Talk:Same-sex marriage

Thailand law changes

Now they allowed same sex marriage 2001:FB1:E7:6E3D:7529:7E7:D2E3:41DD (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Not yet. The proposal was merely approved by the lower house of the parliament. It still requires approval from the upper house and the royal assent also, and it will become law only after its publication in the official gazette. --Miwako Sato (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The approval has been passed & published as of yesterday. 2A02:1210:1C27:2900:B52C:F011:2D83:308C (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Kosovo: SSM or CUs?

@Cyanmax: this article uses the term 'marriage'. I didn't want to make the claim here without confirmation. — kwami (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

According to the German media, in his speech in Berlin he referred to civil partnerships, not SSM [1] Akerbeltz (talk) 08:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

But that article also says "only 20% of Kosovars support same-sex unions" when that's actually the support for marriage. — kwami (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

<shrugs> I don't know. All I can imagine is that when you ask this question in parts of the world, people aren't necessarily aware of the difference. It's like people in Hong Kong conflating 'England' with the 'UK' I guess, they're mostly confused when I patiently try to explain that I live in Scotland, not England. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Nepal Again (III)

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 [2] [3] .--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)

@Kwamikagami: huh? why are you asking me? ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 09:07, 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)

@Kwamikagami: did you mean to pint Allancalderini12 by any chance, who started the Nepal Again thread? :) Akerbeltz (talk) 16:35, 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. [4] 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)

Churches that support

With the United Methodist church accepting SSM, I came here thinking we probably have a list, but I can't find one. We have various articles on religion and SSM, but I'm thinking this article should include a list that allow their clergy to perform SSM, like we do for countries. Or would it be too difficult to create something coherent? — kwami (talk) 06:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

"gender-neutral marriage"

A recent addition was "gender-neutral marriage" in the lede as an alternative term. A quick google shows that this term mostly seems to appear on wikipedia, mostly in articles about same-sex marriage in Scandinavian regions. Generally this refers to the wording of the marriage canon etc being gender-neutral, not that the act of marriage is gender-neutral. I'm not aware of this being a significant alternative name for same-sex marriage at all.

The marriage using gender-neutral terms is not at all the same thing as same-sex marriage. Void if removed (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Scandinavian here to second this, you're basically correct. The law is called "gender-neutral marriage law" (well technically sex-neutral, it's the same word), so something like "marriage regardless of sex". Sometimes people writing about it will say things like "sex neutral marriages became law 10 years ago" interchangably with same-sex marriage, but it's clear they're just saying it because "gender-neutral marriage legislation reform" is a mouthful. EllyEdits (talk) 08:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Nepal (IV)

Can someone provide an official and authoritive source that proves same-sex marriage is legal in Nepal?

• There have been two separate court rulings directing the Nepali government to provide same-sex couples with spousal visas, but considering that there have been two court rulings over the same matter, has anything actually changed in real life? [5]
• There has been one same-sex marriage registered in a rural area, but it seems to be between transgender people. [6]

The following article written on the 14th December 2023 claims that Nepal did not achieve marriage equality "quite yet". There was a register created by some authority to "recognise" same-sex marriages while the supreme court case was pending, but this article claims that "inconsistent bureaucracy make it virtually impossible for most queer couples to marry". Furthermore the one that was eventually recognised by the Nepali government was between a cis-gender male and a transgender female. The registry does not confer any legal rights as far as I can tell and does not seem to equate to marriage (why is this classified as marriage and not civil union or registered cohabitation?)

https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/14/did-nepal-achieve-marriage-equality-not-quite-yet

There must be something more authoritive and official which clearly states same-sex marriage is legal in Nepal. WindofWasps (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Check Same-sex marriage in Nepal? Akerbeltz (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I did but there isn't anything official, just the sources that have been posted above. There are numerous cases going back nearly fifteen years that say Nepal has same-sex marriage but it's been ongoing since then. My understanding currently is that several authorities have directed/asked the country to provide for same-sex marriages in a separate register, but the legal clarity of this situation remains unclear because it's not widely implemented, and furthermore whether it's same-sex marriage, civil unions, or registered cohabitation is open for debate in my opinion. WindofWasps (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Did you see this? But yes, some other sources would be good. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The circular must be posted somewhere online, but I don't read Nepali to find it.

