Talk:Same-sex marriage

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Same-sex marriage article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31Auto-archiving period: 180 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

	Same-sex marriage is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 30, 2006 Articles for deletion Speedily kept June 24, 2003 Featured article candidate Promoted March 1, 2004 Featured article review Demoted November 21, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed Current status: Former featured article

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Family and relationships (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Family and relationships, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Family and relationshipsWikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationshipsTemplate:WikiProject Family and relationshipsFamily and relationships articles Genealogy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Genealogy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genealogy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GenealogyWikipedia:WikiProject GenealogyTemplate:WikiProject GenealogyGenealogy articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Human rights Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. LGBT studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Sexology and sexuality Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Wiki Loves Pride
This article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, 2016.Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride articles

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

I don't understand why we put 29 November as the date for Nepal instead of 28 June. The couple tried it and were refused in one city office, then tried later in a different city whose office accepted it. There's no indication they wouldn't have gotten their marriage certificate early on at that second office, it's not like a legal decision was made in between. For example, if a woman was refused an abortion shortly after it was made legal, and initially got it refused at a clinic, then finally found a good one later on, we wouldn't use the date of that second attempt as the date abortion was legalised in that country. We would use the legal one. We should use 28 June for Nepal. What do you think? Aréat (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• There was confusion and legal uncertainty between those dates, and no-one getting married. Then, as the lead to Recognition of same-sex unions in Nepal states: "In the last week of November 2023, the Ministry of Home Affairs allowed local administration offices to begin registering same-sex marriages.". So there was a legal decision, or at least a decision to stop postponing a legal decision. Jdcooper (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the law needs a executive order to become effective, then yes the date should be the November one. But if legally the law doesn't need that executive order, but the Minister had to promulge one because the administration didn't applied the law as it should, then it should be the date in June (even if it wasn't technically possible because of the administration, it was by law), but we should of course explain it with details on the country's section and article. Martin m159 (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    What "law" are you talking about? Courts cannot make laws, it's the responsibility of the legislature. That's what India's Supreme Court said. It's just an interim order of a single judge bench and the full bench of the Supreme Court is yet to start a final hearing on the matter. It is possible that the interim order can be scrapped while passing the final verdict. Anyway, appealing to the courts is not the best way to get marriage equality. It violates the doctrine of separation of powers and could lead to unforeseeable consequences. Cyanmax (talk) 10:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It says before the table, "Dates are when marriages between same-sex couples began to be officially certified,..." Exactly by that definition, 29 Nov is the correct date. As for "legal" legal, that has not happened yet. Court said "Denying marriage is unconstitutional, make the laws constitution compliant, and however long that takes, because people shouldn't be denied rights for any length of time, set up a different register to register non conventional marriages in the meantime". The government finally said, "yeah, ok", and began registering marriages but it's not clear when the laws will be passed, it's not clear if they are even trying. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Nepal, per discussion at that article and news sources that marriage is not yet enacted. One couple was able to register their marriage after direct intervention of the SC, but even then they had trouble finding a govt office that would file the paperwork. Other couples haven't been able to marry. AFICT, supporting legislation hasn't been introduced, so it's probably going to be a while, possibly years, before there is SSM in Nepal without individual court rulings. — kwami (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another couple has now married in Nepal. That's at least three that have made the headlines now. Nepal should stay for now.

https://www.deccanherald.com/world/first-lesbian-couple-in-nepal-officially-registers-their-marriage-2890929

Minecraft69 (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a persistent sock who has been targeting this article since at least February 2023. Their M.O. is to create new socks to make edits to this article that downplay the support of same-sex marriage.

Examples:

• Saying scientific studies that support same-sex marriage are merely "claims" [1][2]
• Commenting out the statement that "The most prominent supporters of same-sex marriage are the world's major medical and scientific communities etc..." [3][4].

Accounts involved are: User:Sotavino, User:Atquaman, User:Abisaku, User:SG413K, and most recently, User:Ratterbat.

