File talk:World marriage-equality laws.svg

 

 

Panama

Gay marriage being legalized in Panama? When was that? --Buen Ciudadano (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

It was "never" legalised, but the definition of the colors (in particular gold and dark grey) is ambiguous for some time now... some gvt official in panama once said that panama would comply with the IACHR ruling and apparently, now that's enough to color a country gold. I expressed my disagreement about this (and other colorings like the dark grey for EU countries) on the talk page of the original map, but then a new one was created... in my opinion, the map is too crowded with colors and the definitions are too vague, but it doesn't seem anything will change. Sander000 (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I concur. This map was good time ago but now some people want to actualize it for the sake of adding things, doesn't matter if they are relevant or have any actual sense. --Buen Ciudadano (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

East Europe

Someone reverted the striping in East Europe. I think I halfway agree -- maybe the striping should be light blue? Striped because it doesn't apply to everyone, light blue because the rights are so minimal. Kwamikagami (talk) 04:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The legend says "Same-sex marriage recognized when performed in certain other jurisdictions". But same-sex marriage is not recognized in these EU countries. The EU court did not rule that same-sex marriage has to be recognized by these member states. What it said was that non-EU partners to EU citizens who are recognized as married by ANOTHER member state shall be considered as family members in accordance with directive 2004/38/EC.

And the ruling has direct effect in all member states. All national courts are obliged to follow it, no matter what their governments think or believe. This is how all EU rulings work, there's no voluntariness. --Glentamara (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

But de facto there is voluntariness. States can simply ignore the court ruling. Eventually, if someone sues, it will probably go through, but even that's not guaranteed. That's how politics works.

But I agree that the dark aqua is the wrong color.

Same issue in HK, BTW. Kwamikagami (talk) 10:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

How's that? Should Slovakia be solid light blue like Poland? I'd assume so, based on our Europe map, but don't know what's actually going on. As for the dark grey of Lith&Lat, I think all we'd need is a govt announcement they'll abide by the ruling, or a report that people have gotten res rights. Kwamikagami (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The EU court ruling is binding for any national court. There's no voluntariness. Of course government agencies might not be aware, or even neglect this on purpose, but any person has the right to appeal to a court, which will then have to apply the EU law in accordance with the ruling by the EU court. --Glentamara (talk) 12:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

In any case, the EU court ruling has nothing to do with recognition of same-sex marriage in the member states. It clearly says that this is a national competence. What the EU court ruling says is that under Union law, same-sex spouses from one member states (recognized there) enjoy the freedom of movement in other member states, no matter if they recognize same-sex marriage themselves. --Glentamara (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Neither of you answered the question, so I'll assume the map is fine as is. Kwamikagami (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

There should be no special color for the EU court ruling, it has nothing to do with the recognition of same-sex marriage by a country. --Glentamara (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Italy doesn't rec SSM either, and we color it. What of Hong Kong? Similar to the EU ruling. Kwamikagami (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but Italy recognizes same-sex civil unions. --Glentamara (talk) 06:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I still do not understand the coloring of, e.g., Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania. This color is not explained in the legend as far as I can see. --Glentamara (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Striped because there is simultaneously no recognition (light grey) for the majority of the population, and partial recognition (light blue) for a few, per the ECJ ruling. (Same pattern as Cambodia. I don't remember the reasoning for that.) In this case, the states recognize pretty much what we've been calling 'unregistered cohabitation', since they don't see it as marriage or even CUs, though of course in this case it is registered, which is probably why those countries had been striped green until I changed it. We used to call the light blue something else that might've fit better. I never did understand the wording. Not a perfect fit, but doesn't seem worth creating a new color for. Not all the CUs are equivalent either. I figure it's enough to let the reader know there's something going on, and they can check the article for the details. Kwamikagami (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

This does not make sense at all. All colors should be explained in the legend so that the reader can understand the meaning of the map. And I repeat: The ECJ rulig does not imply that same-sex marriage or same-sex unions are recognized in the e.g. Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia. Please read the ruling. I hereby leave this discussion, if you want to keep a map that is wrong, it's up to you. --Glentamara (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

That's why I changed the map: it no longer says they do. I'm having a hard time understanding a coherent objection or suggestion for improvement.

And those countries are not colored per the ECJ ruling, but per their own govt announcements. Kwamikagami (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand what this color corresponds to then. Can you please insert an explanation in the legend? What kind of government announcements are you refering to? Please provide references. --Glentamara (talk) 07:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

That's too much for a map caption. Refs are in the articles. I've reworded the legend, though. Kwamikagami (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

What articles? This is Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. This map may be used in many different language versions of Wikipedia. The meaning of the different colors should be specified in the legend. --Glentamara (talk) 12:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

recent changes

I reverted recent changes due to the lack of any presented evidence. Lithuania, for example: there's nothing here or in the WP-en articles to support the edit summary. Latvia: no evidence they've accepted the EU ruling. The fact that they're supposed to is irrelevant if they don't. Military bases: if the civilian pop can't get married, they shouldn't be solid blue. And if there is no civilian pop, then it's misleading to color them at all, as they are not an additional opportunity for SSM, since military personnel can already get married. (Might as well color in US military bases in Afghanistan.) Jamaica, Grenada & Dominica not subject to IACRH: no evidence presented. Estonia: foreign rec less significant than domestic CU laws, so misleading to color for it (CU color overrides partial rec color).

Light blue striping to solid light blue: that seems like a reasonable redefinition, since spousal residency rights has become important and otherwise the only solid light blue was Caymans and the Japanese cities.

Del. Ecuador ring and the additional Japanese cities seem supported, but I don't have the time to make just those few changes. Maybe together w others once evidence is presented.

Change of color for foreign rec: the existing color is consensus after discussion. Other maps can be changed to match this one.

Kwamikagami (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources confirming that the EU court ruling is directly applicable in all EU countries, see e.g. [1], [2] [3]. Or just read up a bit on how EU law works. There is NO need for a member state to "confirm" a court ruling. It is not optional to apply it. It is directly applicable. Legally binding. It is ridiculous that you are even saying that this is necessary. Do you do the same for national courts? Stop inventing your own rules and standards. --Glentamara (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

You're missing the point. We're concerned about what is, not what is supposed to be. Your statement that the state has no choice is not true. They can simply refuse to respond. They can drag their feet. They can throw up roadblocks or bury it in red tape, claiming some other reason for refusal. The fact that such sabotage would likely be found illegal is again irrelevant: it would take a court case for it to be found illegal, which means someone must file a court case.

If Latvia is colored light blue, then that means that if I married a Latvian citizen I'd be granted residency rights. Today, not four years from now after it winds its way through the courts. You need a source that it would actually happen, not just that it's supposed to happen. Kwamikagami (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I've found the news reports about Lithuania, so I'll change that back to light blue. But consider the wording in Emerging Europe coverage: "Lithuania is the latest emerging European country to have been impacted by a European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling" when the case was being heard, and "Lithuania's Constitutional Court has ruled that foreign, same-sex spouses must be granted residence permits by the country’s migration department" when the Lith court ruled. That is, until the local court case, Lithuania had not abided by the ECJ ruling. (If it had, this would not be news.) Presumably Latvia still does not abide by it. The situation is similar in some ways to the counties in Kentucky that refused to issue SSM licenses after SSM was legalized in the state. When people were denied, it didn't matter what the law said if the clerk refused to abide by the law. It required additional lawsuits to get it straightened out, just as it did in Lithuania.

We need either a statement by the Latvian govt that they will abide by the ECJ ruling, or a court case forcing the govt to abide by it. Anything else is OR. Kwamikagami (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I have now presented sources confirming that Estonia recognises abroad same-sex marriages, that marriage is legal in Akrotiri and Dhekelia (the civilian population is governed under the laws of Cyprus and are therefore not British citizens), the British Indian Ocean Territory is not just a military base it is a British Overseas Territory in its own right, the Japanese cities, and the rest. You can read the Wikipedia article "Inter-American Court of Human Rights" for Jamaica, Grenada, and Dominica; you will see that they have not recognized its jurisdiction. Jedi Friend (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Estonia recs foreign SSM, but the rights that confers are less than domestic CUs, and people applying for foreign rec have given up and just applied for a domestic CU to by-pass the state's obstruction. So, what's the point of striping Estonia? That would suggest that in addition to CUs, there is recognition of SSM, as if that were a greater recognition than the CUs. The med blue for CU is a better indication of the level of recognition. Other countries with CU's rec foreign SSM, but we don't stripe those countries.

I assume you have sources and citations to confirm this claim. If you're referring to residency rights, which a court in November 2017 ruled against, then that claim is false, because that ruling was overturned in September last year. "Other countries with CU's rec foreign SSM, but we don't stripe those countries." That is completely false. Many countries with civil unions, Switzerland, Hungary, etc. do recognize foreign unions including marriages, but solely as civil unions. This is not the case in Estonia, which recognizes foreign marriages as marriages. The only jurisdiction I can think of is Tlaxcala in Mexico. In Tlaxcala, marriages performed in other states confer more rights than the local civil unions. If a couple is married in Mexico, they are guaranteed all the federal rights of marriage no matter the state, per Supreme Court rulings. Under civil unions, they are granted only a handful of the rights of marriage, and these unions are not recognized by the other states. Jedi Friend (talk) 10:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

True, the BIOT is not just a UK military base. It's also a US military base. There are military bases all over the world, and we don't indicate them. We don't indicate Palmyra atoll just because it's part of the US so technically you could get married there. We don't indicate the UK, NZ, French, Aussie and Argentinian sectors of Antarctica either, or the Kerguelen Islands, or many other uninhabited territories of countries that allow SSM. If you could get married on a US-registered cruise ship in international waters, should we color the entire ocean dark blue?

The British Indian Ocean Territory is not just a military base, British or American. It is an actual legal jurisdiction, with its own governemnt and its own constitution. Jedi Friend (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

If, as you admit, the civilian population of Akrotiri & Dhekalia are not able to get married, when why in the world would we color those territories blue and thus claim that they can get married? That's disingenuous.