From the photos, it is a "marriage registration provisional certificate", so it's definitely "marriage". There's also "groom/bride" 1 and "groom/bride" 2. — kwami (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Using GT to search for SSM (समलिङ्गी विवाह), I found this After the Home Ministerial decision, the Registration Department has issued a circular on 12 Baisakh 2081 to all 753 local levels to register marriages of gender and sexual minority couples. At present, no complaint has been heard from the community about not being able to register marriages. and if I get the calender conversion right, after April, 2081 is the equivalent of 2024, so it's a fairly fresh article. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I was about to start looking. The title of the circular appears to be (from that low-res photo) यौनिक तधा लैगिक थल्पसख्यक जोडीको विवाह दर्ता[?]रे "Marriage registration[?] of sexual and gender minority couples". It looks like the agency is मायाको पहिचान नेपाल. — kwami (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

No, मायाको पहिचान नेपाल is an LGBTQ nonprofit,[7] so that can't be the circular. — kwami (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I found this from the Nepal Press, 2024 april 25. Gtrans of the headline: "Now sexual and gender minority couples can also legally register their marriage: Circular to all local levels to register marriages as per court orders." — kwami (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

"Now sexual and gender minority couples will also be able to legally register their marriage. The National Identity Card and Registration Department under the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a circular to all 753 local levels to implement the Supreme Court's order to ensure the right of heterosexual and minority couples to legally register their marriages. [...] On 12 June 2080, the Supreme Court gave an interim order to register the marriages of sexual and gender minority couples with temporary records."

It sounds like the govt. is just carrying out the interim order. — kwami (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

BTW, looks like २०८१ वैशाख १३ is 2024/04/25. — kwami (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I asked Blue Diamond society on June 16 on their facebook about same sex marriages in Nepal and there response was "its legalize all over Nepal but the implementation process is very complicate and lengthy" Blue Diamond Society its an ONG in Nepal. Maybe we could ask them if there is a record of how many ssm have occurred since legalization.Hopefully an answer can be provide.--Allancalderini12 (talk) 06:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

For reference, this news outlet has good quality images of the circular https://www-makalukhabar-com.translate.goog/2024/04/99977379221/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=gd&_x_tr_pto=wapp and seems to confirm that this has been issued to all local offices, though how quickly they will be to comply is anyone's guess. I think it can stand as SSM for now we'll expand, perhaps with notes about implementation issues when such news becomes available? Or we start seeing SSM weddings photos from Nepal on Insta ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 10:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Does the circular grant same-sex couples all the rights of marriage under the Civil Code? (joint adoption and foster care, right to inheritance of property, right to change surname upon marriage, making spousal medical decisions etc.)

- or does it merely allow couples to register their marriage and doesn't offer the same legal rights as heterosexual couples?

If this merely allows couples to register their marriage and nothing else, then it's not "marriage equality", not at all.

Next,

the Civil Code of Nepal enacted in 2018 explicitly defines marriage as "when a man and a woman accept each other as husband and wife". It hasn't been repealed by the Parliament or struck down by the supreme court yet. That's why the implementation process is very complicated and lengthy. Same-sex couples are forced to be labeled as "husband and wife". It's truly humiliating process. Maya Gurung was labeled as the "wife" and Surendra Pandey as the "husband" on the license. Cyanmax (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Now let's define what interim order is.

"The term interim order refers to an order issued by a court during the pendency of the litigation."

"Pendency is the state or time of being pending, undecided, or undetermined, as of a lawsuit awaiting settlement."

That means the supreme court has yet to deliver a final verdict on the case.

In Brazil same-sex marriage was legalized by 15 judges.

In Austria by 14 judges.

In the United States, Colombia and Ecuador by 9 judges respectively.

Moreover, all court decisions in these countries were published in the government gazette.

Nepal? A single judge bench directed the government to establish a separate register and to temporarily register marriages.

The interim order has not been published in the government gazette.

He has NOT legalized same-sex marriage, he merely asked the government to establish a "separate register" and nothing else.