I'm not sure how to stop these socks, other than reverting their edits and reporting them to WP:SPI each time a new one appears. Perhaps pending changes protection would work? Bennv123 (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note the current sock account: User:Espanion. Bennv123 (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can request protection at SPI, a reviewing admin may agree on the merit given the context. CMD (talk) 09:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the latest eurobarometer in december 2023 showed an increase in support for same-sex in EU countries. Please add this to the article:

https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2972 Springtime95 (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Faid17 (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done I believe that Greece has already been added. Coulomb1 (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greece to be added to the table with countries that legalised same sex marriage in the 2024 slot, besides Estonia.

I'm going to remove Nepal from the list of countries that legalized same-sex marriage. I found updated maps and none of them include Nepal.

1. https://edition.cnn.com/world/same-sex-marriage-legal-countries-map-dg/index.html

2. https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/02/16/this-map-shows-you-where-same-sex-marriage-is-legal-around-the-world-and-theres-a-long-way-to-go/

3. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/greece-has-legalised-same-sex-marriage-whose-next/ameik3g2k

4. https://www.hrc.org/resources/marriage-equality-around-the-world

I was right all along, while some wikiusers contributed to the spread of disinformation, just like they did with Armenia in 2017. I don't need their apologies for calling me a "vandal" and trying to block me. Everybody makes mistakes, they just need to admit they're wrong. It doesn't matter how much you love Bangladesh, Nepal, Somalia, Armenia etc. Critical thinking and common sense always come first. Cyanmax (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are natural law arguments against same-sex marriage entirely excluded from the article? Where is Aquinas? The current article throws up strawman against thinkers that oppose it. CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale for this removal is WP:OR / WP:SYNTH; we can't remove a longstanding part of the lead just because an editor personally feels otherwise. And per WP:LEADCITE, something like that in the lead can just summarize aspects of the body - it doesn't require sources for that. But I've added some sources from the body anyway. We can't frame it as an opinion (as the editor who removed it requested) because per WP:NPOV, Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice; an editor personally disliking a statement doesn't make it contested. More broadly, we need a sentence in the lead summarizing who the overall supporters and opponents of gay marriage are - note that it is cautiously worded ("most prominent" does not mean everyone.) We could tweak its wording a bit and find better sources, but I don't think we can remove it entirely. --Aquillion (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start by pointing out the obvious. The present claim was never independently verifiable. We're not going to entertain that it is equivalent to referencing a specific event that was independently witnessed by 100 people at the same time.

I don't necessarily take issue with the political commentary being in the article assuming POV is expressed as an opinion, but I would disagree at this time that the framework of support and opposition needs to be in the lead. The circumstance in which a relationship is not considered to be the same as that of a husband and wife does not necessitate that one oppose the relationship. The circumstance in which a relationship is considered the same as that of a husband and wife does not mean it will be supported.

The simplistic notion of conflicting support/opposition is not reflecting from the multifaceted reality. We aren't talking about a certain declared conflict or a case with sides that are clearly conflicted.

Repurposing the sources was very helpful, as I was not previously aware of what you believe should be summarized. I would invite you to reconsider that the critical rationale still holds whether or not you happen to disagree with some specifics of common knowledge used for illustrative purpose.

The issue of forcibly redefining marriage in a way that is unrecognizable to millions is inherently complex, and as it stands the material in question cannot convey intelligible information on the issue in the intended form of the sentence. This is because the sentence is made as a rhetorical addition to the article. However many sources support a desired outcome for someone's preferred opinion, it should be worded as an opinion if you insist on keeping it. StuckMuck (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if it might be worth removing the Native American territories, US states, and Mexican states, and British overseas territories from the main timeline. I think it clutters the timeline quite a bit, (especially now that every Mexican state has legalised it). I'm not that opposed to keeping them, but I would be interested to hear others views. The sheer number of Native American territories does seem to clutter the list a lot. Perhaps instead there could be a footnote or section that explains which British territories, and Native American settlements have not legalised same-sex marriage now that the vast majority have. We could also move the dates for non-sovereign countries somewhere else. What do others think? Jasp7676 (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm loathe to tinker with it. I get what you mean but since sovereign states have a flag icon, it's very quick to visually identify states vs small entitites. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We once did what you suggest, but consensus was against it and we reverted. The short list is in the timeline article. — kwami (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Maito Kismar R G10 Arroyo 3/29/24 2001:4456:C70:1800:B851:D4ED:F98F:3043 (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Found relatively new public opinion polls in some Balkan countries. Don't know if it's reliable enough though https://lgbti-era.org/publications/attitudes-towards-lgbtiq-people-in-the-western-balkans/ 5.197.129.202 (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Please provide changes to be made in XY format; it is currently unclear what you want changed. Irltoad (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extra opinions with expertise on the subject are required in a discussion at Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Israel#The Nature of Legality. Thanks. Jdcooper (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add this section under 'Studies'

