Talk:Same-sex marriage in Alagoas/Archive 1

Archive 1

Verification needed

I'm frustrated with these tags, because the four sources at the end of the article verify them. I could move the links if that would help. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

As Hekerui wrote: For discussion, see Template talk:Same-sex unions. Ron 1987 (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Lovely, but I'm discussing this issue here, instead of there since it isn't really relevant to that template. Now if you wish for the lack of communication to continue, don't participate and I'll report ya to the admins. I won't really have a choice. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop the threats, please. Not participating is not a reason for being blocked! Hekerui (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If we don't get participation, then the consensus is whatever is put out. You need to voice your opinion if you want something different. Now would it be ok if I simply moved the links to replace the in-line templates? Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I asked L.tak who added these tags to participate. I support his concerns. Ron 1987 (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To the point: indeed moving the references that are relevant for both statements to the right place would help: so proof it is instead and not "in addition to". I do agree with the disputed status template however as we have not solved yet how far this is reaching (finallity of the court ruling etc, we're waiting for the evaluating paper)... L.tak (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

As with Same-sex marriage in Quintana Roo, it'll probably end up in the top court of Brazil, but that doesn't negate the need for an article to chronicle it all. I'll go ahead and move the sources then. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I fixed up all the citations so they're not just bare links. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You are right, I searched for the ruling that was indicated in a couple of sources but didn't read the first line: Espiritu Santo. I guess the sources were wrong but I should have checked nevertheless. Here is the correct link: http://www.tjal.jus.br/corregedoria/provimentos/fdecf43ea5a3804e37b479be1b6a01e5.pdf

Now, I am not a lawyer, but what I think it says is that same-sex couples will no longer have to go through a long judicial process. Now they just have to express their desire to get married. The request -now- has to be immediately sent to a judge to decide, something that is not required for straight couples.

What I think this ruling does is simplify the process and make it mandatory for civil servants to submit marriage requests to a judge, whereas before each civil servant had to decide what to do.

It is a very important step but I am not sure if this could be classified as "same-sex marriage" in the state, as a judge is still required for each individual same-sex couple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.6.139 (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Do the changes I made satisfy everyone? Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am shocked people here will keep on the dispute when it's clear that this ruling IS about MARRIAGE and ABOUT not needing to ask for a JUDGE for permission anymore! Not sure If I should be wasting my time on trying to help Wikipedia expand when I am constantly being told here I "cannot "understand what a Ruling say, even when in my own mother language. I'll try to explain ONCE AGAIN to the ones who are still in doubt, even before the ruling text. In Brazil, Civil Unions were already legal since May 2010. In June, state Judges all over the country started converting these unions into FULL MARRIAGES. 9 state courts have converted unions, based on many reasons, mainly the one that constitution don't differ heterosexual marriages of heterosexual civil unions. After that, Judges of the state of Alagoas were ruling in favour of converting gay unions into marriages, when each couple individually asked a judge to do so. Afterall, with a broad Jurisprudence set, The state of Alagoas Court RULED through the regiment PROVIMENTO No 40, DE 06 DE DEZEMBRO DE 2011, that the SERVANTS OF NOTARIES OFFICE, who are NOT JUDGES, but only the NORMAL PEOPLE who would conceed Straight people the papers to get married, and then send these papers to a Judge (yes, straight people just get married after the JUDGES say so), should start doing this to the GAY COUPLES AROUND THE WHOLE STATE OF ALAGOAS WITH NO NEED TO SEE A JUDGE THEMSELVES, EVEN IF THE PAPERS WILL STILL BE SENT TO THE JUDGE AFTER, because the Judge will not deny the marriage, afterall there's Jusrisprudence - even knowing the legislative haven't done their part yet to formalize this with a law. What Part of that is not GAY MARRIAGE OPEN TO EVERYONE IN ALAGOAS some people here won't understand??? Each state in Brazil COULD DO THAT individually, even not being the highest court in the country. It is the highest court of the state and it is not going against any biggerr law. Let's get this dispute finished and develop the articles related and the templates as well. Denisxavier (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Me-1234567, I agree with your changes, and I added the PDF related to the ruling to the article as the main reference. Can you also fix that up, because I don't know how to do it. Denisxavier (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

