Template talk:SSM

Aruba
April 2007 Please make correction: Same-sex marriage is still ILLEGAL in Aruba. It was only ruled that it could be REGISTRED in Aruba, and only on the basis of an outdated, old article in the Charter of the Dutch Kingdom aproved in the 1950's. How exactly it should be registered and by whom is not quite clear. Aruban laws do not accept same-sex marriages. Same-sex marriages in Aruba, as in most countries around the world are ILLEGAL.

Mass.
Could we add a link in this box to Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts? And maybe corresponding links for Quebec, Ontario, BC, though there aren't yet articles for those. I would but every time I try it screws up the formatting. AJD 00:28, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Series
I'm going to revert to my original. 'Series' is correct. It's a series of articles and makes it consistent with other 'groups of related articles': Article_series. - UtherSRG 20:58, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Consistent maybe, but I still think it looks silly. It's not really a series like those history articles. It's just that the SSM in X articles give information on the status of SSM in a particular country, with the SSM article itself giving the definition and pro/contra discussion in general. That's not really a 'series', is it? Oh well, I'll leave it as is for now. Maybe others will comment? -- Kimiko 21:20, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi, there has been some discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article series to codify the format for Article series boxes (aka a seriesbox). The format that many articles used before the MediaWiki message came into existence is close to the format you have, but is a little less like a table of contents (to distinguish them from TOCs) and have a slightly smaller footprint.

For example:

I think it would be a good idea to standardize this, so please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article series. Thanks. --Lexor|Talk 10:04, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * There are some interesting points there, notably the ideas that some groups of articles might not be 'series' and could use a different title for the box, and that for some groups it might be better to put the box at the end of the article. Sadly though, the debaters seem to have already solidified a different standard. -- Kimiko 12:09, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think that there has been a solidified standard, the closest there is Article series. If there's another place where things have been discussed, then let me know where it is.  I think the one with the smaller footprint is better, and that's the closest to a standard there is. --Lexor|Talk 13:46, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Civil unions
I've removed the classifications for civil unions. I really think this box should restrict itself to discussing marriage as such, and that links should be to articles that discuss marriage specifically (including the prospect of obtaining same). Otherwise we'll never see the end of it. - Montr&eacute;alais 18:04, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Norway
Norway was added to the list of countries with same-sex marriage. This is erroneous: Norway has registered partnership, which may be an equivalent status but which is not the same as actually opening marriage, per se, to same sex couples (as the Netherlands, Belgium, ON, QC, BC, and Mass. have done).

Furthermore, I note that someone else put back the civil unions. I don't think this is necessary, as no articles presently exist of the form Civil unions in Germany, to my knowledge. If they did exist, I would suggest creating a separate to encompass these.

- Montr&eacute;alais 00:29, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree. -- Kimiko 08:02, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Same-sex marriages is indeed recognised in Norway. This article (Norwegian only) is very clear about the issue, and there is just a matter of time before it's as common as in the Netherlands. For instance, a person changing sex does still have the right to be married, being therefore a same-sex marriage. Also, norwegian judges don't stop anyone from same-sex marriage, and for instance someone married in Canada will be legally married in Norway as well. --Vikingstad 18:13, May 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't read Norwegian, but this site refers to the status granted by Norway and other countries as "registered partnership," not marriage. Here  is a Norwegian site (apparently a government site) with an English translation of the act, which makes it clear that it is not in fact marriage: it is a new form of union (a registered partnership) similar to marriage but without the same adoption rights.
 * This is different from what has happened in the Netherlands et.al., where instead of a different status being created, the existing marriage law was changed from a man and a woman to two people without distinction of sex. Every media source I can find refers to the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, and the US as the first, second, third, and fourth countries to get same-sex marriage. - Montr&eacute;alais

Other Countries
I noticed that France has vanished from the list box. It seems to me that any country for which there is an existing article of the form "Same-sex Marriage in " should be in there, even if the article only exists to cover a debate in that country, and no actual SSM is in place (Australia is another example). --Ray Radlein 22:13, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

Belgium
I don't agree with Belgium being in the 'performed nationwide' section. Belgium 'marriages' are not equal to the straight counterpart and they are civil unions with another name. They shouldnt be considered marriages at the same level as Holland because they dont give full rights and full equality. If Belgium is not removed many other places where civil unions are allowed should be added here.


