Jump to content

Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in the Americas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why

[edit]

Why does this page exist? It seems it would be better to break up by country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdempsey (talk • contribs) 00:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carib NL

[edit]

This page is called "Recognition of same-sex unions in North America". I would like to add the Caribbean Netherlands, as it is

  • a separate jurisdiction in the Kingdom of the Netherlands
  • has same sex marriage

It was reverted because it was "imposed", as the legislative bodies in teh European Netherlands leglislated that. Why would that be a factor in a page on recognition (not on the legislative process?)? L.tak (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Netherlands are integral part of the European Netherlands, not a separate jurisdiction in the Kingdom of the Netherlands as you wrote. It's difference. They haven't autonomy on this matter. Adding to the table would suggest that the local legislative bodies have the right to create the laws on this matter. Adding Netherlands as a whole to the table would be a better option, because part of the territory (Caribbean Netherlands) is located in North America Ron 1987 (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between having control over a territory and being a separate jurisdiction. In the Caribbean Netherlands, the "normal" Dutch laws are mostly not valid. There is a separate civil code (Burgerlijk wetboek BES), criminal code etc. Again, I don's see why autonomy should be a criterion on this page... L.tak (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that having marriage "imposed" is not the issue, not is autonomy. However I don't think that the Caribbean Netherlands having a separate civil code should be the deciding factor. Rather, the deciding factor should be that they are in North America. (Well, I think technically the Leeward Antilles are probably in South America, but since we tend to treat them for most purposes as being in Central, and therefore in North America we should continue to do so.) I think that both the Caribbean Netherlands and the departments of Martinique and Guadaloupe should be included (as should Saint Martin and Saint Barthelemy, though recalling that Mayotte didn't have PACS before joining France, it's possible neither one has unions of any sort).
Now whether we want to have those areas listed as having the unions at the sub-national level, or the whole country at the national level, is something I'm not sure about. — Quintucket (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:State_recognition_of_same-sex_relationships_(North_America).svg

[edit]

We should probably remove the map if it isn't updated by March 20 (March 20 is when the U.S. State of Kentucky recognizes same-sex marriage). --Prcc27 (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico

[edit]

Mexico data in the opening paragraph is incorrect, as is the data in the chart. Same-sex marriage may be performed in the Federal District and Quintana Roo. Currently civil unions can be performed in Campeche [1], Coahuila [2], Colima [3], and Jalisco [4]. By Court injunction (amparo), individual same sex couples have been allowed to marry in Baja California [5], Chihuahua [6], Colima [7], Guanajuato [8], Jalisco [9], Michoacán [10], Morelos [11], Nayarít [12], Oaxaca [13], Querétaro [14], San Luís Potosi [15], Sonora [16], Veracruz [17], and Yucatán [18]. 187.252.94.51 (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC) susun[reply]

Additional reference added for an individual injunction in Nuevo León [19] and [20] 187.252.94.51 (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)susun[reply]

Additional reference added for an individual injunction in Sinaloa [21] and 4 injunctions issued in Edomex (State of México) [22] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.252.94.51 (talk) 06:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.theyucatantimes.com/2013/12/same-sex-marriage-is-now-legal-in-campeche/
  2. ^ http://la.indymedia.org/news/2007/01/191536_comment.php
  3. ^ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-23502039
  4. ^ http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2013/11/western-mexico-state-approves-same-sex-civil-unions/
  5. ^ http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/jun/25/mexico-supreme-court-gay-marrage-baja-california/
  6. ^ http://diario.mx/Local/2014-06-09_af4d868a/realizan-primera-union-civil-entre-dos-mujeres-
  7. ^ http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=14756&MediaType=1&Category=24
  8. ^ http://www.milenio.com/region/Primer-matrimonio-homosexual-Guanajuato-Leon_0_264574114.html
  9. ^ http://mexico.cnn.com/nacional/2013/12/14/jalisco-celebra-el-primer-matrimonio-civil-entre-personas-del-mismo-sexo
  10. ^ http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/lesbian-couple-first-marry-michoacan-wins-legal-right-become-mothers280714
  11. ^ http://www.zonacentronoticias.com/2014/01/juez-federal-concede-amparo-para-que-pareja-gay-contraiga-matrimonio-en-xochitepec/
  12. ^ http://www.theyucatantimes.com/2014/07/mexican-state-of-nayarit-formalizes-gay-marriage/
  13. ^ http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130328/after-mexico-court-ruling-gay-couple-weds-in-oaxaca
  14. ^ http://codiceinformativo.com/?p=122938
  15. ^ http://www.sdpnoticias.com/gay/2014/08/05/otro-amparo-hara-posible-matrimonio-gay-en-mexico-ahora-en-san-luis-potosi
  16. ^ http://www.sdpnoticias.com/gay/2014/07/22/otro-amparo-abre-la-posibilidad-de-casarse-a-pareja-gay-esta-vez-en-sonora
  17. ^ http://www.notiver.com.mx/index.php/primera/281569.html
  18. ^ http://www.excelsior.com.mx/nacional/2013/08/09/912891
  19. ^ http://www.milenio.com/monterrey/Amparo-abre-puerta-matrimonio-NL_0_156584652.html
  20. ^ http://www.elbarrioantiguo.com/con-los-excluidos-del-congreso-de-nuevo-leon/
  21. ^ http://radioformula.com.mx/notas.asp?Idn=354306
  22. ^ http://alfadiario.tv/alfa/noticias/30006/Logran+amparo+provisional+bodas+gay+en+Edom%26eacute%3Bx+