It's also notable that the Kathmandu District Court and the Patan High Court disobeyed the judge.

That's why we can't say that Nepal legalized same-sex marriage in June 2023. Cyanmax (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The first marriage between two women (not trans) in Nepal, occurred in February 2024.

The first same-sex couple to be married legally in the US were Michael McConnell and Jack Baker in September 1971. But we don't say that same-sex marriage has been legal in the US since September 1971.

Another example is Colombia. On 24 July 2013, a judge in Bogotá declared a male same-sex couple legally married. This was the first same-sex couple married in Colombia. In September 2013, two judges married two other same-sex couples. But we don't say that same-sex marriage has been legal in Colombia since July 2013.

There are a lot of grey areas with this Nepal is the second Asian country to legalise same-sex marriage claim.

Is same-sex marriage legal in Nepal? No.

Because

Interim order is not the same as final ruling.

Circular by the "National Identity Card Department" is not the same as law passed by Parliament.

Single judge bench is not the same as full bench of the supreme court.

When will same-sex marriage be legalized in Nepal?

When the Parliament amends the Civil Code. Cyanmax (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

You could make the same arguments about Mexico, but we counted declarations by clerks etc. as legalization, even though the law hadn't changed. In some states, the law still hasn't changed. SSM is more complicated in those states because they're still illegal. In others, SSM is legal but isn't equal. Legal SSM is not the same thing as marriage equality. So, arguably, Mexico does not have either SSM or marriage equality in some polities.

In the US as well, there were counties that refused to issue SSM certificates for years after legalization.

We're not talking about just someone getting married. That happened years ago. We're talking about a govt instruction for all clerks in the country to issue marriage certificates. After an interim SC order. Recorded in a separate registry pending the final SC ruling. Again, in Mexico some local polities refused to issue SSM certificates after being instructed to do so by the AG (or whoever) after a SC ruling. We haven't treated such exceptions as critical in other countries.

We don't have much direct evidence. We do have a report that since the govt circular, there haven't been complaints about people not being able to get married.

The Nepalese marriage certificate has bride/groom I and bride/groom II. Even if it did force a man to declare himself the "bride", or a woman to declare herself the "groom", that would hardly be relevant. — kwami (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The SC site for the case is here.

I'm slowly translating the circular. I'm busy today, so it will be a while. I haven't found an e-copy, so I have to write it out by hand and plug that into Gtrans. Page 2 is a little to blurry to make out 100%, but page 1 is good so far. — kwami (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

You can upload images to GT, no need to type it out. Akerbeltz (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Bit late for the tip for Gtrans. Next time. I needed the devanagari practice anyway. — kwami (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

This is also similar to the situation in Colombia in 2013. Before the ruling of the Constitutional Court in April 2016, several same-sex couples had already registered their marriages.

As I already mentioned,

On 24 July 2013, a judge in Bogotá declared a male same-sex couple legally married. This was the first same-sex couple married in Colombia. In September 2013, two judges married two other same-sex couples.

Colombia had dark blue stripes before the final ruling:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/8/8e/20150717060329%21State_recognition_of_same-sex_relationships_%28South_America%29.svg

For the same reason we should use grey and dark blue stripes for Nepal.

You're right about Mexico. I don't think 31 December 2022 is a correct date for Mexico. Because we don't have any sources that the governor of Guerrerro state signed the same-sex marriage bill. But that's another discussion. Cyanmax (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how the colombia example is relevant. This isn't the first SSM in Nepal either. We're not counting individual judges marrying people, but nationwide govt decrees to treat everyone the same way. But the translation of the circular (assuming it's reasonably accurate) suggests that striping is reasonable. What do others think? — kwami (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch and ILGA World also don't believe that Nepal is the second Asian country to legalize same-sex marriage:

Human Rights Watch and ILGA World both conduct detailed analysis on the topics of LGBT rights and same-sex marriage. That's why they are more reliable. Other media outlets are focused more on general daily news.

Some media outlets keep parroting the dubious claim that Nepal is the second Asian country to legalize same-sex marriage. However, they do not cite a source for their claim. It is likely tracing back to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is responsible for providing inaccurate information.