 * There's already a template for civil unions, and while it may or may not be equal, it's still called a marriage there. --[[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] Spinboy 16:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You have it vice-versa IMO. *If* we started examining the level of rights offered to couples, it'd be *then* that many countries with civil unions would have to be considered to be offering "same-sex marriage". But Belgium calls it "marriage" and those other nations call it "civil union" or "domestic partnerships" or so forth, and that's the difference. 62.103.251.237 30 June 2005 19:47 (UTC)

Canada
Same-sex marriage isn't legal in Canada until the bill receives royal assent. -- Spinboy 29 June 2005 05:26 (UTC)
 * The press is now widely saying Spain being the fourth country, after Canada, to recognize same-sex marriage. Shouldn't we have an "Nationwide soon in" heading for Canada?  ("Performed nation wide in" / "Nationwide soon in" / etc).  This would purely be a temporary heading whenever one or more country has imminent law widely expected to pass in less than 30 days. --mdrejhon


 * For Canada, it isn't guaranteed it will become law yet. See Talk:Same-sex marriage --[[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] Spinboy 30 June 2005 20:07 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is guaranteed. The senate is stacked with Liberals, and royal assent means nothing. --Zippanova 30 June 2005 21:47 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the point is it is not law presently. A bit of patience; it's not like we're preparing an advance edition. - Montr&eacute;alais 9 July 2005 19:12 (UTC)

If the provincial artciles for each of Canada are gonna use the template, we should somehow use it for those provincial articles. -- Spinboy 23:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * NM, I went and created a template just for the Canadian articles, called Template:SSM-C. --[[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] Spinboy 23:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Since ssm has been legalized at the national level, there is no need to clutter a quick reference template with this information. Any user, by clicking on the Canada article will have instant access to a template that provides this historical information, and since the template is supposed to contain easy link references, it seems appropriate to leave the information specific to Canada to its own article's template. 128.253.43.37 03:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

New Jersey
Lewis does not mandate same-sex "marriage," (the count was 4-3 against), but only an institution granting the same rights as marriage, which could be civil unions a la Vermont. It remains to be seen if the legislature will go the marriage route, or, as Vermont did, create a "separate but equal" institution. NTK 05:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. We lose nothing if we wait until it's been decided by the legislature in this case, while we may convey incorrect information if we include NJ as having to introduce SSM in the table currently. &mdash; Nightst  a   llion  (?) 19:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow!
The new colours are quite nice. Kudos! :) &mdash; Nightst  a   llion  (?) 16:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Latvia
well, if there is ALLWAYS a debate, why's the list useful at all? Let's add all the countries and make it mean 0? There have been no public debate about same sex marriage in Latvia. The gay people even are not allowed to go in a parade, so no one has yet started the debate. I don't know why the article Same-sex marriage in Latvia was created, but please read what it says. There are no hints that anyone has ever started a discussion about it, therefore a statement that there is a discussion about SSM in Latvia is absolutely wrong. Please provide a source! Kirils 01:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * put article in question on AfD, if it'll be deleted we'll remove it from template. Thanks, Sign your comments. -- tasc wordsdeeds 22:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * if that's that's the way, then I propose to change the title from "Debate in other countries and regions" to "Counries having a SSM article in wikipedia". *Why* does having an article imply there must be a debate? Yes, the article is crappy, but I don't mind if it stays. At least it does not state anything that's false. sorry for not signing. Kirils 01:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you like a special notice next to Latvia saying that there is no debate? -- tasc wordsdeeds 11:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. If you feel that is the right thing to do - let's include the Latvia in the list of countries where there is a debate, but note that there is actually no debate. Kirils 23:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I added an article that indicates debate is indeed strong and public. Just because action was taken to amend the constitution doesn't mean that debate has ceased. SSouthern 22:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Italy
Please add that there is debate about SSM also in Italy. Laurusnobilis 21:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Make the article Same-sex marriage in Italy first. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 02:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Why? The lack of a Wikipedia article doesn't imply the lack of the real world topic. Laurusnobilis 08:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This template is full of links. You want to add a link that goes nowhere? No thanks. Make the article first. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 08:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Again... the fact that you dislike the links doesn't remove the debate in Italy about SSM. It is possible to simply cite Italy, without a link. Laurusnobilis 11:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel that the title should really be "Articles about SSM in other countries and regions" not "Debate in other countries and regions". Let's just change that, because having the article has nothing to do with the actual debate. Kirils 12:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in this case, it would be correct. Laurusnobilis 17:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have created the article, and was coming by to ask someone to add the pertinent link to the template at the article page (which is the one accepted by FA standards). :-) Cheers! Raystorm 17:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Please update: Germany allows same-sex marriage too
Please add Germany to the countries allowing same-sex marriage

Germany legalized same sex marriages on July 17, 2002 (after having had civil unions the year before).. see this entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_unions_in_Germany winterfox05

Only unions that are referred to, by law, as marriages are considered same-sex marriages in this registry. While domestic partnerships may be viewed equaly by the law, they do not met this criteria. ~goodleh ---

Argentina
Argentina is Debating Same-sex marriage law(s), please add to the list alfabetically - Thanks Wikipedia!

