Talk:Same-sex marriage

why no info of Vatican?

124.244.120.42 (talk) 07:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, first, it's not legal there and there is no discussion about it (they don't even have civil marriage - just religious one - and (religious) SSM is not permited under the catholic tradition).

Second, what the pope announced yesturday is that the countries of the world should authorised same-sex civil union - not marriage - and he was not talking about the Vatican city State ! Martin m159 (talk) 09:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The Pope didn't say so: it was a collage of his two different sentences about two different problems. --Riccardo Riccioni (talk) 07:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Contentious section

The article states: "Anthropologists have struggled to determine a definition of marriage that absorbs commonalities of the social construct across cultures around the world." This sentence seems to imply that marriage is a social construct and not something arising from human natuer. That would mean it is a biased statement. Malus Catulus (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

This is appropriately sourced, and I see no issue with bias. Kauri0.o (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Switzerland

On the case of Switzerland, if I understand correctly SSM was approved by the Parliament, however it can still be contested if the party that opposes it gathers enough signatures for a referendum. If I'm undertanding correctly then it should be mentioned on introduction isn't it? After all there's no warranty that the referendum is going to happen yet. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

It's an interesting case. Referendum isn't set in stone. Is it WP:CRYSTAL to assume the signatures will be collected and the referendum allowed or is it WP:Crystal to assume that the referendum won't be called? Del_Usion23 (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The approval by Parliament does not make same-sex marriage legal in Switzerland, the law has not yet come into effect. CMD (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Does it mean it is on hold for the duration of the period of signature collection? Then only coming into effect in case they fail, or put on hold again until the referendum's result?--Aréat (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

It is on hold for a period of time, and if there is no referendum then it comes into effect. If there is a referendum that will affect it. CMD (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

What I was thinking, thanks.--Aréat (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok but in that case it will be currently a similar case than Austria, Costa Rica and Taiwan where same-sex marriage was set to be legal in a particular future date. In all those cases it was included in the infobox with a dash. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

We don't seem to have a particular future date for Switzerland. CMD (talk) 09:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I see. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

When Slovenia approved marriage in 2015, the country was included in the info box with an astrisk despite the scheduling of a referendum. It was only removed when same-sex marriage was rejected in said referendum. Andrew1444 (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality

I don't see any kind of neutrality. Why only studies supporting same-sex marriage and homosexuality are scientific? Those who do oppose them are all ignorant? --Riccardo Riccioni (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It depends what your definition of 'studies' is? Based on scientific consensus, and trusted government and health body advice the article is balanced and neutral. If you want an encyclopaedia to reflect every opinion out there it would not be proportionate. However, representation of the opposition to homosexuality is documented extensively on Wikipedia. AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 14:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, but I firstly cannot accept that Catholic Church be called a fundamentalist group. It has so many academies and scientists throughout the world who give reasons of its convictions! Moreover we in Africa have a very different approach to homosexuality, and, please, don't call as "primitives": may be our wisdom has more value than some "scientific" researches. Finally I, as the main contributor of Swahili Wikipedia, am very disturbed by the homo-dogmatism of the English edition. May be this is why Ad Oriented had to leave! Peace to you! --Riccardo Riccioni (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Riccardo Riccioni, Please do not conflate this discussion with racism or this article in fact. There is always difficulty when religious groups undertake scientific studies or make statements on issues such as sexuality; their opinions may not be objective. Some countries also do not have secular governments which also brings about issues with reliability. AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 05:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you again. I didn't understand your last sentence, but the second one is very clear: it is like saying that scientific studies by religious persons are not credible as those by other people. I think both faith an unbelief are choices which can positively or negatively orient the research. For both it is necessary to see if this apply. Moreover, in the case of sexuality, personal choices also do influence the research, for anybody tries to justify himself/herself. What both you and I agree on is that we need objectivity in science and neutrality in Wikipedia. --Riccardo Riccioni (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