Okay, the fact that Jamaica et al. do not accept blanket jurisdiction of the IACHR very likely means that they won't recognize the SSM ruling. That's a bit of OR, but IMO good enough given the difficulty we have verifying some things on the map. Kwamikagami (talk) 08:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

"Del. Ecuador ring and the additional Japanese cities seem supported, but I don't have the time to make just those few changes. Maybe together w others once evidence is presented." I'm going to be abrupt here. This is one of the reasons many here dislike you. You constantly revert sourced edits, claim they're unsourced, but then admit certain fixes were warranted but refuse yourself to do anything about it, when you are the root of the problem from the beginning. As for the color change, "consensus" was not reached. You changed it to that color, other editers changed it back arguing that the color is inconsistent with countless other similar files, as well as every Wikipedia article using this file, but you reverted it back (seemingly without reason). In the end, everybody gives up on changing the color back because you revert it every time, which you then use as "consensus". Honestly, I don't care what color we use, as long as it is consistent. If you revert it back to #008080 (which I am sure you will) than you should be the one to change every other file and associated article, since it is you, and you alone, that wants this. Jedi Friend (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

So, if an edit is only 75% wrong, we should keep it? If you were a responsible editor, we wouldn't have a problem. You insist that Latvia recognizes SSM for residency despite the fact that no-one has been able to find any evidence of that. And now you're misrepresenting Estonia -- again -- claiming that there is SSM there when, according to our sources, there is not. And, AGAIN, if you have evidence for either, please provide it here rather than whining that you mentioned something in an edit summary.

Yes, I thought I'd hold off on Ecuador and Japan until we had evidence for the other claims, to cut down on the number of edits. If you want to make those changes, go ahead. I don't have to do them for you. Just don't engage in OR. Kwamikagami (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, are you blind or are you doing this on purpose! Read the summary, I have added countless sources confirming all of this. Please, and please, read them. Jedi Friend (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC) Either way, I've just copied them over, otherwise we would have never gotten through this.

Akrotiri and Dhekelia: Same-sex marriage first as couple wed on British Army base in Cyprus. Pink News (9 October 2016).
Laws of Akrotiri and Dhekelia
Armenia: Aili Kala. 11 - CHAPTER The situation of LGBT persons. Human Rights Centre.
British Indian Ocean Territory: Overseas Marriage (Armed Forces) Order 2014. Legislation.gov.uk (28 April 2014).
Bulgaria: Bulgarian Court Backs Same-sex Couple's EU Residence Rights, VOA News, 4 July 2018
Cambodia: Husband and wife with no male hassles. The Phnom Penh Post (24 March 1995).
Same-sex couples tie the knot in Cambodia in a stunning public ceremony, Gay Star News, 24 May 2018
China: Breakthrough for LGBT rights as Hong Kong to recognise same-sex partnerships in spousal visa applications. South China Morning Post (18 September 2018).
Estonia: Couples in registered partnerships should receive equal treatment
India: In a first, Gurgaon court recognizes lesbian marriage. Times of India (July 29, 2011).
Japan: 「世間の価値観変えたい」　千葉市パートナーシップ宣誓制度施行　市民や事業者にも理解を (in Japanese). Yahoo! Japan (30 January 2019).
Over 10 Million Will Live in Cities With Same-Sex Partnership in 2019</ref>
Latvia: All EU countries must recognise residency rights of gay spouses regardless of same-sex marriage laws, European Court of Justice rules. The Independent (6 June 2018).
ES Tiesa: Arī viendzimuma laulātajam no trešās valsts ir tiesības dzīvot ES (in Latvian). Latvijas Sabiedriskie Mediji (5 June 2018).
Lithuania: Lithuania court hands down landmark ruling about gay couples. Pink News, 11 January 2019
Philippines: Love is love in communist movement. Inquirer.net (July 18, 2016).
Romania: Romania grants residence rights to same-sex married couples. Gay Star News (18 July 2018).
Slovakia: Same-sex married couples have the right to stay in Slovakia, The Slovak Spectator, 5 June 2018

Finally, a cooperative edit!

Your Latvian article appears to be a translation of a generic AP article. Of course the papers in Latvia would covr the news. That doesn't say anything about the govt.

It would be nice to have something substantial for Armenia. (Your 'Armenian' source is actually Estonian.) It's actually a bit OR to include Romania, though I'm not contesting it -- I assume they're following the ECJ ruling, since it involved them directly, but I have yet to see a source that confirms it. And yes, I'm aware that SSM is legal in the non-Caribbean British territories. But this is a map about people, and it makes little sense to highlight parts of the world where there are no people, or at least not any who are actually residents. The inhabitants of the BIOT are in exile in Madagascar, where they do not have access to SSM, and those of Akrotiri etc. are not subject to the SSM law and so also don't have access to it. So it would be dishonest of us to color either of them blue. Kwamikagami (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The Romanian Constitutional Court, back in July, 8 months ago, ruled that residency rights must be granted. Source : Romania grants residence rights to same-sex married couples. Gay Star News (18 July 2018). Jedi Friend (talk)

You seem to think both Akrotiri and Dhekelia and the British Indian Ocean Territory are uninhabited, which is false. Both territories are inhabited by army officials, who under British law are allowed to marry. The civilian population who live in Akrotiri and Dhekelia are not British, they are Cypriot for almost all purposes. If we choose to ignore both these territories, then we should also logically remove the Navajo Nation in the US, and every Indian reservation which has yet to legalize marriage for that matter. PS: The inhabitants of the British Indian Ocean Territory live mainly in Mauritius not in Madagascar. Jedi Friend (talk) 10:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

You're not reading what I wrote. Who can get married in A&D? Not the civilian population. And the British military population can get married back home. So why would we color it blue? The law allowing SSM in A&D did not extend the right to SSM to anyone. Now, when the population of A&D can get married under the law, we will of course color the territory blue to indicate that. But it's dishonest to say the people can get married when they can't. Kwamikagami (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

"The law allowing SSM in A&D did not extend the right to SSM to anyone." It most certainly did, to the military population who make up a majority of the population. The civilian population are not citizens of Akrotiri and Dhekelia. They are not governed under British law. They are not married under British law. Even civilian opposite-sex couples cannot get married in Akrotiri and Dhekelia, under British law that is. They are simply put "permanent residents" of another jurisdiction. Why would it be "dishonest" to color that territory blue when a majority of the population (those who are citizens) can marry? The legal jurisdiction of Akrotiri and Dhekelia has legalised same-sex marriage. This should be clearly shown. In many countries where same-sex marriage is legal, non-citizens and/or non-permanent residens cannot marry. Should these also be removed? Jedi Friend (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, the default option here I guess should be to assume that the authorities in a country like Latvia actually follows the legally binding court decision. We have many sources confirming that the EU court ruling applies to all EU countries, whether they like it or not. I think you are the one who should provide a source confirming that the Latvian authorities are disrespecting the Court decision or, at least, that Latvia previously has disrespected many EU court rulings in general. Otherwise your claims are pure speculations. --Glentamara (talk) 08:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The news out of Lithuania shows that they did not accept the ECJ ruling until a domestic court ruled the same way. So it would've been incorrect to color in Lithuania before then. Latvia seems to be similar. We shouldn't color in a country because we have no evidence, so it might be true, we should only do so when we have evidence that it is true. Especially now that we have further evidence that countries don't always follow ECJ rulings. Kwamikagami (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, in that case we have to color it "Unclear". You cannot use the description "Same-sex unions not legally recognized, but country subject to an international court that ruled in favor of same-sex marriage" in contrast to "Limited legal recognition (partnership certificates, residency rights for foreign spouses, etc.)" unless you have a source that confirms it. We have several sources confirming that the EU court ruling is applicable in all EU countries, but you have still not provided any source confirming that the ruling is not applicable in Latvia. Your comparison with Lithuania is original research. --Glentamara (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

So, you admit we have evidence to color Latvia dark grey, but not to color it blue. That's exactly what we have on the map. In all cases, a country remains in its old color until we have a source to change it to a new color. There's nothing special about Latvia. When you find evidence -- EVIDENCE -- we can update the map to match.

You haven't provided any evidence that El Salvador should be blue either. That doesn't make it OR to color it dark grey. What is so special about Latvia?

If you want to change the wording of the legend so it doesn't sound so certain, I'm fine with that. Kwamikagami (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I haven't said that. What I'm saying is that even if I buy your argument that we don't have a source that is confirming that Latvia is applying the court ruling, it does not imply the opposite. We need to have sources for everything. We know that the legal situation has changed. If you claim that Latvia is not obeying the court ruling YOU have to provide references. Your own speculations are not relevant. --Glentamara (talk) 09:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Your logic is backwards. You're the one pushing the claim that Latvia provides residency rights, so it's up to you to provide the evidence. You don't get to make claims because you don't know them not to be true, then demand that other disprove them to remove those claims.

We have lots of sources for the ECJ ruling and that that ruling applies to Latvia. Thus we color Latvia dark grey -- that's what dark grey means. We have confirmation from Slovakia, Bulgaria and now Lithuania that the will follow that ruling, AND that Lithuania had not been following the ruling until now. What you're claiming is that Latvia is somehow a different legal situation than Lithuania or other EU countries following the ECJ ruling, and you have provided ZERO evidence for that. This is getting tiresome. Find RS evidence for your claims. That's always the rule here. Kwamikagami (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm asking again: Where is your source confirming that Latvia does not apply the EU court ruling? Just because I cannot find a source proving the opposite doesn't mean that your statement is correct. --Glentamara (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Here's a source confirming that at least one same-sex partner has received a residency permit. The couple married in Portugal. The source is in Latvian. ES Tiesas spriedums: laulāto draugu Adriana un Kleija izcīnītā kopābūšana</ref> Jedi Friend (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! So apparently Latvia is abiding by the EU court ruling. And as far as I understand it applied, "voluntarily", similar rules already since before. --Glentamara (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Good. Thanks, Jedi. At least one case, but one is all we need. I added the ref to the LGBT rights in Latvia article. I think the relevant section is this,

Viņas vērsās PMLP, iesniegumu izskatīja, un Ievas laulātā draudzene saņēma uzturēšanās atļauju, pamatojoties uz noslēgtajām laulībām, un arī nepieciešamo, tā dēvēto "pārrobežu elementu" – kā saimnieciskās darbības veicēja varēja pierādīt pārrobežu pakalpojumu sniegšanu klientiem citās ES dalībvalstīs.

which in GTrans comes out as,

They appealed to the OCMA, the application was examined and the spouse of Ieva received a residence permit on the basis of the marriage contracted, and also the necessary so-called "cross-border element" - how the economic operator could prove the cross-border provision of services to clients in other EU Member States.