Source: and Argentina Moving Toward Gay Marriage —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.187.128.250 (talk) 06:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

---

New Hampshire
Also New Hampshire should be added, since the issue has been recently discussed. Thanks. 87.3.84.47 19:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Marco

Source:

edit request
editprotected

We need to move ARUBA from "debate" to "recognized in". The dutch Supreme court ordered on April 14 that all marriages registered in the Netherlands must be fully recognized in Aruba and all Netherland Antilles.


 * Please put new comments at the bottom of the talk page. editprotected This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance. CMummert · talk 12:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, correct the above misinformation. Thank you

ARUBA April 2007 PLEASE make correction: the "DUTCH Supreme Court", based in the Netherlands only ruled that one can REGISTER a same-sex marriage in Aruba. How, where exactly and by whom is still a mystery, as Aruban laws DO NOT, and CAN NOT recognize same-sex marriages: they are still ILLEGAL, as in most countries around the world, not only in Aruba.

US States
The listing of US states with recognized debate should not be removed. While some argue that listing them is US centric, this argument ignores the differences between US law as a division of state and federal powers that are not present or as strong in other governments. Since in the US, it is very possible for states to have completely different policies on gay unions (i.e. Massachusetts and Texas) while most other countries would mandate a homogenized policy nation wide, it is necessary to acknowledge the variation in the evolution of the same-sex marriage debate in the US that is not seen in many other countries. If the Italian provinces that recognize civil unions recognized same-sex marriage while the federal government did not, they would be listed with Massachusetts. The listing of regional debate for the United States only is probably due to the greater number and geographical variety of US contributors to wikipedia articles. Similar contributions from a variety of citizens of other regions would be most helpful in revealing the true state of the global debate. ~goodleh


 * Indeed. There seems to be a bit of a misconception here. For instance, Australia does not have a country-wide mandated policy on CUs and SSMs, but does have provinces, etc. that recognize certain levels of different types of unions. I will maintain that the listing of individual US states is US-centric and should not be incorporated into the template under the heading "Recognition debated". This heading is inclusive, indicating that debate is active in a particular country. By reviewing the US SSM article, one should be able to quickly grasp the idea that the US does not have homogeneous policy, like many other nations. Furthermore, this is a navigational template intended to guide Wikipedia users in their pursuit of information. It is not intended to answer all questions. By listing individual US states where debate is more active than "normal", the template becomes bogged down and, I believe, we are ultimately setting the template up for failure in this regards as debate is always ongoing in all places including states that are, perhaps, not listed here but are in the US SSM article. I'm going to revert the template for now (its kinda awkward with the states listed), and post a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies to generate more feedback. Zue Jay (talk)  21:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Leadership for most human and civil rights start at the state level in the US and (hopefully) become an equitable US federal law in time, definitely referencing laws at the state level is appropriate. Benjiboi 21:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this dispute is here because you have not agreed on the criteria for using this template and that agreement does not appear on the template space. If you look at What links here, you will see that use of this template is getting out of hand, which makes it a candidate for deletion. From Template namespace, templates are used to duplicate the same content across more than one page. This template seems to be trying to list all geographical locations where SSM might be legal, not legal, or is being discusses. This cannot be done through one template. In other words, a Wikipedia template cannot be crteated as a navigational template intended to guide Wikipedia users in their pursuit of all SSM information available on Wikipedia. I would suggest posting at Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion and ask them for help in creating a set of templates related to SSM. -- Jreferee 16:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Astute observation that we are most probably not viewing this template from the same perspective. I consider the template a navigational tool, not a summation of all pertinent SSM-geographic related debates, etc. As for a TfD, that's a whole nother matter I don't wish to delve into at this juncture. Zue Jay (talk)  13:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Colors
They're quite garish, no? I'd like a change. Millancad 02:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Rhode Island
Wiki claims they recognize foriegn SSM (ie Mass.), so shouldn't they be listed as such?140.90.131.108 11:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)