTwelve (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I think we should keep only the prefectures here and move the cities to Recognition of same-sex unions in Japan--Baronedimare (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree with this proposal. The article is getting to big and it will only grow. I would just remove the entries from the table, the lead of the section "Sub-national level" doesn't need to change. I would not include a note that says how many cities are added that month (and which). I think that is recentism (and it needs to be updated all the time).--2A02:1810:BCA9:3A00:C497:2C17:123A:BB1D (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Agreed. The sheer number of cities here is unwieldy. It does help convey the overall sentiment that there is a wide consensus for civil recognition of unions/marriages, as city after city are beginning to issue them in quick succession. That impression however, should not come at the cost of readability. TheSavageNorwegian 20:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
    Whoops didn't notice I was replying to something half a year old. I guess I should just get on fixing it huh. TheSavageNorwegian 20:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Same-sex_union_legislation/Archive_2&oldid=1169773946"