Template talk:Same-sex unions

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)

(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.)

ECJ ruling

Per the recent ECJ ruling described here: Recognition of same-sex unions in Romania#2018 European Court of Justice ruling, shouldn't a few countries be added to the "Marriage recognized" section (albeit with a footnote stating that it's only when performed in an EU country etc)? Namely Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Poland, Slovenia, Croatia, Czech Rep., Slovakia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, and Italy. Or do we have to wait for confirmation from the individual countries that they will abide by the ruling? Or is there something else I've misinterpreted? If we are changing it then the table at Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe also needs updating. Jdcooper (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Countries having civil unions grants immigration/residency rights to same-sex partners and recognize same-sex marriage as civil unions, so there is no need to add them to that section. Other countries should be added if compliance is announced. Ron 1987 (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd say wait for an announcement of compliance. Not sure if there *is* a ECJ enforcement mechanism.Naraht (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

So this would count for example: https://spectator.sme.sk/c/20843250/same-sex-married-couples-have-the-right-to-stay-in-slovakia.html I will add it. Jdcooper (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

"Wait for individual countries to announce compliance." I'm a little sceptical about this approach. Aren't EU member states required to implement rulings from the court? I doubt most of the "conservative" countries would announce their compliance and would either accept applications from married EU same-sex couples or not, in defiance of the court. The latter would justify removing them from the list. In short, I prefer the opposite approach, assume (quite logically) that the court's ruling is in effect until a member state defiantly acts otherwise. Jono52795 (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the sources I read implied that the ECJ ruling was binding, without stating it clearly. I just read the European Court of Justice article and I'm none the wiser. It would appear to be a pretty important difference; I will ask on the ECJ article talk page if there are any legal eagles who can clarify for us. Jdcooper (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

in situations where an EU citizen, who has been living in another EU member state, wants to return to their country of origin, their same-sex marriage must now be recognised under EU law. The same law applies for EU citizens moving to any other EU member state – so for example if Coman had wanted to move to Poland with his husband, he would be allowed to. Rights clarified: The ruling provides much-needed clarity and legal certainty for same-sex couples who get married in an EU member state. It makes clear that wherever they wish to move in the EU, their union should be recognised as a marriage for the purposes of family reunion, irrespective of whether the host state allows same-sex couples to formalise their relationship in its territory. Alina Tryfonidou, Associate Professor in EU Law, University of Reading (Source)

I think this is pretty clear cut. Provided the relevant conditions are met (genuine move to permanent residence in another EU country, marriage was performed in an EU country and one of the partners is an EU citizen) the marriage is to be recognised equal to that of an opposite-sex couple for the purposes of family reunion. Not a single source I've come across says these countries are entitled to ignore the court's ruling. Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold and I think my edit will instigate a more expeditious conversation than the one we are currently having. I've made a change and will duplicate the section on the ECJ ruling currently in the Romania article to the other countries listed. Jono52795 (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Instead of adding those 14 EU countries to the list individually (all of which have not done anything relevant individually in terms of recognition), I would prefer a single entry "all [14] other EU member states". The template is supposed to be a summary of the world-wide situation, after all, and the single entry would in fact be more informative, since it correctly implies a common EU rule. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 10:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I support Jono's edits but would also be happy with Roentgenium's suggestion if others prefer. Although @Jono52795:, I think the text you have added to the other countries' articles is excessive. For one thing, it's out of date ("As of 2016 the case is ongoing...") and it also contains lots of detail that is not relevant to the countries whose articles the text is on. I've changed a couple back to a condensed version (here for example. What do you think? Jdcooper (talk) 11:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Support Roentgenium111's idea. At this point, the box actually feels too large. (Though I'd like to see as many countries fall into these categories as possible :) )Naraht (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Reverting the additions. Yes, the ruling is supposed to be binding. But so is the IACHR decision (e.g. per the opinion of the president of the supreme court of Peru), but not even Costa Rica has implemented it yet. Slovakia says that they will, but of the others, who knows? Lithuania explicitly has not implemented it, at least not yet. See here. ("The Ministry of the Interior, controlling activity of the Migration Department, says it wants to get acquainted with the ECJ ruling before making any political decisions." And note the careful wording in the lead [if not in the title]: "Nongovernmental organizations hope the European Court of Justice's Tuesday ruling will pave the way for homosexuals from third countries, married to EU citizens, to get residency in Lithuania.") There may be a point where we can do this, but I don't think we're there yet. — kwami (talk) 23:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