Yes, Nepal should be striped dark blue and grey for now. There is literally nothing official from the Nepalese government. There must be something more authoritive and official which clearly states same-sex marriage is legal in Nepal. Cyanmax (talk) 07:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no public statement (that we can find) from the Nepalese government but things don't work the same everywhere. Sure, in a place like Germany there'd be a well documented papert trail and official statements and whatnot. Nepal is the world's 17th poorest country where half the population doesn't have the internet, so haphazard implementation and communication of not just SSM is likely par for the course. I have a friend who just bought a plot of land in Malawi and because the government office had run out of forms, he got a handwritten note on a sheet ripped from a notepad with an illegible signature and the faintest of stamps that you could improve on with a potato... Yet this allows him to build a house on the plot. My view is that SSM has been legalized in Nepal but that the implementation (including establishing the rights this confers) is a lengthier and rockier road that it would be in other places. At worst, we should shade in my view and make a note that full implementation is unclear. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Firstly there is a ruling coming from the Supreme Court on same-sex marriage to liberalise marriage (not withdraw rights), so it definitely has not been legalised 100%, otherwise the court case would be about rescinding the rights rather than liberalising the rights.

We also have to think about the definition of same-sex marriage as well.

• This is not marriage equality. They are being drafted on a temporary register separate from the main register.
• We don't know whether any benefits come from being registered. It could be less useful than the partnership certificates that are given in Japan (and were given in Thailand). You may in fact get more benefits from the Indian unregistered cohabitation.
• The legal definition of marriage is still "male" and "female". As far as I can see, there has been no attempt to reword the marriage law, simply provide an alternative register of registration. [8]

The way I would view the situation is that same-sex marriage has not been legalised, but a separate marriage register has been established that provides something more akin to registered cohabitation rather than same-sex marriage.

The key issue for me is the sheer lack of material coming out of Nepal:

• There is no official announcement or guide writing about same-sex marriage.
• I can only find two cases of same-sex marriage on social media, both of which were about fighting discrimination.

For example, I could argue that Sri Lanka has anti-discrimination laws based on the words of the Government of Sri Lanka. The only thing that prevents Sri Lanka having anti-discrimination laws is because there are so few cases testing it.

"In Kathmandu, the district court claimed they could not register marriages of same-sex couples – while the Patan High Court said that the government must change the law in the civil code before they would marry LGBTQ couples.

So despite three separate Supreme Court decisions over more than 15 years affirming the freedom to marry for same-sex couples, we once again faced inexcusable delays. We were frustrated.

After this series of negative rulings, I went to the Prime Minister’s office, demanding to know what steps our government was taking in implementing the Supreme Court’s ruling. Just days later, the Prime Minister’s office responded, explaining that they had now directed the Home Ministry to implement the court’s decision by allowing LGBTQ+ couples to register their marriages."

https://www.apcom.org/long-road-lasting-marriage-equality-nepal/

Reading the above paragraphs, the fact that there has been several supreme court cases on the matter also makes me question whether this is simply a case of embarrassment over facts. WindofWasps (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence for your claim that 'marriage' doesn't mean marriage.

Marriage equality is a separate issue.

That essay is undated.

But yes, it is frustrating that there is so little info available. — kwami (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

If you google the URL you get the date (20 June 2024) Akerbeltz (talk) 10:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

If the government created a register of marriages without giving them any rights, do you think that's a better situation than a country which provides civil unions or unregistered cohabitation but with rights?

The wording is folly because we are dealing with language barriers and cultures where the terms for "marriage" differ.

And again the authority has created a separate register for homosexuals and third genders, which is one of the arguments against "civil unions" not being marriage according to the wikipedia page. WindofWasps (talk) 10:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

If.

You keep repeating yourself, but repetition is not evidence. — kwami (talk) 10:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Another example is that the marriage registration form still uses the term "bride" and "bridegroom".

https://www.makalukhabar.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/kagbin-marige-mk-2.jpg

It doesn't come across to me as official but rather a section of people in authority who register marriages (if such a thing happens beyond the two or three cases mentioned).

"The code that came into effect in 2017 defines marriage as when a man and a woman accept each other as husband and wife. It, therefore, needs revision to insert a provision for two individuals can get married. The advocates also call for scrapping the need to mention husband and wife in the marriage certificate.