The overall effects of legal access to same-sex marriage have been summarized by Badgett and co-authors. ^[1] The review found that sexual minority individuals took-up legal marriage when it became available to them (but at lower rates than different-sex couples). There is instead no evidence that same-sex marriage legalization affected different-sex marriages. On the health side, same-sex marriage legalization increased health insurance coverage for individuals in same-sex couples in the US, and it led to improvements in sexual health among men who have sex with men, while there is mixed evidence on mental health effects among sexual minorities. In addition, the study found mixed evidence on a range of downstream social outcomes such as attitudes toward LGBTQ+ people and employment choices of sexual minorities. Ds1289 (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is that specific to the US? — kwami (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. @Ds1289: Your account is now autoconfirmed. RudolfRed (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

According to the German media, in his speech in Berlin he referred to civil partnerships, not SSM [5] Akerbeltz (talk) 08:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I am seeing many local reports coming from Nepal about all individual districts now force to register ssm certificates instead of each individual district deciding to do it or not [6] [7] .--Allancalderini12 (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Allancalderini12: I'm finding even the English difficult to understand. The key statement seems to be, "all the local registration authorities have been requested to issue a certificate after keeping a temporary record of marriage in a separate registration book."

Does that mean they used to keep a temp record in a different book (as originally ordered, pending the final verdict of the SC case), and that now they should issue a normal certificate as they would to any other couple -- that is, marriage equality -- or does it mean that they should issue a certificate after making a temporary record in a separate book -- that is, marriage inequality? — kwami (talk) 06:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the Nepali version, the key statement appears to be, "छुट्टै दर्ता किताबमा विवाहको अस्थायी अभिलेख राखी प्रमाणपत्र जारी गर्न सबै स्थानीय पञ्जीकाधिकारीहरुलाई अनुरोध गरिएको छ।" Not that I read Nepali, but that appears to suggest marriages are still unequal. — kwami (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Akerbeltz:, regardless of whether the registration is 'temporary' or not, or what registry book it's recorded in, if the govt has issued a circular to all local governments to issue marriage certificates, that would appear to address our concern that SSM might not be generally available, at least for the time being. Should Nepal be changed to blue on the map and restored to 'marriage' in the info box? If the SC surprises us and reverses the temporary ruling, we can of course always remove it. — kwami (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: huh? why are you asking me? ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 09:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You responded above, so I thought you might be keeping track.

I went ahead and made the change, as I thought it made sense (and answered the objections we had earlier), but it's not clear-cut so I thought it would be good to have more opinions. — kwami (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: did you mean to pint Allancalderini12 by any chance, who started the Nepal Again thread? :) Akerbeltz (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key term to use in this situation is "direct" and "directive".

For example there has been two orders by the Supreme Court of Nepal to provide spousal visas to foreign same-sex couples. [8] How can there be two orders demanding the same thing if it leads to actual change? The most likely answer is that the supreme court orders are directives asking the government to do something but without legal supremacy.

In this case the government circulars might be a directive that asks local authorities to do as such, but the question of whether it's same-sex marriage, civil union or registered cohabitation remains open in my opinion. And is there any legal impetus that requires local authorities to do as the government asks? WindofWasps (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the governmental order is a legal directive.

The Nepalese court system sounds more like the Mexican than the Usonian. For those of us in the US, we expect a SC order to override the law. That's not the situation in many countries. In Mexico, for example (as we've seen with SSM legislation there), SC rulings are directives for what the govt needs to legislate, but it's still up to the govt to pass the legislation. If the govt refuses to do so, the SC can issue sanctions, fine MPs, or even remove them from office.