According to Law of Brazil section State-level judiciary, the Court of Justice (Tribunal de Justiça in Portuguese) is the highest court at the state level. However, the federal courts have the power to reverse the Court of Justice's rulings. Ron 1987 (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Be that as it may, right now there's no injunction and thus it is the law in that sate. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you Denisxavier, and I fixed your citation. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the post by Denisxavier above: First of all, please stop the net-version of shouting that is CAPSLOCK, second, it is very understandable that users are sceptical: we have not had any international news on this for days even though legalization of SSM is issue that is widely reported on, this is not legislative legalization but a judgement about which we don't have answers on whether it is final, and it seems suspect that there would not be a rush to marry by hundreds of couples if the question of marriage was immediately solved and as clear-cut as it's claimed. The article on SSM in Brazil has been frequently changed with claims that SSM is legal in Brazil, all related to the decision of judges that don't seem to have had a wide influence. A correct treatment of the topic requires a critical view on whether we present the full picture to readers. Wikipedia is not concerned with getting content out quickly, but making informative articles - and the article is lacking in that still. Hekerui (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Instead we chronicle. Just because it may not be legal doesn't mean it shouldn't be documented. But so far from 5 different sources, it seems that barring an injunction, it is legal for the time being. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We cannot predict what might happen in the future. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hekerui, The fact that I am being passionate about getting this information published doesn't mean that it is not accurate and lacking of seriousness. As someone already posted here, the State Tribunal de Justiça is the highest court at a state Level, and I can prove to you that both Higher federal courts, STJ and STF won't rule against this since they have got their own favorable Jusrisprudences on the same matter. I am not here to give you classes about the Brazilian Law or Brazilian Judicial system, but this cannot be any clearer. And as Me-12367 mentioned, even if the higher courts ruled over this one, Wikipedia is not willing to be a crystal ball, and for now it is law at my state, even before the legislative decides to write something on the matter. My lack of English vocabulary shouldn't be on the way of you getting what I am trying to say, hence I am doing my best to be understood. Both Me-123567 and L.Tak agreed that all of the souces I cited, including the rule itself, brought by another editor are clear and reliable enough, so why keep this dispute? We should be arranging the final text to be displayed at the articles and templates. Denisxavier (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

There is not even a date given when couples can legally get married in the state. Where are the reports on marriages that are supposedly legal to perform now? What about the concerns brought up above? And the claim that higher courts have made favorable rulings on the matter is disputed by the fact that SSM is not legal country-wide. Hekerui (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Country-wide is irrelevant to this article. All we're concerned with in this article is this state. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I never claimed it was relevant, I only pointed out an illogical statement. Please read my explanation below. Hekerui (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The ruling is effective when it is published. Other than you think, we don't need to report any individual marriage here in order to show this is true. And though SSM is still not legal countrywide, just the Civil unions, both STJ and STF have ruled in favour of individual gay marriages, and you can read this in the beggining of the state rule document, where the judge cites two higher courts and their Jurisprudences. Denisxavier (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You both misunderstood my remark. Me-1234567-Me stated: "Higher federal courts, STJ and STF won't rule against this since they have got their own favorable Jusrisprudences on the same matter". This claims that the ruling can't be overturned. It's illogical though, because if these courts had already given SSM-favorable rulings, then marriage would be legal everywhere in the country. I don't ask for any individual marriage to be reported. I merely wonder why there are no reports on marriages other than on the one marriage - people always rush to get married when they are allowed to marry suddencly, why not here? And please stop citing WP:CRYSTAL, I know the policy, your application to my statements makes no sense to me. Hekerui (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