The country’s top court in 2015 itself had directed the government to formulate law for same sex marriage after a study. Though the study report recommending allowing all forms of marriage was submitted in 2015, successive governments took no step to frame the law as per the suggestions. Instead, the Civil Code that came into force after the court’s ruling retains the discriminatory provisions.

In a move to reinforce the 2015 ruling, Shrestha’s bench in June too had asked the government to take the steps towards amending the law but this has yielded no results yet."

https://kathmandupost.com/national/2023/12/03/how-court-laid-the-ground-for-same-sex-marriage-in-nepal

So even if the Supreme Court says something, that doesn't mean it becomes law until the government and parliament acts. WindofWasps (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

“However, getting a certificate alone is not enough. It is important that the couple has the right to inherit property, get tax subsidies and adopt children, among others,” she told the Post. “We will continue to lobby for other rights while safeguarding the one that is already achieved.”

This source confirms same-sex couples cannot inherit property, get tax subsidies, adopt children etc. This is merely a temporary registration in a separate record. Cyanmax (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

If that's still the case (since the April 2024 circular), then I'd agree that Nepal does not have SSM and should not be blue or listed in the info box, except as having minimal rights. — kwami (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, can we all agree that the date of "legalization" is April 2024 and not June 2023?

Can we all agree that striping Nepal is reasonable? Because:

1. The registration is temporary and separate.

2. It's an interim order, not a final ruling.

3. It's a circular by the "National Identity Card Department", not a law passed by the Parliament.

4. The Civil Code of Nepal enacted in 2018 explicitly defines marriage as "when a man and a woman accept each other as husband and wife".

5. There is literally nothing official from the Nepalese government. There are still no official statements from Prime Minister or Ministry of Home Affairs. No information available on the website of the Ministry of Home Affairs.

6. There are only two cases of same-sex marriage (one between a cis-gender male and a transgender female)

7. The very fact that there are several wiki users and even some media outlets (Human Rights Watch, ILGA World) having doubts about the situation is a good enough reason. Cyanmax (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with everything but 6. We have reports of two, but AFAIK no recent source that there are only 2.

If the report above, that 'same-sex couples cannot inherit property, get tax subsidies, adopt children etc.' is still the case, then I'd say that Nepal does not have SSM and should be green on the map.

Adoption is not an issue. You cannot adopt in Ecuador, some states in Mexico, and for years could not in Portugal. We've never taken that to be critical. But if you can't inherit or file taxes as a married couple, then IMO you're not married in legal sense -- we shouldn't even use a blue ring for individual cases if they don't have those rights. If that's still the case, it suggests that couples on the temp registry will become married once the govt acts, but that currently they're in limbo. I'll email Binod Ghimire, the author of the 2023 article. — kwami (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Cyanmax, I'm assuming that striping was your compromise position, not your preferred one. Given the issues you've raised, I'd say we don't have a RS that Nepal has SSM at all, and IMO we should err on the side of caution. I've therefore gone ahead and removed Nepal from the lists of countries with SSM, and changed it to green on the map. Does that work for you?

Hopefully we'll get a response from Blue Diamond or the Post as to what the current situation is. — kwami (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, hopefully we'll get a response from the government too, because it is their duty to do so. Cyanmax (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I see Nepal is back to green no striped? Anyway, whether green nor striped, [9] should match the coloration. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Only three same sex couples have married in Nepal and only one them was between two girls, so far a marriage between two cis males have not occur in Nepal, this was the information provided to me from blue diamond society, I ask them on Saturday if more marriages are going to occur but I have not receive any additional response, while they explain to me that marriages should be able to occur and that it's a lengthy and complicated process I cannot consider Nepal a marriage equality country with only 3 marriages.