I can't make complete sense of that, but it seems clear that her spouse was given residency because of their foreign SSM. Kwamikagami (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jedi Friend: If you want to change the color of foreign recognition of SSM, you really need something that is clearly different from residency rights. The two colors you're using are practically identical.

Let's be honest. Which are more similar      and      or      and     ? Jedi Friend (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The second pair, of course. Green and grey are obviously distinct. Dull light blue and bright light blue are quite similar, especially when not adjacent. Kwamikagami (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

By using this CMC l:c Delta-E Calculator, one can see that the "distance" between #008080 (0, 128, 128) and #a0a0a0 (160, 160, 160) is lower at 17.0591. The "distance" between #00FFDE (0, 255, 222) and #99ccff (153, 204, 255) is higher at 30.1227. So the first pair is actually more similar than the second. Jedi Friend (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Mathematically closer doesn't mean visually closer. It's inappropriate to use such similar colors when they're widely scattered across the map, and especially when they're striped with other colors. Kwamikagami (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

In this case, it does. This caluclator measures the delta-e, which is "a metric for understanding how the human eye perceives color difference". Jedi Friend (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Although I initially agreed with Kwamikagami on Latvia, it seems as if the source proves otherwise. I think the colour change by Jedi Friend is actually much better though, along with his other changes. This colour is absolutely distinct from the light blue 'limited recognition' colour and is consistent with other SSM and LGBT maps.--Buyerseve (talk) 09:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I also feel very strongly that we should return both the territories on Cyprus and the British Indian Territory as they are fully separate jurisdictions and are individually represented as overseas territories of the United Kingdom. Military personnel residing there were unable to wed to a person of the same-sex prior to the legalization of such unions in 2014 despite England already legalizing it themselves. At least one of the marrying partners must be a British military personnel, so it is also not entirely true that wedding are entirely out of the question for the local population. Marriages have also already taken place on the territories, so I don't see why we would remove them. --Buyerseve (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, I also believe that Akrotiri and Dhekelia and the BIOT should be readded. Jedi Friend (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Antarctica

Couldn't be dark blue, though, because SSM is not available to the general population, which is what dark blue means. We could add a new color for military personnel. Then we could spatter the map with scores of dots for military bases around the world. SSM throughout the Arab countries! It would make it look like the whole world is turning rainbow. And we could color all the oceans where there are cruise ships whose captains marry people. And don't forget Antarctica. Several countries with SSM have territory in Antarctica. You know, for all those gay penguins. Kwamikagami (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

But Akrotiri and Dhekelia and the BIOT aren't just military bases, they are actual legal jurisdictions with their own governments and constitutions. Jedi Friend (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

But the only people who can get married are military personnel, so what's the difference? This isn't a map of legal jurisdictions of the world, but of people, where people have the rights of marriage. In A&D they don't. And in BIOT there is no independent population to worry about such rights, any more than there is in the S Sandwich Islands or Antarctica.

Mexican consulates are legal jurisdictions too. They're legally Mexican soil, and Mexican citizens can get married in them. Should we put a blue dot on every city in the world that has a Mexican embassy or consulate? Kwamikagami (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The map description says "Legal status of same-sex marriage in states around the world". Not for people. Mexican consulates follow the Mexican Constitution. This is not the case for Akrotiri and Dhekelia and the BIOT, who both follow their own constitutions and laws and have their own goverments, not the British one. Also, same-sex couples cannot get married in Mexican consulates or embassies (unless they receive an injunction). Jedi Friend (talk) 11:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Then we should remove Cambodia, Guernsey (since they don't have SSM state-wide) and the cities in Japan and China. Better to change the wording of the legend to reflect what we show on the map than to legalistically distort the map to match ill-considered wording. It is not appropriate to lie to our readers. SSM is not available in A&D or BIOT. To say otherwise is simply dishonest.

Also, if you want a map with neon colors, you can create your own -- "World SSM laws (garish)". Kwamikagami (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Guernsey already has three separate circles to indicate that it's not legal in the entire jurisdiction (I guess once Sark legalises it we can remove the three individual circles and add just one), the cities of China and Japan all have their own separate circles, and Cambodia is striped (since we are unaware which cities have these registries (and they are about 50 or so which is definitely too many to show individually)). I guess we could similarly stripe Akrotiri and Dhekelia and the BIOT, but that might be a bit "too much" and confusing. I still do not understand why you think that they have not legalised same-sex marriage, because they have. The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 did not apply to these jurisdictions. Separate laws had to be passed to legalise it. The citizens of Akrotiri and Dhekelia and the BIOT can same-sex marry. That is undeniable. Here's a reference confirming that at least one same-sex marriage has occurred on Akoritiri and Dhekelia. As of the color, I thought we had gotten over that. It's been proven using a delta-e caluclator, which measures difference in visibility that the pair #00ffde and #99ccff are more distinct than #008080 and #a0a0a0. Jedi Friend (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The real question is, which is more similar,      and      or      and     ? That's the issue. Now, if      and      are too similar for you, we can talk about changing one or the other to make them more distinct. But making one nearly indistinguishable to a third color is not the answer. If your argument is truly that we need maximal color separation, I'm sure you're competent enough to do better than this! And if you're not competent to do that, then you shouldn't be messing with it. Kwamikagami (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, as a sidenote, if we were to remove Guernsey, China, Japan and Cambodia because the recognition there is not uniform throughout the country, then logically we should also remove the UK (not legal in Northern Ireland), the US (not legal in American Samoa and many Indian reservations), the Netherlands (not legal in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten), and New Zealand (not legal in Niue, Tokelau and the Cook Islands). Same-sex marriage not legal in the states? Not legal in England? Now that would be dishonest, not to mention completly wrong. Jedi Friend (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it wouldn't mean that, because England etc. are all states, American Samoa is not in the US, etc. You use a literal definition of 'state' when you think it supports what you want, then claim it means something different when you find it doesn't, which is hypocritical. The question is simple -- can the inhabitants of A&D get married? No. Can the inhabitants of BIOT get married? No. Therefore we shouldn't show that they can.

You said above that the residents of A&D who cannot get married 'are simply put "permanent residents" of another jurisdiction'. But that argument, A&D should still not be indicated, because the residents who can get married are also permanent residents of another jurisdiction. And all of the people in BIOT are permanent residents of another jurisdiction. You can't have it both ways. Kwamikagami (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I've removed all the cities in Japan as there is no legal recognition of same sex marriages in Japan at all. (the certificates that some cities offer have no legal weight whatsoever). See Recognition of same-sex unions in Japan for details Paullb (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

(cont.) Estonia

Also, you still haven't provided evidence that I can see (please point it out if I'm wrong) that Estonia recognizes foreign SSM as marriage, as you keep claiming in your map edits. Kwamikagami (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I am now convinced you are doing this on purpose. I presented two sources for Estonia. I assume you choose to ignore them. Here they are again: Couples in registered partnerships should receive equal treatment, Aili Kala. 11 - CHAPTER The situation of LGBT persons. Human Rights Centre. The first one clearly states "Estonia developed its approach to same-sex marriages registered abroad and PPA recognises these marriages in case both of the partners held residence in the country they married in at the time of registering the marriage." Jedi Friend (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Please don't assume bad faith just because you're unable to substantiate your argument. You either provide nothing, or TLDR without pointing out what in your refs is relevant.

In the case of that first Estonia ref, it sounds like foreign SSM are to be treated identically to domestic CUs. That's no different than many other countries that have CUs. We color such countries medium CU blue. As for the second, it's long and I'm past my bedtime. Is there anything in there that contradicts the first ref and says that foreign SSM confers greater rights than domestic CUs? (I'm assuming not, because it would make no sense for you to make an argument by providing refs that contradict each other. But if it says something different, I'll read it tomorrow.) Kwamikagami (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, it's too late at night, on top of lack of sleep last night, for me to process the 2nd article very well. But it sounds like there are CU's in Estonia, despite which the authorities denied residency rights to a foreign-SSM couple, and the courts said they could not discriminate that way. So now foreign SSM are, apparently, legally equivalent to domestic CUs in Estonia. Is that how you read it? I don't remember which other CU countries do that, and it's probably changed in the years since I checked, but we've never colored such countries anything other than CU blue. With Estonia, the govt was initially recalcitrant and the courts said they couldn't be, but the end result would seem to be no different than many other CU countries where the govt was not so recalcitrant. Kwamikagami (talk) 12:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Foreign marriages are to be treated like marriages. They are entered into the population registry as marriages. There are for all purposes marriages, fully recognized as such by the Estonian state. Notar kooseluseadusest: kohtupraktika peab täitma poliitikute jäetud lüngad; Võõrsil sõlmitud geiabielu kehtib ka Eestis</ref> Jedi Friend (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't read Estonian, but your first ref is from 2017, and according to the refs in the Estonian article, in 2018 recognition of a foreign SSM conferred fewer rights than a domestic CU.