Nepal sounds like Mexico in at least the first element. But that's the courts. When the fed issues a directive to local govts, I expect it is binding on them, and that if they refuse to follow the directive they are in violation of it. So unless we have reports that local govts refuse to follow the directive (now just sporadically, as happened in the US even after the SC ruling, but systematically, showing that the fed directive has little effect), then IMO we need to assume that the fed govt ruling is legally binding. — kwami (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a quick search online to see if I can get more information. The way I am viewing the situation is that the government is asking local authorities to implement the same-sex marriage register, but that local governments may or may not do so depending on their values. In the articles citied in this section, the terms used are "requested" and for me this does not imply legal certainty.

But is this really same-sex marriage? It seems to be closer to civil unions and more likely to be registered cohabitation. They are listed in a separate register and given certificates that seem to offer no legal benefits, which actually seems to be more similar to Japan's relationship certificates than anything.

And I still do not understand why there isn't anything official about this? Surely there should be a guide or website somewhere from the government which writes about how to register a marriage? WindofWasps (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To me it sounds like marriage, but I'm not familiar with the situation.

It sounds like there's a separate register for when SSM is formally passed, at which point the two registers will be merged. That is, that they're provisional marriages. They're not CUs or registered cohabitation, but it's another question whether we want to count as marriage those provisional marriages -- which I assume are legally equivalent to other marriages in all ways, it's just possible they'll be revoked. In other words, it sounds like we have a temporary case of separate-but-equal. — kwami (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What legal rights does a temporary registration acquire? There's no real difference between the certificates provided by Japan, and this situation, surely? You could argue that India's unregistered cohabitation provides more rights than the temporary register of Nepal.

And I still cannot understand why there is so little official information about this. We only have around two cases of same-sex marriage on the internet, one of which involves a transgender marriage. We have no further proof that same-sex marriages have taken place since the circular was launched. And there is literally nothing official from the Nepalese government. WindofWasps (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My impression was that it provides all the rights of marriage. It is a marriage. It's just listed in a temporary register in case the SC finds against SSM in its final ruling, in which case (presumably) these marriages will be annulled. Unless that happens, the situation is not all that different from an authority in one of the Mexican states instructing clerks to start issuing licenses to SS couples in anticipation of legalization. We would then color that state blue on the map, because SSM was available even if it wasn't legal.

Yes, it is puzzling that so little info is available. It makes me suspicious too. But we are still waiting for the SC's final ruling. — kwami (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

• There have been two separate court rulings directing the Nepali government to provide same-sex couples with spousal visas, but considering that there have been two court rulings over the same matter, has anything actually changed in real life? [9]
• There has been one same-sex marriage registered in a rural area, but it seems to be between transgender people. [10]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, मायाको पहिचान नेपाल is an LGBTQ nonprofit,[11] so that can't be the circular. — kwami (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next,

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

Now let's define what interim order is.

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

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

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

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

In Austria by 14 judges.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is same-sex marriage legal in Nepal? No.

Because

Interim order is not the same as final ruling.

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

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

When will same-sex marriage be legalized in Nepal?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The SC site for the case is here.

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

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

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

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

As I already mentioned,

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

Colombia had dark blue stripes before the final ruling:

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

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

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

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

Human Rights Watch and ILGA World also don't believe that Nepal is the second Asian country to legalize same-sex marriage: ^{[1] [2]}

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

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

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

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

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

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

• This is not marriage equality. They are being drafted on a temporary register separate from the main register.
• We don't know whether any benefits come from being registered. It could be less useful than the partnership certificates that are given in Japan (and were given in Thailand). You may in fact get more benefits from the Indian unregistered cohabitation.
• The legal definition of marriage is still "male" and "female". As far as I can see, there has been no attempt to reword the marriage law, simply provide an alternative register of registration. [12]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marriage equality is a separate issue.

That essay is undated.

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

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

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

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

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

If.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. The registration is temporary and separate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would say that yes, Guerrero was the last one in terms of marriage as the formats were not ready in December of 2022, the formats were update in May 17 of 2023. ^[1] on regards the other states, the states laws have not been modified but marriages can still occur, and in some others couples can get married but not adopted, I believe Ecuador is one of the countries were marriage can occur but not adopt so not all rights are given to ss couples ^[2]

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

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

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

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

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