I wouldn't have a problem with Nepal being dark blue if marriages were occurring regularly even if they were put in a secondary registry while waiting for a supreme court ruling, if the court were to rule in our favor, then Nepal would continue blue and if they rule the other way we put it again gray. My problem like I mention above is that marriages are not occurring, imo until we hear news from the supreme court, or we see that marriages are ocurring in a regular manner then Nepal should stay green. I know its very complicate but its misleading having it dark blue. I honestly hope Blue diamond society or Sunil Babu Pant respond me and explain me if more marriages are going to occur and when and if they really are goint to happen, because many news internationally use wikipedia to report and it caused confusion. --Allancalderini12 (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Marriage equality is not the same as same-sex marriage. Mexico for example has SSM but not marriage equality. Arguably, neither does the US.

But I agree that this sounds like individual cases, 2/3 trans and therefore perhaps (in the eyes of the registrar) not SSM at all. That might get a blue ring, except that we don't know if they receive the rights and benefits of marriage. Without confirmation that they do, IMO we can't say that they're married in a legal sense.

(And it's the legal sense that matters. SS couples can marry in Iran -- they just don't dare tell anyone.) — kwami (talk) 06:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

References

31 December 2022, Mexico

Is it a correct final date for Mexico? Because we don't have any sources that the governor of Guerrerro state signed the same-sex marriage bill. Same-sex marriage in Guerrero article says that Guerrero was the last Mexican state to legalise same-sex marriage. But the claim is unsourced. This article does not have enough sources. I know that we have a lot of Spanish speaking wiki users. Can you please help find sources for Guerrero?

Also, 4 states: Aguascalientes, Chiapas, Chihuahua, Guanajuato have not updated their marriage laws yet. Same-sex couples in these four states face the same problems as same-sex couples in Nepal. Cyanmax (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I would say that yes, Guerrero was the last one in terms of marriage as the formats were not ready in December of 2022, the formats were update in May 17 of 2023. on regards the other states, the states laws have not been modified but marriages can still occur, and in some others couples can get married but not adopted, I believe Ecuador is one of the countries were marriage can occur but not adopt so not all rights are given to ss couples

On regards the Nepal issue, I would like to be informed about more marriages occurring, I know base from local newspapers and news that all districts are required to do ss marriages but I am not sure if they are complying at all. Allancalderini12 (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

So we still don't have any sources confirming 31 December 2022 as the final date.

the formats were not ready in December of 2022, the formats were updated on May 17 of 2023.

Does it mean the final date for Guerrero state is 17 May 2023? I'm a little bit confused. Cyanmax (talk) 06:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd say that the legal ruling is what is important, not when the forms are updated. — kwami (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Nepal (V)

There is a mistake in the article. Same sex marriages are legal in Nepal. People of the same sex can marry because same sex marriages are recognized. Temporaily but they are Zetarti01 (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Some of the reasoning as to why Nepal should not be classified as having same-sex marriage under common definitions:

• There's nothing authoritive and official from the Government of Nepal stating clearly that same-sex marriage is legal. There's no guidance or process available for the registration of same-sex marriage either AFAIK.
• The marriage laws are still limited to "bride" and "bridegroom". This can also be seen in the marriage certificate that had been used in the three same-sex weddings. They do not use homosexual or gender-neutral wording.
• Two of the same-sex weddings involve transgender couples, whereas one involved a lesbian couple where one is clearly more masculine than the other. There has yet to be a same-sex wedding between to cis-men.
• If it is the case that same-sex marriage is legal, there does not seem to be any evidence of same-sex marriages happening outside those three cases, all three of which faced significant hurdles to get recognised. It appears to be similar to the situation with same-sex foreign spousal visas, where supreme court cases are announced saying that same-sex spousal visas will be issued, but how can there be another supreme court case announcing the same thing if spousal visas were already being issued? i.e. there are not being issued despite an order saying to do so. We are hearing about sporadic cased where people fought to have their same-sex weddings be recognised by some authority, but it does not seem to be systematic.
• There does not appear to be any benefits or rights conferred by the registration. It might be less useful than the partnership certificates issued by Japan, or the unregistered cohabitation possible in Indian law. If anything it seems to be akin to registered cohabitation without any benefits or rights.
• There seems to be some legal movement aimed at legalising same-sex marriage, from which we can infer that it isn't really legalised yet.

WindofWasps (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The reports have indicated multiple couples have registered their marriages. That should be enough to classify Nepal as a same-sex marriage country already.