In the first article, using GTrans, it says, "And even if this same-sex marriage in Sweden has been made visible through a register entry in Estonia, the question arises as to what right to this marriage is still applicable - either Estonian law or Swedish law." So yes the marriage is registered, but it's not clear that it confers the rights of marriage that a CU doesn't. It "may mean that all marriages of same-sex couples abroad can be entered in the Estonian population register." But also, "the right of succession or adoption may be exercised without the cohabitation being entered in the register." So, are CU's entered into the population register just as foreign SSM are? It does say, "this reasoning under the Cohabitation Act today suggests rather that it is wise to go abroad and marry abroad and come to Estonia with this marriage certificate and register in it. Otherwise, these cohabitation agreements have no legal guarantee or consequence." But that was in 2017. AFAIK, CUs do now have legal consequence. (If they don't, then we'd need to change Estonia from med blue to light blue.)

Your 2nd source is similarly dated and is incomplete (stops mid-sentence). I can't make much sense of it other than that the court ruled that foreign SSM must be entered into the register. Kwamikagami (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

According to this, the CU act has never been properly implemented. So, should we remove the blue for CU's, as they have not been implemented, and leave just the green for foreign SSM? It's all very confused. But from what I read in my review of the lit last year, domestic CU conferred some rights of marriage while foreign recognition conferred minimal rights. It may be registered for immigration purposes as a marriage, but didn't confer the rights of marriage otherwise, and actually provided fewer rights than a CU. As with Armenia, we desperately need a good RS of what exactly is going on, not just generic statements but actual reports of how the situation affects people trying to get their relationships recognized. Kwamikagami (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

There are some interesting reports here and here, but I find them confusing. Estonia recognizes foreign SSM, but does not recognize foreign SSM. I suspect the accounts are confusing because the situation is confused. But, so far, I've seen accounts that a foreign SSM may be entered into the register and the spouse thus qualify for a residency permit, but not that the state recognizes the relationship as marriage, with all the rights of marriage. "Recognizing" a foreign SSM could mean recognizing it as a CU, or as cohabitation, like other CU countries do. Contrast Mexico, where it's clear that a marriage in one state counts as a marriage in all others states, regardless of local law. Kwamikagami (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'm willing to leave Estonia as it is, at least until further development or clarification on the matter. Anyway, Kwami, I must apologise for my earlier behavior. It was wrong and inappropriate of me. Jedi Friend (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I apologize as well. I got rather snippy with you too.

BTW, reading the refs above again, it seems like people advised getting married abroad only because local CU's were not being implemented, suggesting that the recognition did not provide them with full marriage rights. (Otherwise I suspect they would say you get full marriage rights that way.) But that's been changing as the courts have been ruling, and another couple at another time recommended the opposite. I suspect there's a lot of opposition that's subverting the court rulings, like there was in Lithuania before its most recent ruling (and as I needlessly feared might be happening in Latvia).

If we remove Estonia, should Armenia be removed too? No one even knows if there are any rights at all attached to that recognition. Estonian recognition certainly provided more than the Armenian. --Buyerseve (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I striped Armenia as an attempt to indicated 'unconfirmed' per your concern. Kwamikagami (talk) 08:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I wouln't, though I'd love to have better sources. The govt has said they'll rec SSM, and so far that, and expressions of support in the diaspora, are all we have to go on. I'd love to know what they recognize them as, whether anyone's gone through the process, or whether consular approval has ever been denied as a way to subvert the purported recognition. But now that we make the distinction, it might be that Armenia should be light blue rather than dark green -- we just have no info to base that decision on.

If Estonia recognizes foreign SSM as more-or-less equivalent to their domestic unions, which is what sources seem to suggest, then Estonia is equivalent to (I forget which states now -- Aruba at least, maybe Italy or Greece or ??) that do the same, and so should be colored the same (med blue). But for Armenia there is no type of domestic union for it to be equivalent to, that we could merge them together. And it wouldn't be appropriate to just leave it grey since evidently there's something, even if we both suspect it might be minimal.

We don't use colors to distinguish recognition of foreign SSM as marriage (Mexico, Israel?) vs recognition as civil unions (Aruba, Estonia?). We could, with say dark and med green for the two cases. I think we've discussed this before, but there are so few countries involved that people didn't feel it was worth adding an additional color. Plus, with Armenia, how would we decide? With Jedi's redefinition we do now distinguish recognition of foreign SSM as cohabitation e.g. for purposes of residency, with light blue, so actually Armenia might should be light blue. That uncertainty is the drawback I see to his change, which is otherwise an improvement. I had contemplated light blue for domestic cohabitation laws (Caymans, Cambodia) vs light green for e.g. conferring residency permits (Hong Kong, Romania), but again there would be so few light-blue countries that it may not be worth it.

We stripe Israel because (it seems) there are two levels of union, and foreign marriage confers full marriage rights whereas domestic unions are rather minimal. So there's a case where do don't have to go abroad, say if you can't afford to, but you get more if you do. I think the striping makes sense there, because there are two distinct levels of rights conferred. With Estonia, I suspect that foreign and domestic are supposed to be legally equivalent, so there's no reason for striping, it's just that the govt keeps subverting the process or refusing to implement the laws that would allow people to have access to their legal rights. That's an unstable situation, and it would seem that whether foreign unions would get you more rights or less has been changing, and we don't have good enough coverage to be able to keep up as the situation swings back and forth. Kwamikagami (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Latvia

We seem to already have agreed on the status of Latvia. But just for your information I contacted the Latvian migration office to ask about what rules they apply. They confirmed that a non-EU citizen "same-sex married" to an EU-citizen is considered as a family member in accordance with directive 2004/38/EC. Best, --Glentamara (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those sources, Glentamara. They help. We have confirmation now for all EU states but Romania, and I doubt Romania's tried to weasel out of the ruling or it would be news. Kwamikagami (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami, please, update the map on Latvia. Today, Latvian parliament rejected the law in the third reading. Also, yesterday the Parliament commission ditched the Civil Union law. — Soshial (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Disruption to change the map colors

The map colors have been stable for years. If some of you want to change them, perhaps because you're color-blind and can't distinguish green from grey, that's fine, but it requires discussion, not just edit-warring, and you shouldn't change the green to be nearly indistinguishable from a third color.

The bright light blue is not acceptable, as it's too close to the dull light blue to be functional. Pick something else. Kwamikagami (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Attempted compromise per talk on WP-en plus uncontroversial fixes

Because my long edit summary was truncated, I'm repeating it here.

Trying new colors (brigher green for rec of foreign SSM and unused light gold for IACHR ruling), as there have been complaints that the existing colors (dark green and dark grey) are insufficiently visible. This can be reversed, of course, but the following changes should not be controversial, including some proposed on the WP-en talk page where we've been discussing this.

Partially fixed width of striping of Chile to better match other countries. Still not perfect,, Chile is scaled differently in the coding than e.g. Ecuador. 

Added small circles for cities in Mexico (Zacatecas, Hidalgo) per similar circled cities in other countries. 

Added grey for reservations in US where we have RS's that SSM is not recognized. (Navajo at Four Corners, Kalispel in WA, Sac-Fox in IA, and several Muskogean nations in OK.) The ones in Oklahoma should be striped dark blue - light grey, but i can't figure out the coding for that. There's a comment in the coding mentioning Oklahoma just before those lines of code for anyone who can fix this. 

Removed color from Antarctica, as light grey is incorrect and we do not have consensus to color it blue per local law legalizing SSM in part of Antarctica.

As for the argument that the striping makes e.g. Mexico too busy, I have no problem with making it solid green, nor Ecuador and Chile solid medium blue, with the reasoning that those colors, higher up in the legend, override the IACHR color. But the striping has been stable for a while, so IMO we should at least discuss it.

As for the new colors, if people don't like them we can go back to the old colors (dark green and dark grey). Of course, if you want to revert the colors and change them at the same time, you should propose workable colors to replace them.

Please don't disrupt the map by reverting the recent fixes along with the colors, which (the colors) aren't of any real importance. If you don't know how to change the colors without reverting the fixes, I or someone else can do it. Kwamikagami (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

BTW, for those claiming we need to revert to the original colors, that I somehow corrupted them, here are the original colors, from Nov 2012:

 

Marriage open to same-sex couples

 

Recognized or performed in limited circumstances [e.g. Mexico, Israel]

 

High court ruled in favor, but not yet implemented

 

Government supports legalization [category later abandoned]

 

Same-sex marriage not legally recognized

Kwamikagami (talk)

US reservations that ban SSM

Navajo, Kalispel in WA, and Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Seminole in OK all ban SSM and do not rec SSM performed elsewhere (other rez or the states). I confirmed those are the laws on the books as of today for all but Navajo, but for Navajo there are a good number of news reports that SSM is not possible. The Oklahoma territories are striped because there is a mix of tribal and non-tribal members, and this only affects members. There are other rez that ban SS weddings but accept marriage licenses from the county, many which don't have their own law, etc. These six are just the ones we have sources that indicate there is no SSM. Kwamikagami (talk) 06:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Kwamikagami Thank you for drawing attention to this. LGBTQ and Two Spirit American Indians matter too. And I know many are still pushing for marriage equality within their own contexts. -TenorTwelve (talk) 05:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Grey island in Canada?

There is a grey island in the Hudson's Bay ?--201.219.170.66 15:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

No, it only looks that way because that island has a complicated coastline. Look at the west coast of Greenland, and all the grey there.

I think this is an issue that bears addressing though. How can the paths or the stroking be recoded in the vector to not have such ugly coastlines like on British Colombia and Greenland ? 73.96.114.218 06:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

We could narrow the border paths. But would be a pain in the ass because there are dozens of minimally different widths, so we couldn't do it with a single find & replace. Kwamikagami (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Change to green for court orders?

Given that on the homosexuality-laws map, tan means anti-propaganda laws (e.g. in Russia), should we change from tan for court orders to green? Darker green for domestic supreme court (Mexico), light green for foreign court / treaty obligation (most of the remaining hispanophone countries)? This would be iconic, with green for 'go', much as the change to purple for foreign rec was iconic (as blue for legal + red for not legal). There's no red here to be a problem for red-green color blindness.