There are almostnever reports on a rush of people getting married after a ruling like that. Heck, even in New York after the passed legislation there aren't reports on any rush of people getting married. Needless to say, that's a very minor detail. What is your actual dispute? The tag doesn't remain on the article forever. We have to try to solve the dispute through consensus. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with you, Me-123567-me. I don't need to grab my fiancé, go out an get married in a Rush in order just to prove someone I have the right to it. I'm not willing to send my marriage certificate over to Wikipedia either so hekerui will be finally pleased. Back to the subject, I agree that consensus must be reached and I suggest voting since I know the documents shown as sources are enough prove to it according to the rules of Wikipedia. So, my vote would be YES to keep the status of Alagoas in SSM here, on the template and all related articles, remove the dispute tag and let Wikipedia finally recognize gay marriage in my state ( if the state has already done it, why wouldnt Wikipedia?)Denisxavier (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I vote NO. Ron 1987 (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I shouldn't need remind everyone, we don't vote. We build consensus. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Clarification?

So what is still being disputed? Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Where you see a consensus? Disputed issues were presented by Hekerui very clearly. Ron 1987 (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Many of them have been addressed, this is why I ask. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Addressed? I don't think so. Claims presented in this talk are not adequate answers. Ron 1987 (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

As in the in-line citations for verification. I'd like a bullet point list of what is being disputed. Makes it easier to address. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Before someone make this list, I just found a link to a gay forum where people from all around Brazil Are Expressing their surprise with the good news and you can even see people making plans of traveling here to Alagoas in order to marry. There you can read a text explaining everything around the new situation. I know we cannot use forum links as sources but this might help the doubters believe that I this is in fact true, since the English media haven't been so good in telling stories from Small states in Brazil. Of course you'll have to use google translate on this, since it's all in Brazilian-Portuguese, but as for Hekeuri (and now Ron) there's nothing better than the Brazilian gay expressing their desire to marry in state, I think this might be useful. http://yuri-cupcake.forumeiros.com/t406-cartorios-de-alagoas-liberam-casamento-homossexual Denisxavier (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that. It is probably very useful here on the talk page, but sadly it isn't a reliable source, and can't be included in the article. Me-123567-Me (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, me-123567, Just posted this here to Help the other guys, since they required some public's reaction to this in order to accept these new facts in the gay world. What I am not aware is what will happen to the articles here in Wikipedia if they don't come out and express their opinions, will we need to take the article down and things related to this on the other articles and template? Can you explain to me what will happen here from now since I don't edit here much? comment added by Denisxavier (talk • contribs) 14:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking through the Facebook website of Washington State United for gay marriage I found an user in the United States divulging the News about gay marriage here in Alagoas, another proof that news have spread about this fact even though English media haven't covered it. Go down the page to see her comment Here is the link: http://m.facebook.com/WashingtonUnited?refsrc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com.br%2Fsearch&_rdr#!/story.php?story_fbid=354912754525978&id=269228143119155&__user=0 Now we have something in English. Still this cannot be used in citation but might help us here at talk page. Other than that I don't know what and whereI should look for anymore. I even contacted NY times editorial 3 days ago explaining the lack of English media coverage on this but got no answer until now. Denisxavier (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not useful. Someone's post on Facebook is not a reliable source. When first marriages are legally performed, then I will believe in that SSM is actually legal in the state. If that happens, I will be convinced. It's very strange situation. In the past, each legalization of SSM was reported by news agencies (AP, AFP) and/or other news web sites. Ron 1987 (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Complex issue

This is quite a complex issue. There have been a few cases around the world where individual officials have solemnised marriages (e.g. France, Greece, Quintana Roo in Mexico). I don't think these jurisdictions should be included in the template, since there is no generalised recognition of same-sex marriage or possibility of generally entering into a legal same-sex marriage. However, what we have in Alagoas seems a bit different. I am prima facie in favour of including Alagoas based on the reasoning of User:Denisxavier. However, before we include Alagoas, we need a bit more information about how Brazilian marriage law works. In particular, I have two questions:

• When an opposite-sex couple wants to enter into a marriage in Brazil, how do they do it? Are legal marriages registered at a Civil Registry Office, which conducts a civil ceremony and provides the marriage certificate? What is the role of the judge in these marriages? Also, what is a "Notary"? Are they a state official working in a Civil Registry Office, or a private person who can register marriages? The issue I am interested in here is: is the process for entering into a same-sex marriage identical to entering into an opposite-sex marriage in Alagoas? Or are there administrative / procedural differences?
• Are Civil Registry Offices/Notaries obliged to register same-sex marriages in Alagoas, or are they merely permitted to do so? If they are not obliged to do so, then I think it's more problematic to include Alagoas in the template, because it means that the law is not being applied consistently.