But also, the government issued a circular in April 2024 directing all local registers to allow same-sex marriages: https://pahichan.com/en/?p=13225

The lack of the entire constellation of rights is different from the marriage issue itself; otherwise, we would have had to not count Portugal when it legalized same-sex marriage because the law at the time still prohibited adoption (it's since changed).

The movement at "legalizing" same-sex marriage would be similar to the movement to codify same-sex marriage, which is still taking place across the United states (three states are voting on it in November). That doesn't make the US a non-same-sex-marriage country.

The fact is, couples are getting married in Nepal. We have evidence of at least three. Nepal should be counted as a same-sex marriage country until such time as the courts/government say otherwise. Robsalerno (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree. This article is titled "Same-sex Marriage," not "Marriage Equality." A footnote would suffice one Nepal is listed. Andrew1444 (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I would have to disagree. Not being able to adopt — as was the case of Portugal — is one thing, but lacking many basic spousal benefits is completely different. If a country issues marriage certificates to same-sex couples but apparently they come with few rights (possibly less than Japanese partnership certificates provide?) and misgender one of the spouses, I'd say it's not enough. Plus, same-sex couples are entered into a "separate and temporary register" which sounds discriminatory and not very reassuring. The whole thing looks more like a symbolic marriage made official. So I think we should wait for further developments from the supreme court or other government branches or try to get more information directly from the LGBT community in Nepal. --Extended Cut (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

In September 2024, Manisha Dhakal, executive director of the Blue Diamond Society, told The Kathmandu Post that "the temporary registration falls short of offering full marriage rights, including those related to property, adoption, and tax exemptions. So far, only around five couples have registered, and many couples are hesitant to do so. The LGBTQIA+ community continues to feel cheated of true equality."

I guess I was right after all. Some wiki users have been lying to us the whole time. The same disinformation techniques have been used about Armenia from 2017 to 2023. Cyanmax (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Why do you always assume nefarious intentions for what looks to be reading too much into limited sources? Being wrong isn't "lying". — kwami (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

"Just consulted with activists from the organization Pink Armenia. There are cases of same-sex marriages, but they don't make it to the news." - DaddyCell, 10:30, 4 August 2022.

So what is this, if not a blatant lie? and this is only one example out of many deliberately misleading claims. Cyanmax (talk) 05:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea. Perhaps more than one person misunderstood the vague and partial reporting, and they replied the best they were able. People do often misunderstand things, misinterpret things, misremember things. That's one reason we want sources, so we can check they got their facts right. — kwami (talk) 05:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Aruba and Curaçao

same sex marriages have been legalized in Aruba and Curaçao, which despite being parts of the kingdom of the netherlands are countries today (12.07. 2024) , so same sex marriages are now legal in 38 countries (not counting Nepal due to complex situation) Source: https://nltimes.nl/2024/07/12/supreme-court-rules-sex-marriage-now-permitted-aruba-curacao Zetarti01 (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

The sovereign country is the Kingdom of The Netherlands, which includes the European Netherlands (including Bonaire, Saba, and Sint Eustatius), Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten (constituent countries). The Faroe Islands and Greenland have a similar relationship with the Kingdom of Denmark. When those countries legalized it didn't change the count because the Faroe Islands and Greenland weren't sovereign. Legalization doesn't change the country count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew1444 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Does the ruling also affect Sint Maarten? Akerbeltz (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

As of 17:24 12 July, no. The ruling does, however, set binding precedent in Sint Maarten. A separate court order will be necessary to extend marriage law in Sint Maarten. Andrew1444 (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2024

Same-sex marriage is not “known as gay marriage”. gay marriage is the marriage of two people with penises marrying one another. As Lesbians - the L in Lgb - are not gay because by definition Lesbians are Female and gays are male, this statement is incorrect. One could include a qualifier such as “often misogynistically referred to as gay marriage (sic) wherein the term is incorrect when referring to Lesbians in same sex marriages and erases Lesbians.” 71.64.138.41 (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Like many English terms where the masculine term applies to all people, "gay" has also used as the neutral descriptor. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I would draw your attention to the Lesbian article, where the term gay is used in relation to many things other than gay men specifically. To name a few: gay rights, gay neighborhoods, and gay history. I'd say about 50% of the time on that page, "gay" refers to something other than gay men. Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. The term gay marriage is often used, commonly enough to warrant inclusion in the lead. Changing the lead to call the term misoynistic and incorrect is not adhering to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, as only a small minority of sources would allege that. The emphasis would be WP:UNDUE. TheSavageNorwegian 20:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