Also, should we have a light purple for minimal foreign recognition (residency permits, e.g Latvia, Hong Kong) vs light blue for minimal domestic recognition (registered cohabitation, e.g. Poland)? Kwamikagami (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, here's a test upload with green for court orders and lt purple for minimal recognition. Kwamikagami (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Alright, been a couple days, no comments. Since color-conflict w the gay-laws map has been an objection in the past, I've gone ahead and made the change. Kwamikagami (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Palestine

SSM not legal in West Bank under the PA, but then the PA only controls, what, about a third of the territory? But then Israel's already striped, so we can't very well do the obvious thing and stripe it grey plus the Israeli color. Any ideas? Or just leave it grey? Kwamikagami (talk) 05:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Japan

I've removed Japan, again.

Japan has no legal recognition for same-sex couples and hence should be coloured grey. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Japan for details.

Paullb (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

That's part of the reason it was striped. I still don't see any significant difference from Cambodia. And there are no "laws" in Armenia ether, just a judgement of dubious application. Both are striped. Kwamikagami (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Paullb: How's this wording for the grey-blue striping: "Local certification without legal force". We should treat Japan and Cambodia the same. It's misleading to include one and not the other. You're right of course that we shouldn't exaggerate the rights conferred. If people think those rights aren't worth showing on the map, I think we should remove both countries. And perhaps Armenia as well, since there is no demonstrated right to marriage there. Kwamikagami (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

"Local certification without legal force" is still no legal standing and shouldn't be coloured on the map. It's misleading. Japan has no legal recognition so it should not be coloured in any way. If Cambodia also has no legal recognition it should be removed as well. I'm not familiar with the situation in Cambodia so I can't comment Paullb (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Paul, we're not debating facts here, but opinions. I'm willing to accept your on-the-ground knowledge. But striping Japan and describing what we mean by it is factually correct (I don't see how it's misleading, but that's what these discussions are for), whereas contradicting ourselves is not acceptable. We need to come to a decision about (a) whether or not we should indicate such things on the map (you're opposed, I'm in favor) and (b) which countries are affected (Japan, obviously, but Cambodia? Armenia?). Until we know what we're doing, we run the danger of being truly misleading because the map could be factually incorrect, rather than striping Japan which is factually accurate but you are opposed to for practical reasons. Perhaps very good reasons, but not good enough to make the map wrong because we haven't gotten the facts worked out. Kwamikagami (talk) 06:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Should we remove Japan, Cambodia and Armenia from the map?

In Japan and Cambodia, the certificates are voluntary and have no legal force. In Armenia there is no demonstrated right to marriage -- we've had other cases where a court has ruled and been sidestepped in practice. Currently all three are striped, so as to not claim they're equivalent to the solidly colored states. But we've had objections to including Japan at all, under the argument that the certificates there confer no mandatory rights and can be ignored at will. Kwamikagami (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

(I've also opened this tread on WP-en.)

@Paul: , the WP-en article on LGBT rights in Japan (which you have edited) currently says,

 In February 2015, the district of Shibuya (in Tokyo) announced plans for a procedure of the recognition of same-sex couples for situations such as hospital visits and shared renting of apartments. This procedure allows couples to get a "proof of partnership" paper, which is not based in Japanese law but can help in, for instance, getting access to a partner who is ill and in hospital. The Shibuya initiative is considered a significant step towards lesbian and gay partnership rights in Japan. In July 2015, Tokyo's Setagaya ward announced that it would be joining Shibuya in recognizing same-sex partnerships from November of the same year. Since then, the cities of Iga, Takarazuka, Naha, Sapporo, Fukuoka, Osaka, Nakano, Ōizumi, Chiba, Edogawa, Fuchū, Hirakata, Kumamoto, Odawara, Sakai, Sōja, Toshima, Yokosuka, Kanuma and Miyazaki have begun issuing partnership certificates to same-sex couples, as has Ibaraki Prefecture. Similar registrations will become effective in Hida and Kitakyushu in 2019, and Narashino in 2020.

Do you take issue with the accuracy of anything in that paragraph? If not, then we're at a philosophical difference of whether such initiatives are worth including on the map. I don't see how it could be 'misleading', as you say, if we indicate them with something such as striping that we explicitly define as having no legal enforcement. It would seem to be the question is more one of whether the rights conferred, since people are free to ignore them, are too minor to bother with.

If we remove Japan, then I believe for consistency we would also need to remove Cambodia and Armenia. But if we do that people might object and restore them, which would mean restoring Japan, which you would then presumably delete again, recreating the factual contradiction that you've put in the map several times now, and we've got a mess. I'd rather work this out with discussion (since AFAICT there is currently nothing factually incorrect about the map) so that if people object to the removal of Cambodia and Armenia, we can refer them to a consensus for doing so. Kwamikagami (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

As I have said multiple times, I can't speak for Armernia or Cambodia as I am not familiar with the laws in those countries. The reality in Japan is that while partnership certificates are issued by some jurisidictions none of them are legally binding in any way and no public or private organisation is obligated in any way to recognise them. Even the quote above says "can help in" and not "guarantees". As a result, Japan has no business being coloured any color other than grey ("Same-sex unions not legally recognized") until that reality changes. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Cambodia, there is some legal weight being certificates issued, so it can be coloured (again, I'm not intimately familiar with the details there but purely reading the wiki page). According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Armenia, Armenia is required to recognise foreign same-sex marriages so perhaps it should be the same colour as Israel?

Finally, I know there isn't any malice on your part but my name isn't Paul.

Paullb (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just going off your name.

Yes, I think I understand the situation, and I take it you agree with the article as you edited it. Which means the map is factually correct with Japan striped, since that is explained as not legally binding.

As for Cambodia, its a civilian LGBT group that's issuing the certificates. They've gotten some communes to agree to them. Superficially at least, that sounds very much like Japan.

As for Armenia, we've seen other cases around the world where a court has issued a ruling and authorities have ignored it. Take the Dutch Caribbean countries, where they "register" Dutch marriages, but the registration has no effect apart from maybe residency. Without any actual cases of marriage in Armenia, we can't know what will happen if someone tries. Coloring it the same as Israel would imply that foreign marriages actually ARE recognized (and as marriages).

Please, let's get some input into this. The map is currently correct for Japan. Your opinion is that the rights are too minor to be included, which is quite reasonable, but we should also be consistent. Kwamikagami (talk) 23:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough with the striping but the definition of striped to something more accurate such as "Same-sex unions not legally recognized but some local jurisdictions offer non-legally binding certificates" to make it clear that there is absolutely no legal recognition. Sorry if I was a bit of a jerk, so many people continually change content based on erroneous articles in foreign (non-Japanese) media (even you on this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_rights_in_Japan&type=revision&diff=903617697&oldid=903517154). We also need a box that identifies the colour of the striping as there doesn't seem to be one on the page. Paullb (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that works. How about a bit less repetitive "Same-sex unions not legally recognized but some local jurisdictions offer non-binding certification"? I mostly want to be consistent. I'll add color boxes for the striping too, assuming they work on Commons. Kwamikagami (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I only know how to stripe with white. Maybe we should do the 'higher color overrides' thing and make Israel solid, so it doesn't look like it's not implemented there.

I tried to condense the wording. Too much and people won't read it, which could be just as bad as not enough. But feel free to fix it up. I'm not wedded to it. Kwamikagami (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I think what you have now is OK. Paullb (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Nepal?

In Same-sex union court cases says of a June 2018 case: The Supreme Court of Nepal held that denying a dependent visa for a foreign same-sex spouse of a Nepalese citizen is unlawful, as the Immigration Rules do not specify the gender of the spouse. The plaintiffs married in the U.S. That would be some kind of limited recognition? --190.5.179.180 00:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, assuming the govt doesn't balk at the SC decision. I held off a bit in the EU, as it was a foreign court, but all govts conformed w the ruling within a few months. I'd expect the same of Nepal, since it's their own SC, but we should watch for developments. Kwamikagami (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

allowed in 2023 by supreme court decision in Nepal. --92.76.100.152 16:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

China

Legal guardianships for all couples since Oct. 2017.[4] Not specifically SS (and they certainly didn't have that in mind when they changed the law), but CU's and minimal rec in many countries is not specifically SS. Kwamikagami (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Please set China to grey as it doesn't legally recoginize same-sex unions at all

In the graph, China is set to blue which is very misleading. The author set it to blue because of the guardianship law in China. But this law was made for any two consenting adults. It is not for same-sex couples benefits at all! Actually, the Chinese government is trying to weaken its usage by same-sex couples. Such laws can be found in many other countries. Since it's not made for same-sex relationship protection or recognition purpose, as a Chinese citizen, I strongly suggest that we change China from Limited domestic legal recognition to Same-sex unions not legally recognized.

e.g. Almost all the countries have laws allowing a person to nominate his/her heirs by wills, which can also be taken advantaged by same-sex couples. The inheritance law doesn't ban people from putting their same-sex partner's name into the will. Does this mean that all countries have limited domestic legal recognition of same-sex unions? The answer is obviously NO unless this country has special laws for inheritance between same-sex couples. If we set China to blue, why don't we do so to many other grey countries which also have similar legal guardianship laws between two consenting adults?

Also on this Chinese page: it says that "意定监护不为同性伴侣社群而设，但被认为可在一定程度上保障同性伴侣等群体。南京公证处在2019年7月26日发文说明，LGBT群体可以通过意定监护协议指定伴侣作为自己未来的监护人，方便处理医疗等多方面问题，但此文在数日内被删除。". I'm not sure if you are able to read Chinese. But it clearly says that the guardian law is not set for LGBT people, but it can be taken advantage by same-sex couples. The Nanjing Notary Office announced that this law worked for any two consenting adults including LGBT people but soon this announcement was deleted in a few days. It hints that the government doesn't like to see any connections between the law and the same-sex relationship recognition.

Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hueofwind (talk • contribs) 19:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the law is specifically for LGBT, only whether LGBT have equal access to the law, which it appears they do. And an office removing an advert for the law doesn't rescind the law.