After this talk, am I allowed to change the text saying that SSM are opposed not only by fundamentalist groups but by Islam, Catholic Church, Orthodox Churches and other Christian denomination. May I expose some reasons? --Riccardo Riccioni (talk) 07:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Riccardo Riccioni, the sentence talks about the most prominent opponents. It does not require a full listing of all groups that may or may not give support. The article LGBT rights opposition might be a more relevant place. Apart from that I'm not really sure why you want to list various religions? AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 11:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you want knowing my intentions? What are you suspecting? Is not this a kind of censorship? Truly it seems English Wikipedia is not like it would be. All the same, I don't like read that the religious groups opposing SSM are fundamentalist. And the most important is the Catholic Church, because of its dimensions and academic expertise. Saying some information is present in another among 6 million articles in not enough. Peace to you! --Riccardo Riccioni (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Same-sex marriages performed abroad isn't recognised in Armenia

How many same-sex marriages were recognised in Armenia since July 2017? The answer is - zero. For example, in 2018, more than 400 same-sex couples registered their foreign weddings in Israel.

According to the Family Code of Armenia, marriages performed in other countries are recognized by the state, however, if the norms of a foreign state contradict the Constitution of Armenia, then the legislation of Armenia is applied. As a result, recognition of foreign same-sex marriages appears to be impossible.

On 3 July 2017, «PanARMENIAN.Net» news agency published an article stating that according to unnamed source in the Ministry of Justice, same-sex marriages performed abroad are valid in Armenia. This news was reported by some media outlets but still has not been confirmed.

On 26 August 2019, the Minister of Justice, Rustam Badasyan clearly stated that Armenia does not recognize same-sex marriage.

As of 2021, no such recognition has yet been documented. It is not known if recognition would give such couples all the rights of marriage under domestic law, also in light of the existing constitutional ban. There had not been a single case in four years! NO SINGLE CASE IN FOUR YEARS. So the article does not reflect the reality.

Let's wait until the first foreign same-sex marriage will be actually recognised and reported by the media. JDQUD1 (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

This seems opinionated and none of the statements above are backed by any credible sources. Archives908 (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Update- user has been blocked for WP:SOAPBOX, as was initially suspected. Archives908 (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

India, Bolivia, China and Tlaxcala

Please someone edit the map. Bolivia has same-sex unions, India and China have unregistres cohabitaion and Tlaxcala (Mexico) legalised same sex marriage Taxydromeio (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Taxydromeio: The map is hosted by Wikimedia Commons. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

And how can we edit it? Taxydromeio (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Wording of lead

I removed the word "marriage equality" from lead because it made no sense in context: "marriage equality" is not "the marriage of two people".[1]

However, if there is a desire to retain the phrase in the lead, we could maybe change In the modern era, the first same-sex marriage law took effect in... to In the modern era, marriage equality was first granted to same-sex couples in... WanderingWanda (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss on here before removing a key part of the lead. You provided no citations for this change just your opinion. Marriage Equality directs to this page and so should not be deleted until you gain consensus to create a separate standalone article; or you change redirect to an existing article; or you delete the page. AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 04:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, let me try to explain the problem in another way: two people just got married. Is their union a marriage? Yes. Is their union a marriage equality? No.

And I don't believe you are correct that the lead needs to use the phrase "marriage equality" just because of the marriage equality redirect, although I've already proposed a solution, above, that would retain the phrase. WanderingWanda (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

WanderingWanda makes a good point, the term "marriage equality" is used to refer to the legalisation of same-sex marriage, rather than same-sex marriages themselves. It would better redirect to Legal status of same-sex marriage. CMD (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not object to the lead being re-written, I just believe the term should remain in the lead somehow or redirected elsewhere. I reverted your edit so it could be discussed and not lost, as can happen. I agree the current phrasing should be improved. AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 07:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