References

The no of countries that legally allow Same sex marriage needs attention

it is different in different places of the article, Also there are many recent updates that need to be put. for eg) Thailand allows same sex marriage and it is no more "likely" 223.178.211.171 (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Wrong status of Poland on map

Poland has wrong status on the map of constitutional bans. It was ruled by Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny) in November 2022, that the Constitution of Poland does not prevent from introducing same-sex marriages. Bartek1234678 (talk) 08:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Thailand legalisation date

Hey, so I have seen two dates about Thailands ssm bill being legalised. One on the 22nd of Jan and one on the 23rd of Jan. I'm rather confused on this. Since it was singed into the Royal Gazette on the 24th, 120 days from then would land on the 22nd, but I've heard "new information" has appeared which claims it is the day later.

Is there anything that can clear this confusion up since theres both 22nd and 23rd being used. FreckleTheCat (talk) 07:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thailand is not the only country with a confusing legalization date:

France: 18 May 2013 or 19 May 2013?

Slovenia: 8 July 2022 or 9 July 2022?

Mexico (nationwide): 31 December 2022 (unsouced date) or 17 May 2023?

Nepal: 28 June 2023, 29 November 2023 or 24 April 2024... is it even a "legalization"? (no marriage rights, interim order, "separate and temporary", "bride and groom" etc.) Cyanmax (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I think if it's only a matter of a day [maybe it went into effect at midnight?], then we can give both dates with 'or' and leave it to future editors to figure out. [I just did that in the table for france, slovenia and thailand -- wp-fr has the earlier date, but wp-sl doesn't even cover the ssm legislation!] Guerrero is the more concerning problem. It was in the news at the time, so I suspect our date is correct, but would be good to find durably archived confirmation. — kwami (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Guanajuato marriage equality expired

Apparently, as a new governor took office in Guanajuato, the decree that had legalized same-sex marriage expired, meaning couples will need an amparo to get married, as it was before legalization. Until a new one is issued (if at all), I think Mexico (nationwide) has lost its status as a marriage equality country.

https://www.homosensual.com/lgbt/guanajuato-matrimonio-igualitario-riesgo-libia-garcia-gobernadora-lgbt-decreto-diego-sinhue-vigencia-2024/ Tevamon (talk) 09:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe that first we need to see more information if same sex couples are being denied. The new governor was the one that issue the decree after being signed by the governor so I honestly think that she is not going to stop ss couples. Its like in Chihuahua when the new governor took office and she didnt stop ss couples from being married. Hopefully we can get clarity soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allancalderini12 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Mexico has never been a marriage-equality state. — kwami (talk) 11:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Not true, see Same-sex marriage in Mexico. AusLondonder (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that proves my point. — kwami (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

By all respects Mexico is a marriage equality state, all states so far are issuing same sex marriage licenses, just because joint adoption for example it's not given in all states doesn't mean we cannot count it, by that reason Ecuador shouldnt be include either. Allancalderini12 (talk) 05:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Correct. Ecuador and Israel don't have marriage equality either. That's not the same thing as not having same-sex marriage, which all three have: Israel's just a more extreme version of some Mexican states. Taiwan just nixed the last major inequality, of cross-strait marriages. Of course, many states have minor legal inequalities that are going to take years to iron out (there was just a lawsuit in the US to overrule one such), so it's a matter of how equal is 'equal'. — kwami (talk) 05:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I see your point. But I think we can all agree that, should it be confirmed that Guanajuato is requiring couples to go before a court in order to get married, then we would need to remove Mexico (as a whole) from the list of countries that perform same-sex marriages, as this would bring it back to where it was in 2022. Tevamon (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. — kwami (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

We don't have anything about Chihuahua continuing under our Chihuahua article. That's worth at least a mention. — kwami (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)