If there are other countries like China, perhaps we should add them to the map. Given that we have sources that LGBT can use this law for minimal recognition of their relationships, we'd need a RS to counter that before removing China from the map. Kwamikagami (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Vietnam

Started a thread on the world legal/illegal map, no response yet. But in Vietnam unregistered cohabitation is illegal. You can have a wedding and cohabit, but need to register, so that is literally "registered cohabitation". Not sure that's what the azure color was intended for (perhaps "registered cohabitation" had a specific legal meaning in some other country, but I never got an answer to that), and in Viet there's very minimal rights -- AFAICT, basically just freedom from police harassment. So, if anyone thinks coloring Viet azure is too much, why so? What are our criteria for the color? Kwamikagami (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you able to add neutral and notable refrences to these statements from media or academia? Please, present your evidence. Cyanmax (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Please, present your evidence. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.

The accuracy of a statement may be a cause for concern if:

It has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic; It contains information which is particularly difficult to verify; It is cited to sources that are antiquated or have since been called into question; It contains information which is ambiguous and open to interpretation, either due to grammar, or opinionated wording; Cyanmax (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

2020: Civil unions in Monaco and Montenegro

In the map the countries Monaco and Montenegro should be marked in blue colours. --92.76.106.2 11:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The law in Montenegro won't take effect until 3 July 2021. ;)--Aréat (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Just added it back in today. Kwamikagami (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Chile & Bolivia

I removed the striping cuz it was getting busy, and diff to see at low res. Moved med blue up in the list to override the green in Bolivia (already did the lighter green in Chile). I'm fine w it if ppl want to revert, but think the map's more legible now. Kwamikagami (talk) 06:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

India

Situation is rather similar to China, but with new use being put to an established tradition rather than to a recent law. In Gujarat, SS couples using Maitri Karar (intended to legitimize mistresses) for legal recognition. At least one case based on a similar tradition in Orissa. Similar traditions in Rajasthan and Bangladesh, but AFAIK no cases reported there. Note these cases go back at least to the 1988, when homosex was still illegal. It's possible this kind of provision could be used across India, and that therefor all India should be light blue like China is. Or perhaps Orissa is a one-off and only Gujarat should be blue. I'll hold off on that until we have more info. A bit like the rec in Japanese cities, a Maitri Karar doesn't confer legally-mandated rights, but it does show commitment for things like property, inheritance & separation. Some interfaith couples have used it as a substitute for marriage, and it has been used to avoid forced marriages. SS couples have presented these docs as evidence in court.

"These procedures are comparable to the practice in the United States of same-sex couples drawing up wills and powers of attorney to confer rights on one another. [Developed] under Indian contract law, which recognizes any contract, whether notarized or not, between consenting adults, if it does not violate state policy. [...] A 2018 Supreme Court judgement recognizing the right of a couple to be in a live-in relationship has helped foster wider acceptance for practices such as Maitri Karar. 'Now the community is trying to use Maitri Karar as a way to formalize their partnership. It's leading to a fact that even if same-sex unions are not legalized, you are contractually bound to be together.'"

Kwamikagami (talk) 06:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Japan 2021

Supreme Court ruling recognizing domestic partnerships. (This is not the ruling that banning SSM is unconstitutional, but another that was handed down a couple days later.) However, this is the traditional concept, of rather limited rights (though including alimony etc.), not equivalent to CU's or common-law marriage -- unless that's what hetero DP's are? I assume our med. blue for "domestic partnership" is for the more generous conception, so I'm coloring Japan light blue and changing the definition of the blues in our table. But perhaps Japan should be med blue? More rights than many other light-blue countries, though it's a recent ruling and the effect has yet to trickle down. Please comment here if you disagree with my analysis (and of course change the map as appropriate). Kwamikagami (talk) 07:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Challenge to some states

@IAmBrazilian, Iûnn Tsú Juē, Ratherous, Baronedimare, Delusion23, Robsalerno, Paullb, Jedi Friend, and Mcdlee:

On WP-en, the inclusion of some states has been challenged. This includes Thailand, Vietnam, South Korea and Namibia.

(Also Haiti, but I rm'd that already because parliament has a year still to override the presidential decree, and sources are mixed on what the decree is exactly.)

In Vietnam, SS couple have to register their cohabitation, which seems to me to be "registered cohabitation". Or am I taking that too literally? Thailand recognizes and accepts that couples are getting married in religious ceremonies, even if it doesn't recognize the marriages themselves, which seems to me to be approx equiv to Vietnam. (In Thailand AFAIK you aren't required to register your cohabitation.) South Korea of course is only for foreign diplomatic officials. Marginal, which is why it's striped. Namibia has recognized one SS couple for residency purposes, but several other cases are before the high court.

On the other hand, we color in Romania even though ppl are saying it hasn't implemented the EU ruling, and Switzerland even though there's a chance the referendum could nix pending legalization. Even though SSM is primarily a Western phenomenon, we need to be careful not to apply different criteria to Western and non-Western countries.

Does anyone have arguments why these (or other) countries should be removed from the map, or to justify their inclusion? Kwamikagami (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'll start. For Switzerland at this point, since the opponents to SSM have gotten their signatures, and as such it is what is called an Optional Referendum, it amounts to a single thumbs up or thumbs down vote (Not sure if June, September or December), as such, it shouldn't be any color other than what it has for Civil Partnerships (which I think is the same color as Italy, but I'm not sure).Naraht (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The referendum is in 8 weeks. Given how slowly the discussion here is progressing, I suspect that by the time we come to an agreement it will be a moot point. Does it matter if it stays green for the judicial ruling until then? Kwamikagami (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Armenia

I think we should strip Armenia as it doesn't seem the marriages were ever fully recognized.

The first reason is that, as of 2021, no such recognition has yet been documented. You have to admit, that 5 years is quite a long period of time.

The second reason is that, it is unknown if recognition would give such couples all the rights of marriage under domestic law, also in light of the existing constitutional ban.

The third reason is that, South Korea has recognized one same-sex couple for residency purposes, while there are still no actual cases in Armenia.

The final reason is that, it's certainly not the same as Bulgaria(1) and Lithuania(2) where the courts have explicitly confirmed the residency rights of same-sex couples. *

(1) In July 2019, a Bulgarian court recognized a same-sex marriage performed in France in a landmark ruling.

(2) In January 2019, the Constitutional Court ruled that foreign, same-sex spouses must be granted residence permits. Dustssics (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I concur. Coloring Armenia the same as Bulgaria would imply that foreign marriages actually ARE recognized, which is not the case. No evidence of any recognition in Armenia so it should be changed to gray or at least should be striped. Biased armenophile (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami:  :@Dustssics:

I found the perfect solution to the Armenia dilemma.

Please have a look on this map: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_laws_pertaining_to_homosexual_relationships_and_expression.svg#mw-jump-to-license

Here you can see that the African country of Sierra Leone marked with an orange question mark. That question mark means that it is unknown if the anti-gay law is really being enforced. There are no published cases of the law ever being enforced in recent history. We can use a pink question mark to indicate that in Armenia degree of recognition is unknown. Marriage certificates registering the union between two people of the same sex abroad are valid in Armenia, the justice ministry told PanARMENIAN.Net in an emailed statement in July 2017. It is uknown if the announcement of the Ministry of Justice would give same-sex couples all the rights of marriage under domestic law, also in light of the existing constitutional ban.

I think that's the best solution. It would be easier to distinguish Armenia from pink striped South Korea. Biased armenophile (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Biased armenophile and Dustssics: How's that? I colored the question mark the original dark purple, because the ruling was "recognition", not partial or minimal recognition. (The light purple was just because we couldn't tell what the level of recognition would actually be.) But when I made the question mark small enough to fit inside Armenia, it was difficult to see (and easy to overlook), and if I made it large enough to be easily visible, it was hard to tell which country it was supposed to apply to -- different browsers, and different user fonts, align the text in SVG files differently, so what's centered on Armenia for me might look to you like it's for Turkey or Azerbaijan. So Armenia needed some background color to make it stand out. I chose light green, for a ruling that's not likely to have any immediate practical impact (like the IACHR ruling in Latin America). Does that work for everyone?

Another issue with Armenia is that it's a ministry ruling. I'd misremembered that it was the supreme court. A ministry could always change its mind, especially with a new administration. So that's another reason it's questionable. Kwamikagami (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

PS. I also removed Karabagh, because the boundaries are out of date. If someone wants to point out this same base map with either the old Soviet boundaries or the new cease-fire line, I can copy it over. Kwamikagami (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami:

You did a great job, thank you a lot. But this map has still to be updated: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_laws_pertaining_to_homosexual_relationships_and_expression.svg#mw-jump-to-license

Armenia needs a question mark. Biased armenophile (talk) 07:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

There are a lot of maps that need to be updated. But not tonight. Kwamikagami (talk) 07:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I wanted striped Armenia, but OK. Well, I guess that makes sense. What about other LGBT maps with Armenia? I mean 'LGBT rights in Asia' and 'LGBT rights in Europe'? I think those maps should be updated too. Dustssics (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami:

Hi, I hope you will update the maps when you are free. I would have done it myself, but I have no the same skills as you. You are one of the most experienced map editors, and that is why I am asking you for your help.

On this map 1. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Same-sex_marriage_map_Europe_detailed.svg Armenia is striped with red and pink colouring. I think it should be red with a pink question mark.

For these two maps

2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:World_laws_pertaining_to_homosexual_relationships_and_expression#/media/File%3AWorld_laws_pertaining_to_homosexual_relationships_and_expression.svg

3. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Asia_homosexuality_laws.svg I suggest to use a pink background color and a purple question mark.

Finally, for this map

4. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LGBT_immigration_equality_by_country_or_territory.svg#mw-jump-to-license I suggest to use a blue question mark. Biased armenophile (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Done. @Dustssics: if you want striped, I can do that. But consider the Europe map where Armenia was already striped red for a constitutional ban - would that be okay left as it was? Kwamikagami (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami:

No, no. @Dustssics: It was already discussed. We need a question mark, not stripes. This map has already been updated. Now 4 other maps need to be updated.