The fact that the highest federal court has not yet ruled on the matter is in my opinion irrelevant. When the Supreme Court of California legalised same-sex marriage in California, we still included it in the template, even if the Supreme Court of the US did not yet give its opinion. Wikipedia is flexible enough that it can accommodate to changing realities; if a superior court strikes down the lower court, then all we need to do is simply change the template again. This has been done a few times already. Cheers, Ronline ✉ 09:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm in agreement. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is easily changed if the situation changes. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Ronline, I'll answer your questions. A notary is a civil worker for the registry office. These offices are the only public organs in all Brazilian states authorized to register marriages. There, a straight couple would come in, ask to marry and the notary, before a marriage Judge will concede the straight couple the marriage certificate when the couple say yes and the Judge says so. The role of the judge at this is to check if all of what the couple is doing is legal (if there isn't any law infringement on that marriage, the Judge will allow it to be registered. ) This link confirms what I just explained about Straight Civil marriage procedures in Brazil: http://www.casamentocivil.com.br/index.php?page=casamento-em-cartorio . For gays, now this Exact Same process is true. Notaries are now Obliged to do so. See the ruling itself: http://www.tjal.jus.br/corregedoria/provimentos/fdecf43ea5a3804e37b479be1b6a01e5.pdf.

On a further explanation, what I have been trying to tell people here for days now is that the state of Alagoas has done this just because a higher federal court ( this case STJ) has ruled ONe Individual Case on this matter, converting one Gay civil uniOn in one gay marriage. This precedent did not legislate on the matter but opened a jurisprudence. In this case, lower courts have the option to convert that jurisprudence in a Regimento, which has power of law but wasn't made by the legislative. What STJ did at the time, in case people here wonder Why the jurisprudence isn't working on a federal level, was leave the discussion opened wether if they would concede the same rights to the other gay couples. So they basically said yes for the first couple and at the end of discussion when they deliberate if this would Go to everyone they just didn't. What law specialists say here this is because they left opened this door to see what reaction the states courts would have in terms of other gay couples looking for civil unions to be converted into marriage. So, Alagoas started this, by using the jurisprudence. When you read the Alagoas ruling, the regiment cites this higher court jurisprudence. So technically Alagoas has base this decision on a higher court. And the Higher court is waiting either to all states do this or see if they would stimulate the federal legislative work on a proper law, which would be ideal. The way I see it, it Much probable that the STJ itself rule on the same matter again, this time on a broader manner after all states start doing what Alagoas did, based on the tendencies. On a side note, state legislatives here cannot legislate on this matter, just simpler laws. Denisxavier (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC).

End of the controversy (Finally)

I hope this finally puts to rest this question. The first gay marriage in the state after the new ruling has been performed and I have a reference to show. On a side note, shame on the international media which completely ignored this huge step. Here's the text I added to the article along with the reference:

