This is an archive of past discussions about Same-sex marriage. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I am seeing many local reports coming from Nepal about all individual districts now force to register ssm certificates instead of each individual district deciding to do it or not [1][2] .--Allancalderini12 (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
@Allancalderini12: I'm finding even the English difficult to understand. The key statement seems to be, "all the local registration authorities have been requested to issue a certificate after keeping a temporary record of marriage in a separate registration book."
Does that mean they used to keep a temp record in a different book (as originally ordered, pending the final verdict of the SC case), and that now they should issue a normal certificate as they would to any other couple -- that is, marriage equality -- or does it mean that they should issue a certificate after making a temporary record in a separate book -- that is, marriage inequality? — kwami (talk) 06:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
In the Nepali version, the key statement appears to be, "छुट्टै दर्ता किताबमा विवाहको अस्थायी अभिलेख राखी प्रमाणपत्र जारी गर्न सबै स्थानीय पञ्जीकाधिकारीहरुलाई अनुरोध गरिएको छ।" Not that I read Nepali, but that appears to suggest marriages are still unequal. — kwami (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
@Akerbeltz:, regardless of whether the registration is 'temporary' or not, or what registry book it's recorded in, if the govt has issued a circular to all local governments to issue marriage certificates, that would appear to address our concern that SSM might not be generally available, at least for the time being. Should Nepal be changed to blue on the map and restored to 'marriage' in the info box? If the SC surprises us and reverses the temporary ruling, we can of course always remove it. — kwami (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
You responded above, so I thought you might be keeping track.
I went ahead and made the change, as I thought it made sense (and answered the objections we had earlier), but it's not clear-cut so I thought it would be good to have more opinions. — kwami (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I think the key term to use in this situation is "direct" and "directive".
For example there has been two orders by the Supreme Court of Nepal to provide spousal visas to foreign same-sex couples. [3] How can there be two orders demanding the same thing if it leads to actual change? The most likely answer is that the supreme court orders are directives asking the government to do something but without legal supremacy.
In this case the government circulars might be a directive that asks local authorities to do as such, but the question of whether it's same-sex marriage, civil union or registered cohabitation remains open in my opinion. And is there any legal impetus that requires local authorities to do as the government asks? WindofWasps (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I suspect that the governmental order is a legal directive.
The Nepalese court system sounds more like the Mexican than the Usonian. For those of us in the US, we expect a SC order to override the law. That's not the situation in many countries. In Mexico, for example (as we've seen with SSM legislation there), SC rulings are directives for what the govt needs to legislate, but it's still up to the govt to pass the legislation. If the govt refuses to do so, the SC can issue sanctions, fine MPs, or even remove them from office.
Nepal sounds like Mexico in at least the first element. But that's the courts. When the fed issues a directive to local govts, I expect it is binding on them, and that if they refuse to follow the directive they are in violation of it. So unless we have reports that local govts refuse to follow the directive (now just sporadically, as happened in the US even after the SC ruling, but systematically, showing that the fed directive has little effect), then IMO we need to assume that the fed govt ruling is legally binding. — kwami (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I'll have a quick search online to see if I can get more information. The way I am viewing the situation is that the government is asking local authorities to implement the same-sex marriage register, but that local governments may or may not do so depending on their values. In the articles citied in this section, the terms used are "requested" and for me this does not imply legal certainty.
But is this really same-sex marriage? It seems to be closer to civil unions and more likely to be registered cohabitation. They are listed in a separate register and given certificates that seem to offer no legal benefits, which actually seems to be more similar to Japan's relationship certificates than anything.
And I still do not understand why there isn't anything official about this? Surely there should be a guide or website somewhere from the government which writes about how to register a marriage? WindofWasps (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
To me it sounds like marriage, but I'm not familiar with the situation.
It sounds like there's a separate register for when SSM is formally passed, at which point the two registers will be merged. That is, that they're provisional marriages. They're not CUs or registered cohabitation, but it's another question whether we want to count as marriage those provisional marriages -- which I assume are legally equivalent to other marriages in all ways, it's just possible they'll be revoked. In other words, it sounds like we have a temporary case of separate-but-equal. — kwami (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
What legal rights does a temporary registration acquire? There's no real difference between the certificates provided by Japan, and this situation, surely? You could argue that India's unregistered cohabitation provides more rights than the temporary register of Nepal.
And I still cannot understand why there is so little official information about this. We only have around two cases of same-sex marriage on the internet, one of which involves a transgender marriage. We have no further proof that same-sex marriages have taken place since the circular was launched. And there is literally nothing official from the Nepalese government. WindofWasps (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
My impression was that it provides all the rights of marriage. It is a marriage. It's just listed in a temporary register in case the SC finds against SSM in its final ruling, in which case (presumably) these marriages will be annulled. Unless that happens, the situation is not all that different from an authority in one of the Mexican states instructing clerks to start issuing licenses to SS couples in anticipation of legalization. We would then color that state blue on the map, because SSM was available even if it wasn't legal.
Yes, it is puzzling that so little info is available. It makes me suspicious too. But we are still waiting for the SC's final ruling. — kwami (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