On this map (Europe) 1. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Same-sex_marriage_map_Europe_detailed.svg Armenia is striped with red and pink colouring. I think it should be red with a pink question mark.

For these two maps

2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:World_laws_pertaining_to_homosexual_relationships_and_expression#/media/File%3AWorld_laws_pertaining_to_homosexual_relationships_and_expression.svg

3. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Asia_homosexuality_laws.svg I suggest to use a pink background color and a purple question mark.

Finally, for this map

4. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LGBT_immigration_equality_by_country_or_territory.svg#mw-jump-to-license I suggest to use a blue question mark. Biased armenophile (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami:

Perfect! thank you a lot. I won't bother you anymore. Biased armenophile (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Vietnam 2

The only person objecting to Vietnam has deleted my attempts at discussion on this talk page (as they did in this thread, apparently believing that disagreement with an opinion is a "personal attack" and can therefore be deleted), so I consider the matter closed. I will continue to revert tag-bombing and other vandalism. If anyone would like to start a rational discussion, I am happy to engage and to modify my position. Kwamikagami (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Bolivia

I think there are civil unions in Bolivia (called Free union). Why was it removed?--Baronedimare (talk) 08:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Baronedimare: There was only one couple, so it was a special case (what we use rings for). If you have evidence that other couples have gotten CU's, please cite and we'll correct the map. Kwamikagami (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Switzerland

On 26 September 2021 Switzerland allowed same-sex marriages. It comes into effect on July 1, 2022. --188.96.188.38 17:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

South Korea

@Kwamikagami: I think we should remove stripes and add a pink ring instead. In 2019, the Government of South Korea announced it would recognize the same-sex spouses of foreign diplomats who come to live in South Korea. As of December 2021, the only beneficiaries of this scheme have been New Zealand Ambassador Philip Turner and his husband Hiroshi Ikeda. Never applied to anyone else. There was only one couple, so it was a special case. It's ridiculous because they are not even Korean citizens. The recognition does not extend to same-sex spouses of South Korean diplomats living abroad, much less to South Korean same-sex couples. Thus, only privileged foreign diplomats can benefit from this "recognition". South Korean same-sex couples are still not recognized, not even South Korean diplomats living abroad. I think a pink ring would better reflect this ridiculous "recognition". Dustssics (talk) 08:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe. I thought they'd passed a law, though, not just made a bureaucratic decision. Though granted it was as minimal as they could make it. Kwamikagami (talk) 11:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I hope you will update the map.

Namibia

A High Court in Namibia has ruled against two same-sex couples who were seeking to have their foreign marriages recognized for immigration purposes.

Sources:

1. https://76crimes.com/2022/01/20/namibia-high-court-rules-against-same-sex-couples/

2. https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/namibian-court-rules-against-gay-couples-seeking-legal-recognition-2022-01-20/

It's time to change the color back to gray. Cyanmax (talk) 05:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Chile

The map must be updated. Since March 10, 2022 in Chile same-sex marriage became legal. The coulor of Chile must now dark-blue.

• Queer.de: Premiere in Chile: Erstes gleichgeschlechtliches Paar heiratet (german)--88.70.26.203 15:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Bermuda

Same-sex marriage is no longer legal in Bermuda, only domestic partnership: [5] --80.104.127.133 15:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

2022 Updates and Corrections Needed

I posted an updated and cleaned up map, but it was overwritten. Let me list some of the figures that need to be corrected, and maybe we can talk this out instead of getting into an edit war.

According to each of the "Recognition of Same-sex unions in ____" pages for each of these countries, there is no recognition of same-sex couples. They should go grey: Namibia -- the Supreme Court just declined to directly give residency rights to a same-sex couple. Other cases are still active, but there is no recognition of same-sex couples there. Cuba -- I don't even know what this is referring to. I have seen no reports of same-sex couples being recognized, and the page says no. SSM is under discussion but is not yet legal or recognized. South Korea -- the government has allowed the same-sex partner of a single diplomat to reside with his partner. This does not apply to any South Korean couples, or immigration generally. It should be listed as grey. The government has been hostile to any other recognition of same-sex couples.

Beyond that: Israel -- The country is marked very strangely. There's an equal marriage dot, which I assume refers to Tel Aviv? Those marriages were considered symbolic and not recognized by the government as Israeli marriages. They were recognized as being performed in Utah online. The correct color for the whole territory should be mauve, limited recognition of marriages performed in other countries. I cannot understand why the West Bank is striped at all.

Armenia -- the question mark is unbecoming of a resource website. Until we have any evidence that foreign marriages are or have been recognized there, the whole country should be colored grey.

The little circles -- there is no indication of what they mean in the legend. That should either be explained or they should be removed.

Antarctica -- all countries making claims to Antarctica have legalized SSM and/or specifically extended their same-sex marriage laws there. The continent should be colored dark blue to indicate that. I see elsewhere on the talk page that there's objection because the territory is uninhabited -- not entirely true. There are researchers based there. UK advertises the availability of same-sex marriage on its territory. Moreover, we've marked uninhabited territories elsewhere, like Spitsbergen off Norway or the French Southern Antarctic Islands.

British Indian Ocean Territory and Akrotiri and Dhekelia are also both missing from the map and should be colored for same-sex marriage. After all, they are separate jurisdictions that needed their own legislation to make it legal.

Barbados -- the government offers limited recognition of same-sex couples for immigration purposes. It should be colored mauve.

I didn't touch the coloring on China, India, Cambodia, and Vietnam, but I think we need a need a separate color or indication for these contracts that aren't necessarily meant to indicate a conjugal relationship. Japan should also be colored differently to indicate that its partnership certificates are not nationwide - maybe stripes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robsalerno (talk • contribs) 06:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Some of these have been rejected before, some are new.

Namibia: that's not what the WP-en article says. While SSM is not recognized as such, there have been a couple rulings that residency permits need to be granted. Seems similar to the EU.

Cuba: I don't recall either.

Korea: that's why it's striped.

Israel: perhaps the dot for Tel Aviv should be rm'd?

West Bank: Israelis, under Israeli law, have limited recognition, as elsewhere in Israel.

Armenia: discussed before, this is the consensus.

Antarctica: no govt, therefore no rec. We might as well color the world's oceans blue because you can get married on a cruise ship.

BIOT: no civilian population, so issue is moot.

Cyprus bases: SSM legal, but residents cannot get married. That's an odd kind of legality. For both this and BIOT, no different than any other military bases, which we don't mark.

Barbados: hadn't heard that. Will update map.

Japan used to be striped, but the local certificates don't provide any legal rights. I changed it (thread above) bec of court rec; no objections.

@Prcc27, Delusion23, Buidhe, Aréat, Trystan, JOrb, and Jedi Friend: What do you think?

Kwamikagami (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Namibia: The WP page is pretty clear. A couple of residence permits have been granted with no recognition of SSM while cases were pending. The most recent judgement in January clearly ruled against, and said only the Supreme Court could recognize SSM.

Cuba: So it should be removed.

Korea: Striping still implies that marriages are available or recognized in general. That's clearly *not* the case. There hasn't been a single case of a Korean couple having a foreign marriage recognized, nor is there any policy allowing it. It should be grey.

West Bank: This is your the opposite of your logic for BIOT/Antarctica. It should be grey.

Israel: Agree the dot should be removed, but the color should be mauve, not blue.

Antarctica: There is a government. Seven of them: in Wellington, Canberra, Santiago, Buenos Aires, London, Oslo and Paris. They specifically extended their legislation to these territories and people who are there can get legally married. This is an actual territory with a system of laws. Leaving it blank is inconsistent with how other territories are treated.

Japan: I'm still not clear why this isn't striped? The certificates are only available in certain jurisdictions. From the discussions above, it seems like the consensus was to stripe it. Robsalerno (talk) 08:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, shouldn't Romania be colored light green under the current legend? The ECJ has ordered it to recognize EU SSMs for immigration purposes. Robsalerno (talk) 08:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

True, but it's a much more limited order. Romania is not ordered to rec SSM as marriage, unlike the IACHR ruling for Latin America. Kwamikagami (talk) 04:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Korea is similar to Bulgaria, but only for diplomatic officials.

You have the same rec of SSM in the West Bank as elsewhere in Israel, if you're an Israeli citizen. Not if you're a Palestinian citizen. So the limited rights recognized by Israel apply to ca. 20% of the population. Stripes seem appropriate for that.

Antarctica: there is no govt. By international treaty, Antarctica is international territory, similar to the open sea or the moon. The UK suspended its claim in 1961.

Japan used to be striped, but opinion shifted. The certificates have no legal force. I don't have a problem with it being striped again, like Cambodia, but we should try to come to broader consensus. Kwamikagami (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and stripe it, since no-one else has expressed an opinion. Kwamikagami (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Robsalerno: Also, for Vietnam, you can legally get married, but the govt doesn't recognize that marriage. There aren't any certificates, you just won't go to jail. But AFAICT you can get an apartment as a couple. I don't know if that's sufficient to color it light blue; it's been argued that it should be grey. Do you have an opinion? Kwamikagami (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami I don't think that's enough. I mean, there are lots of places in the world where it's *not illegal* to get married to a same-sex partner, but there is still no official legal recognition. I'm not aware of any criminal sanctions against same-sex marriage or same-sex cohabitation in, for example, Albania. Same-sex couples frequently held symbolic marriages in the US long before it was legal (they frequently happened in popular TV shows like Friends and Seinfeld in the 90s). I think it would be misleading to create a color for this kind of situation. The whole point of this map is to denote legal recognition of same-sex marriage, so I think we should hold off on coloring in Vietnam until some actual legal recognition exists. Robsalerno (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Robsalerno: The thing is, in Vietnam you have to register with the authorities when you rent an apt or buy a house. So these couples are registering their cohabitation as couples. That's literally "registered cohabitation". Is there a definition of "registered cohabitation" as anything other than what the words mean individually?