And yes, if/when we do this, I agree w Roentgenium & Naraht. Actually, I think we should go a step further, and make a single entry for "European Union". Wouldn't need to specify "all other states", since the ruling is binding on all states, including those that already have SSM: all EU states will rec marriages performed with an EU citizen for purposes of immigration (if not necessarily for anything else), so an entry for the EU would be accurate as well as concise. — kwami (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It is a laborious and I would argue needless task to write country-specific sections on the ECJ ruling @Jdcooper:. We all agree the ECJ ruling effects the legal situation in some capacity in the EU, but to what extent and in what kind of time frame appears to be up in the air at this stage. I appreciate your reasoning Kwamikagami and am happy to, upon reflection, adopt your approach, particularly given the Lithuanian response which suggests these countries can "get acquainted" with these rulings over time if they so choose. And yes, when it is appropriate (and identifying when seems to be a difficult task) I have no objection to adding a European Union heading under recognised, as opposed to the list of countries. Jono52795 (talk) 06:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not laborious.. in fact Ron 1987 has already done it! Jdcooper (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that we're going to be listing individual countries for a while yet regardless, so we have time to think what would work best. I favor having a single EU entry once it's implemented in all countries, but don't feel strongly about it. Kinda the opposite of the UK: we give a UK entry under 'Performed' w a fn that it really isn't the UK (presumably so that we don't have to list England, Scotland and Wales separately), which I don't care for, but again I don't feel strongly about it. But I do think it would be inconsistent to consolidate the UK when it's only 3/4 of the UK, but list EU countries separately once it's 100% of the EU. — kwami (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

In no way the ECJ ruling implies recognition of same-sex marriage. It just says that EU countries shall grant residency status to same-sex non-EU spouses of non-national EU citizens. The ruling does not even say if these same-sex marriages shall be recorded in civil registries. It is just a prescription on one very specific right and each EU country will have to apply it to national law. Of course, countries with civil unions like Italy already have in place a mechanism with which residency status is granted to these marriages through recognition of the foreign marriage as a local civil union. I suggest that the 6 EU countries without SSM or CUs shall be added to the list 'unregistered cohabitation' if they pass legislation similar to San Marino, which grants the only right of residency to foreign same-sex partners. The ruling per se doesn't strike down any ban: that is why Slovakia should be removed from the list of foreign recognitions. Finedelledanze (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Removal of content re: 2018 ECJ ruling

Hi Kwami, if you are going to remove all that information from so many articles, please could you explain your reasoning or your issues with the text on at least one of those articles' talk pages? I believe you that it contained errors but it was at least the result of an attempt to discuss everything together, and clearly there is at least something important in it that needs to be mentioned in each of those articles, no? I would say the most logical place to discuss it is Template_talk:Same-sex_unions#ECJ_ruling. If you don't have time yourself then you could at least identify what the main problems are and other editors can help.. Thanks. Jdcooper (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Recognition of same-sex marriages performed in foreign legislation

Dear all, I think there is quite a lot of confusion of what 'recognition' means in legal terms. Recognition of a civil act such as marriage implies recording of the foreign act into the country's marriage register, thus transposing the FULL effects of the foreign marriage into the local legal framework. Basically, it means that couples that married abroad (or in a specific legislation) are treated as married couples are treated under local legislation.