Nicaragua

[edit]

The Nicaraguan Law banning same-sex marriage and adoption went into effect April 8th, 2015 [1] . We need to update the page and the Central American Map. I don't know how to edit the map: RaVski can you do it? CRM28 (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a constitutional ban. Ron 1987 (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/nicaragua-makes-gay-marriage-adoption-illegal090415

RfC for the Recognition of Same-Sex Union Pages.

[edit]

Could editors please join the discussion here? I don't want this to become inconclusive, other perspectives are needed. Thanks. Chase1493 (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pending legislation in Mexico

[edit]

Hi, on the Recognition of same-sex unions in Mexico page, the text refers to several Mexican states where legislation for equal marriage is currently pending. The corresponding page to this one for Europe details sub-national jurisdictions as well as national ones - it would be interesting to see how those bills are doing/how far they have progressed and if there are any dates to watch coming up. I would add it myself but I have no idea where to get such information. 84.79.26.251 (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge the two pages

I propose that Recognition of same-sex unions in South America be merged into Recognition of same-sex unions in North America then be renamed Recognition of same-sex unions in the Americas. It makes more sense to keep the content together since we generally refer to North America and South America as general areas on a single continent. Doesn't make sense to break up the Americas like this. AquilaXIII (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cuba

[edit]

Cuba should be moved from the "constitutional ban" section of the table to the "no recognition" part. It's slightly beyond my table expertise and I don't know where the figures come from. Jdcooper (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A note on the tribal flags

[edit]

Because American Indian tribes are Nations and are sovereign governments, I felt it would be appropriate to add flags for tribal nations when they are available on Wikipedia. Not every tribal nation's flag is on Wikimedia Commons and some I could not add because they are non-free* images. A few flags on Wikimedia Commons I did not add because they were not fully accurate to the actual flag or I was having trouble verifying if they were the actual flag. I sought to verify the flags by checking the websites of each tribal nation to see if there was any information (some of which had information and other websites did not) and I sought to verify it again by checking Bing Images to see if I could find a picture of an actual flag in use (in cloth) as opposed to a digital design of the flag. A few flags on Wikimedia Commons were close but missed the mark on a few things and I chose not to include those flags. While many of these flags were available on Wikimedia Commons, I am not certain as to whether copyright policies were fully followed when they were initially added to Wikimedia Commons. If any of them must be taken down or deleted for this reason, I will understand.

Thank you,

-TenorTwelve (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico

[edit]

Why isn't Mexico included in the maps? 216.15.13.60 (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lapsed bills?

[edit]

@Baronedimare:, no chance according to who? We need some kind of reason apart from "been a while". This is not an exception to Wikipedia's need for reliable sourcing. For example, I guess the British bill died when the government changed. What was the mechanism for the other ones? If there's no explanation otherwise, we have to assume that the bills are still live. In some cases, bills have taken years before there's been some movement or legal ruling. Jdcooper (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In every legislature of every country there are hundreds if not thousands of bills which are presented but then just naturally die out there without ever being discussed even once. They are almost never withdrawn, so we cannot that only that into account. Also, you say that bills have taken years before there's been some movement or legal ruling, but actually when it happens is almost always not the same bill. It is a just a new bill with the same topic. For example, in Italy the first bill trying to introduce civil unions was proposed in the 80's. Then there have been dozens of other different bills who were never approved or, most of the times, even discussed, until another bill, not connected in any way to the previous ones, was approved in 2016. The point in having a period of inactivity after which we remove that proposal from this page is to avoid having dozens of bill for which we have no updated info, which means that they have nearly zero chance of being approved. Then if something new happens, even if we have some MP talking about it, we add it back. Going the other way is impracticable, because most of times there isn't a source saying what happened with that bill. thomasmazzotta 10:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I accept those arguments. I feel a "case-by-case" approach is better than a time limit, but looking back at the ones you removed I guess they were fairly doomed. Jdcooper (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_Americas&oldid=1244736121"