(BTW, I did change Viet to grey, but it's a somewhat odd situation.) Kwamikagami (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami Typically, I'd assume registered cohabitation includes some other enumerated list of rights. I still think this is way too low a threshold for inclusion and would make the map misleading. Robsalerno (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, will leave it as-is (grey). Kwamikagami (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Just a note that if Antarctica were to be coloured blue there would need to be a grey part for Marie Byrd Land, as that part of the continent is unclaimed and so presumably there is no way to get a marriage there recognised. Del_Usion23 (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The US has a latent claim to that area, to be revisited if other nations enforce their claims. But all claims are suspended. I think there was a case of someone getting married, but actually reviving a territorial claim would be a diplomatic incident. Kwamikagami (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I might be fine with adding a blue ring to Antarctica. Though AFAICT all marriages were onboard a ship, and the ship, while in BAT waters, was also officially international waters, so how would that be different from someone getting married aboard a ship in the middle of the ocean? Except that at least the latest one registered with the BAT govt at the research station in Rothera. So maybe a ring at Rothera? Kwamikagami (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Robsalerno: For India, rather than trying to keep track of in which states (or in which locations in which states) there have been maitri karar–type contracts, should we just stripe the whole country, like Japan and Cambodia? It's not like there have been state-wide rulings even in the states that have had them, just acceptance by local courts, and we don't have a good idea where (or where not). Kwamikagami (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@KwamikagamiHonestly, I would prefer to leave India entirely grey. These contracts are not what most people understand as recognition of same-sex couples. I think striping the whole country would be deeply misleading, but I dislike the current status as well. Robsalerno (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

They've been used to prevent arranged marriages, because courts have ruled that the same-sex couple is already married. Maybe not what people think of when they hear the term maitri karar, but then the contracts in China weren't intended for SS couples either. Kwamikagami (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

This online essay says that Gujarat made maitri karar illegal in 1982 and again in 1999, so I don't know how the recent ones work. Unless what's illegal is bigamy, and in the recent cases neither person was married? Kwamikagami (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe return to the states, but stripe them? Though that seems a bit misleading to me, as it suggests we know which states this is happening in, and that it isn't happening in the others. Kwamikagami (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Robsalerno. It's time to discuss South Korea. The government has allowed the same-sex partner of a single diplomat to reside with his partner. This does not apply to any South Korean couples, or immigration generally. It should be listed as grey. Striping still implies that marriages are available or recognized in general. That's clearly *not* the case. There hasn't been a single case of a Korean couple having a foreign marriage recognized, nor is there any policy allowing it. The government has been hostile to any other recognition of same-sex couples. It should be grey.@Kwamikagami and Robsalerno: What do you think? Dustssics (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Robsalerno and Dustssics: What about a ring for a single case? Though it's not a court exemption, which a ring normally represents, but a standing law. Kwamikagami (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC) Kwamikagami (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I still think this is way too low a threshold for inclusion and would make the map misleading. It should be grey. Also, it's not a standing law because it wasn't passed by the Parliament and signed by the President. It's just an announcement.

"In 2019, the Government of South Korea announced it would recognize the same-sex spouses of foreign diplomats who come to live in South Korea. The recognition does not extend to same-sex spouses of South Korean diplomats living abroad, much less to South Korean same-sex couples." Dustssics (talk) 07:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I thought it was an actual law. My bad. Definitely grey then. Kwamikagami (talk) 07:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami and Robsalerno: The same with Armenia. It's not a standing law because it wasn't passed by the Parliament and signed by the President. I fully concur with the views expressed by Robsalerno. As already mentioned, until we have any evidence that foreign marriages are or have been recognized there, the whole country should be colored grey. Another issue with Armenia is that it's a ministry ruling. A ministry could always change its mind, especially with a new administration. The question mark is difficult to see (and easy to overlook). The consensus is outdated. Armenia should be grey. We've waited 5 years. Dustssics (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. We've colored Mexico according to local rulings without a change in law, but they've at least been acted on. Kwamikagami (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Great. Now 3 maps need to be updated. Let's keep things in sync.

1. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Same-sex_marriage_map_Europe_detailed.svg

2. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Asia_homosexuality_laws.svg

3. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LGBT_immigration_equality_by_country_or_territory.svg#mw-jump-to-license Dustssics (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Done. Also rm'd Romania from the last. Kwamikagami (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

2022: Same-sex marriages in Slovenia

Same-sex marriages are allowed in Slovenia since July 8, 2022

• Rtvslo.si: Prepoved posvajanja otrok istospolnim parom ni ustavna. Mesec: Zakon je že v pripravi.
• Queer.de: Sloweniens Verfassungsgericht öffnet die Ehe (German)

92.76.97.150 16:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

US

Now that the marriage act got passed, shouldn't the whole US be in blue ? If not, why ? Aréat (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

So far as I'm aware, it didn't apply to tribal jurisdictions, which are the exceptions in the US on the map. Del_Usion23 (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not really clear that it applies to AmSamoa either. Or that it doesn't apply to Tribal nations. We could use some clarification. Kwamikagami (talk) 04:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

At least two Tribes have/are reevaluating their bans based on the RMA. That suggests it can be seen as a legal precedent, but still up to the Tribal govt or courts to implement. Kwamikagami (talk) 09:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

India (ring)

It's time to remove that ring from India because it contradicts the Supreme Court verdict. Also, there are dozens of married same-sex couples in Bermuda, but there's no ring. Those rings are unecessary and confusing. Let's keep things simple and not overcomplicated. Cyanmax (talk) 11:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

We should add a ring to Bermuda, then. And Nepal. Kwamikagami (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Since when is this the place to insult countries?

Even though Nepal is an overcrowded and unhygienic country. It's not tiny Andorra.

Comment for version created at 12:55, 12 July 2023 by Cyanmax. Huñvreüs (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

First of all, this is off topic. Secondly, this is not an "insult", these are FACTS. Stop making mountains out of molehills.

Finally, I suggest you read the sources that confirm my words.

Nepal has consistently been ranked as one of the most polluted countries in the world.

Sources:

1. https://apnews.com/article/sacred-rivers-religion-nepal-kathmandu-trending-news-eb979fe5f88881b5273ad8bcd63dd3f2

2. https://kathmandupost.com/climate-environment/2020/10/21/one-more-report-ranks-nepal-among-most-polluted-countries-in-the-world

3. https://www.who.int/initiatives/urban-health-initiative/pilot-projects/kathmandu

4. https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2023/04/21/averting-an-air-pollution-disaster-in-south-asia/

5. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/trash-and-overcrowding-top-world/

6. https://www.unicef.org/nepal/blog/very-air-we-breathe

Sometimes people need to accept the truth, instead of trying to silence dissenters. Have you ever heard of freedom of speech? Cyanmax (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I certainly needed to be taught about being off-topic by you, who bring up the topics of country population, salubrity, and size, in the page of a file about marriage laws. TIL comments about a file are off-topic in the file talk page: this was most interesting, thank you.

I have definitely heard of freedom of speech, which you don’t seem to like very much.

In any case, since people need to accept the truth, I will let them know about this. It can’t hurt to have a few more opinions. Huñvreüs (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Wording this in a passive aggressive manner does no one any favors ))) Bye. Cyanmax (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

26 April 2024:

https://kathmandupost.com/money/2024/04/26/air-pollution-takes-its-toll-on-nepal-s-tourism-capital Cyanmax (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: ↗ 😫 Huñvreüs (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Huñvreüs: I little no idea why I was pinged here. If the issue is inappropriate behavior, please bring it to COM:ANU rather than discuss it here. - Jmabel ! talk 14:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done here. Huñvreüs (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Comes into effect in January 2024: Same-sex marriage in Estonia

In Estonia same-sex marriage is by parliament allowed in 2023. Estonia must be coloured in dark blue.

• HRW.org: Estonia legalizes same-sex marriage

Civil union in Latvia

In Latvia same-sex union is by parliament in November 2023 allowed. Latvia must be coloured in light blue.

• Reuters: Latvian parliament legalises same-sex partnerships

92.76.98.178 23:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Won't come into force until July 1. Kwamikagami (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Nepal, November 2023

In Nepal, same-sex marriage is allowed by supreme court decision. Nepal should be marked in dark blue colour.

• Frankfurter Rundschau: Nepal erlaubt Ehe für alle, 2023
• Rheinische Post: Erstes schwules Paar offiziell verheiratet
• GGG.at: Erste gleichgeschlechtliche Ehe in Nepal geschlossen 30 November 2023

92.76.100.152 16:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

"Allowed" is not the same as "available". As of Jan 31, Nepal still lacked SSM per the sources in the WP-en article. Kwamikagami (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I Got one Question

Can you guys put romania on purple? :v — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCoolUnknownGuy (talk • contribs) 20:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Show us a source for doing that. Romania has been recalcitrant in the face of EU rulings. Kwamikagami (talk) 05:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Now text-editable format

Changed this to a text-editable map, copied from file:World laws pertaining to homosexual relationships and expression.svg. There's a 42% savings in file size. Still too large for ppl in much of the 3rd world to download easily, but better.

Shouldn't edit with Inkscape any more; causes bloat by adding tons of junk. Just open as a text file; shouldn't be difficult to figure out how to edit. (10 minutes or so of reading gibberish before it starts to make sense.) If you also have the map open in an image viewer, it should update every time you hit 'save', so you can edit live. That is, change something in the text, hit 'save', and look at what's changed in the image viewer.

Lost the shapes of Navajo and Muskogee -- just large dots now -- but added the various tribes that recognize but don't perform SSM.

Please review in case I missed something when recreating the map in its new format. I see I messed up Latvia, but since the CU law's going into effect soon, I didn't bother to correct. Kwamikagami (talk) 05:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Liechtenstein allowed by parliament on 16 May 2024

The Parliament of Liechtenstein passed a boll allowing same-sex marriages. The bill comes into effect on January 1, 2025.

• Vaterland.li: Landtag Liechtenstein beschliesst Ehe für alle --92.76.107.182 11:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)