In this regard, we can say that this definition certainly encompasses Israel (recognising all foreign civil marriages as domestic opposite-sex religious marriages), the Netherlands Caribbean (limited to Dutch marriages) and Mexico (limited to other Mexican SSMs). It is very dubious to include Armenia (where the source cites the fact that same-sex marriages can be recorded in local registries but no national law or sentence have ever codified how these marriages should grant rights according to domestic law) and Estonia (where the scope is limited to EU same-sex marriages and, similarly to Armenia, no source reports of full recognition of rights deriving from marriage). But in absolutely no way Slovakia and Hong Kong should be listed under 'recognition of marriage'. These countries are (or are about to) grant residency permits ONLY to same-sex spouses of domestic nationals (Slovakia even restricts this to non-EU nationals married to EU nationals). In this respect these countries should be listed along with San Marino under 'unregistered cohabitation': this is because foreign marriages cannot be registered (nor transposed) as marriages, however granting the only right of residency to foreign spouses. Finedelledanze (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

As I understand it in Israel, the situation is that the government of Israel will equally register and recognize (as an example) an Arab Man and a Jewish Woman who have gone to Paris to get Married and bring back a marriage certificate as it will an Arab Man and a Jewish Man who have done the same thing.Naraht (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Correct

A possible solution could be to rename the section 'Unregistered cohabitation' as 'Limited (or 'Partial') recognition of same-sex unions'. In such a category you can include all the situations that grant a limited set of rights compared to marriage or civil unions: that is, unregistered cohabitation AND specific rights such as residency permits for same-sex foreign spouses as in the case of San Marino, Slovakia and Hong Kong. Finedelledanze (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Ecuador

Does this mean Ecuador should be added?[1] We have a court decision that is specific in terms of remedy and is to take immediate effect. It is under appeal, but until/unless a stay has been issued, and I find no indication that is the case here, this appears to be 'the law' at the moment. 50.37.125.74 (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Moving Aremenia

I'm a fan of this new Limited/partial recognition section, as the jurisdictions listed can hardly be said to recognise in full SSM, rather there is a specific or series of specific aspects of a same-sex union (marriage or otherwise) that they recognise. In Armenia's case, overseas SSM would appear to be recognised in name only (essentially on statistical grounds). There are certainly no references saying their equally recognised to heterosexual marriages. With that in mind, I'm moving Armenia. Feel free to discuss here. Jono52795 (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, on that basis I've also moved Estonia as In December, the Tallinn Circuit Court ruled that all marriages performed in another country must be entered into the Estonian population register when a couple takes up residence in Estonia or is granted Estonian citizenship. Direct quote pulled from the Recognition of same-sex unions in Estonia article. No other ruling/law has recognised SSM in any other way according to the page. Jono52795 (talk) 05:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

This section should list jurisdictions which offer limited recognition only. Estonia is not such a case as the country have registered partnerships. Ron 1987 (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Costa Rica

The Supreme Court ordered the parliament to amend the family law in order to allow same-sex marriage within 18 months. Once that time passes, same-sex marriage will become legal automatically, even if the parliament does not comply. See [2], [3]. Ron 1987 (talk) 06:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

If we are including Costa Rica (which we should), shouldn't we put Taiwan back up there or are we hesitant because some have proposed putting it to a referendum? -TenorTwelve (talk) 07:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Costa Rica ruling (and likewise the IACHR ruling that the Costa Rican case was affirming) was explicitly about marriage. As discussed earlier, the Taiwan ruling was more ambiguous: our own article summarized the situation, that the legislature (emphasis added) "could elect to pass a new law recognising same-sex marriages or civil partnerships but giving said couples only some of the rights attributed to marriage." So, the two cases are distinctly different: in Costa Rica same-sex marriage will be legal in 18 months (if not sooner), full stop. In Taiwan it will only be legal if the legislature chooses that action as the best way of addressing its court mandate - it is not a foregone conclusion. That is an important difference. 50.37.121.190 (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

In my view Costa Rica is a similar situation to Taiwan. The difference with Austria is that the law is passed and everything is finalised, just the date effective has not yet passed. Giving deputies 18 months to do something literally means it has not yet been done, not just that it is not yet in effect. I don't think Costa Rica should be included (yet). Jdcooper (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The Taiwan court just said, 'the status quo is unfair so you have two years to do something about it' - something, not explicitly same-sex marriage. Costa Rica was unambiguous - 'we will give you time to pass specific enabling legislation, but one way or the other, same-sex marriage will be legal by the given date'. While these look superficially similar, they really aren't the same. 50.37.121.190 (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

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)