"On January 17, 2012 a gay couple married in the state. The couple lived together for almost 25 years before finally marrying. This was the first same-sex marriage in the state after the new ruling and, since a lesbian couple have married before by converting their civil union, it was the second ever performed. Reference used: http://mixbrasil.uol.com.br/pride/seus-direitos/alagoas-registra-seu-segundo-casamento-gay.html#rmcl" Denisxavier (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not a newspaper source but a gay website and so far we have two marriages and no coverage one would expect if a whole state legalized marriage. This still looks like some judges allowing some marriages in some places - how should we take this seriously when there is no legislation and we have this state of sourcing? Hekerui (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I Shouldn't be explaining this to you, but this is a Major, if not the biggest Brazilian website for the gay cause, pointless To say it's realiable. The more you play this blind game with me the more I think this is becoming too personal from your behalf. Not everybody is ready to marry overnight. I will not hurry to the notary's office to marry just because I can. I have plenty of sources referring to this exact same marriage, even from regular papers but I won't post them here because the one I posted (along with many others before ) is perfectly good. And, if you wanna hear about more marriages in Alagoas, here's my own celebration date: July 25th. Dont forget mark that on your agenda You are invited to the matrimony, and maybe you can write your perfect English article about on how I didnt need any regular judges doing the job notaries will do. And you can tell the World places where people can't do this that we can do it here. Denisxavier (talk) 06:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. It's not clear why you say you have newspaper sources but won't cite them. Please post them so the article can be improved. Also, Wikipedia has no need for original research by users, thank you very much. Hekerui (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I come from a quiet small place, second smallest state in the country (we're almost not on the map, see), it's not my thing to be "starting something". And also, I'm not the kind of person who speaks on behalf of Wikipedia like I owned it. Anyways, in order to do what I've always done here (barey help) I'll do what I said I wouldn't and post one article from a paper:

http://gazetaweb.globo.com/gazetadealagoas/noticia.php?c=195189 - This is the main paper in my state. They exist for 77 years. Here you can read all about this marriage and explanations of how state of Alagoas is able to do this (Juridically). There's also an interview with the marriage Judge at the marriage court;

I've stated this here once, and will do it again. Right now there is NO specific legislation for SSM in Brazil. The Brazilian legislation for SSM is on the way of being voted, but it may take forever at the federal senate and at the chamber of deputies. That's why I think in Brazil, the same thing that happened to Civil Unions will happen to marriages - the Supreme Court will vote a case first and there will be no specific legislation, but still this is when it becomes legal throughout the country. Alagoas Court has already done this for the state based on the second highest federal court, which is STJ. STJ aproved one gay marriage last year, starting a jurisprudence. What Alagoas did, other states might not do. Other states Judges may deny some gay marriage, and then the people involved may recur of the decision at the federal courts. When cases from other states finally reach the highest court after STJ, which is STF, they will vote in favour due to the wide jurisprudence and marriage will be legal throught the country without a specific legislation, since they will use "holes" at the federal constitution to prove Gay couples are equally seen by constitution as Straight ones. Here's the "hole" STJ used for the first gay marriage in Brazil (excerpt from the decision text):

"Artigo 226 da Constituição Federal brasileira - A família, base da sociedade, tem especial proteção do Estado. (…) § 3º - Para efeito da proteção do Estado, é reconhecida a união estável entre o homem e a mulher como entidade familiar, devendo a lei facilitar sua conversão em casamento.

'Para o STF, outros dispositivos constitucionais permitem a união estável de homem com homem e de mulher com mulher, admitindo, então, por suposto, que a Constituição abriga disposições contraditórias. Portanto, se o facilitamento do casamento entre homem e mulher é feita, o mesmo será feito para homem com homem e mulher com mulher.' "

Any more questions? Denisxavier (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone updated the article with the new information? Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Brazil

This article is really small, it should be added as a section to the article on Same sex marriage in Brazil, it would adquire much more importance there, as a part of the advances of same sex marriage in Brazil since last year. --DrkFrdric (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I am proposing that this article be merged to Recognition of same-sex unions in Brazil, per DrkFrdric's suggestion. This content makes more sense and will have more importance in a larger context. The content is thin at the moment, but I would not object to recreating it as a distinct article in the future if there is significantly more content to include. West Eddy (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I see no problems. One observation that may be valid is the need to preserve historic record. Ref [marriage in Quintana Roo] - as legal status is changing from state to state rather than country wide, It may be appropriate to provide a table showing each state / status /date as a fast reference which is easily updated. Simple observation on how to deal with a fast changing legal issue. Does not compromise neutrality ect. just allows rational updates and expected maintenance. WP:DGAF - WP:IAR - WP:TTRLT Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hekerui has merged the articles and added recent info. West Eddy (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)