With due respect to AussieWikiDan, the text that they have re-inserted here is simply false and should be removed immediately. "Marriage equality" is not a synonym for same-sex marriage, and we're misleading and confusing our readers if we suggest that it is. The cited body of the article says that activists "have long used the terms marriage equality and equal marriage to signal that their goal was for same-sex marriage". The pursuit of the goal and the goal itself aren't the same concept.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I have changed the lead to reflect the consensus here that it is misleading; I have referenced the additional text changes. AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 14:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I will also change the redirect as I proposed above. CMD (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm neutral about it really. There is no article that would fit the action of fighting for marriage equality. However, if it is changed please remove the bold from the wording and link in this article. AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 14:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Legal status of same-sex marriage might be a reasonable redir target for Marriage equality (I suspect it is), but given that this is a subject that attracts controversy and is part of a general sexuality-and-gender discretionary sanctions regime, it would be much better done as retargeting proposal at WP:RFD. People at RfD often turn up even better redir targets that people's first guesses anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Done, up at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 26. CMD (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Just move the term to make more contextual sense in the lead. Do not remove it or unbold it (without finding a better redirect target first), per MOS:BOLDSYN. I have to strongly suggest that people get less "Bring up the cannons and storm the ramparts!" about this stuff. The very first rule of MoS (in its lead) is to write around problems instead of fighting about them, and the obvious WP:COMMONSENSE meta-rule above that is to write in a sensible manner in the first place. See also WP:POINT: Don't provoke other editors by making a guaranteed-to-cause-objection deletion, nor just engage in a reflexive revert, if a minor copyedit to have the actual encyclopedia material make better sense is the obvious answer for both sides. FFS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't provoke other editors? By coming on here and berating us all and then saying FFS (For Fuck Sake) – doesn't that seem to undermine your point or border on uncivil? AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 11:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

My preference here would be to revert to the longstanding wording, before it was changed a couple of weeks ago, which clearly and concisely defined the term within the natural flow of the lead: "The introduction of same-sex marriage (also called marriage equality) has varied by jurisdiction,..."--Trystan (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

"Banned" or "not recognized"?

The legend under the red map says "Same-sex marriage banned by a secular constitution". It should be distinguished whether in particular country there is any legal "ban" on same-sex marriage or cohabitation, or same-sex marriages are simply not recognized by law - which is by no means the same thing. Such is the case with Polish law which doesn't recognize same-sex marriage but the claim that there is any "ban" is just false [Another thing is that the interpretation of the provision of Polish constitution about marriage is highly debatable - while some claim that it defines marriage as an union between a man and a woman, there is a strong argument that this provision isn't really a definition (as literally it doesn't define marriage, but proclaims that "marriage between a man and a woman remains under protection of the state")] Anyway, the point is that "ban" on something and "not recognize legally" are not the same thing, and putting them together as the article does is simply misleading --Monsieur empereur (talk) 08:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

"Not recognized" might be more accurate if a nation's laws were entirely silent on the matter of same-sex marriage, but wording prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying is a ban, and is described as such in reliable sources.

In the case of Poland, for the purposes of a summary chart, I think we have to go with how the constitution is legally interpreted and applied by the courts, which have interpreted Article 18 as prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying.--Trystan (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

If wording prohibiting is a ban, but silence on the matter is not recognizing, then in the case of Poland "not recognized" would be accurate, not "ban", as Polish law is in fact silent on the matter. There is no provision of Polish law which would prohibit same-sex marriage or even mention it in any context. Same-sex unions in Poland have no legal status - so aren't recognized by law - but aren't "prohibited" in any way. Monsieur empereur (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Hello. I have a question. I am new to editing, so maybe this is the wrong place - I apologize if it is. I was just looking at the References of this article and noticed that reference numbers 3 and 7 have multiple outside sources attached to them. Is this normal? I haven't seen References set up like that elsewhere, so I was just wanting to see if they should be split up. If they are meant to be split up, I'm not sure how to do that - could someone point me in the direction of how to learn how to do that? Thanks! Amethystloucks (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Responded at your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Japan

We should remove Japan from TBD list. The court’s ruling has no immediate legal effect and same-sex couples are still not allowed to marry. Even if all district courts declare same-sex unions constitutional, the legalisation of same-sex marriages is not guaranteed, - that would need a Supreme Court ruling, which could take several years. Alternatively, Japan's legislature, the Diet, could pass a law making same-sex marriage legal, although there is almost no appetite among the ruling party to do so. Dustssics (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree, unfortunately. Martin m159 (talk) 08:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Romania

Many informations on the page about Romanian legislative solutions regarding the sam-sex marriages are false or misinterpreted:

• Romania does limit the marriage only to opposite-sex couples as a result of a Romanian Constitutional Court decision (Decision No.539 from 17 September 2018 [2]). Unfortunately, the decision is available only in Romanian but I will translate the following paragraph:

Romanian: 29. Analizând conformitatea modificării propuse cu prevederile alin.(2) al art.152 din Legea fundamentală, referitoare la interdicția suprimării vreunui drept sau libertăți fundamentale sau a garanțiilor acestora, Curtea a examinat redactarea art.48 alin.(1) din Constituție, în forma propusă de inițiatorii revizuirii, prin raportare la definiția noțiunii „a suprima”, și a constatat că aceasta nu este de natură să facă să dispară sau să înlăture, să elimine ori să anuleze instituția căsătoriei și că toate garanțiile dreptului la căsătorie, astfel cum sunt consacrate în textul constituțional de referință, rămân neschimbate. Prin înlocuirea sintagmei „între soți” cu sintagma „între un bărbat și o femeie” se realizează doar o precizare în privința exercitării dreptului fundamental la căsătorie, în sensul stabilirii exprese a faptului că aceasta se încheie între parteneri de sex biologic diferit, aceasta fiind, de altfel, chiar semnificația originară a textului consacrat în Constituția din anul 1991 (în acest sens, a se vedea considerentele cuprinse la paragrafele 36—42 din Decizia nr.580 din 20 iulie 2016). English: After an analysis of the compatibility between the proposed [constitutional] modification with the content of paragraph (2) of the article 152 from the Constitution, regarding the interdiction of suppression of rights and fundamental freedoms or of their guarantees, the Court examined article 48 paragraph (1) from Constitution in the state which was proposed by those who initiated the modification bill [(The family is founded on the freely consented marriage of _the spouses_ a man and a woman, their full equality, as well as the right and duty of the parents to ensure the upbringing, education and instruction of their children.)] in the view of the definition of the term "to suppress". Through replacing the phrase „of spouses” with the phrase „of a man and a woman” it is accomplished only specification in regard of exerting the constitutional right of marriage, in the way that it expressly establishes the fact that it [marriage] is officiated between partners of opposite biological sex,thus been, moreover, exactly the original meaning of the text contained in the Constitution of 1991 [the actual Constitution].

• Romania also does not recognize any form of lmited legal recognition (registered cohabitation, legal guardianship) at the moment. The controversy comes from a misinterpreted Constitutional Court decision: Decision no. 534 of 18 July 2018 on the exception of unconstitutionality of the provisions of Article 277 (2) and (4) of the Civil Code [3]. The decision is translated in english and the following paragraph states that Romanian law recognized same-sex marriages only in regard of application of the European Directive about the period for which the spouse of an EU citizen is allowed to stay on the territory of Romania (Romanian Gov initially didn't gave this right to same-sex spouses as its law didn't recognize and still doesn't recognize same-sex marriages from abroad, but recognizes only a right of staying in the country for the period determined in the Directive. The term of "spouse" used in directive is autonomous and it isn't affected by the term "spouse" used in Romanian law and neither does it give a status of a "married person" to same-sex couples.):

To uphold the plea of unconstitutionality and declares constitutional the provisions of Article 277 (2) and (4) of the Civil Code, to the extent that they permit the granting of the right to reside in the territory of the Romanian state, under the conditions provided by the EU law, to spouses – citizens of the Member States of the European Union and/or citizens of third-counties – of same-sex marriages, concluded or contracted in a Member State of the European Union. --82.76.1.28 (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)