Talk:Timeline of same-sex marriage
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theTimeline of same-sex marriage article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
| Archives:1 |
 | This article is ratedList-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Tip: Anchors arecase-sensitive in most browsers. This article containsbroken links to one or more targetanchors:
The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking thepage history of the target pages, or updating the links. Remove this template after the problem is fixed |Report an error |
Now I don't pretend to be a scholar of this material, but it sounds to me like the writer is mocking Antonius for being treated like a woman by his boy prostitute (Curio the younger). This is a series of statements attacking Antonius for his "debauchery," connected with his bankruptcy. Given the attitudes toward pederasty in those days [as I understand it, it was socially acceptable for a civil superior male to take another male as his sexual "partner" so long as that other male was a social inferior, and this relationship would be seen as temporary and the superior would still be eventually expected to marry a woman and produce a child for the good of the state] it would seem to both confirm the existence of ancient "same sex relationships" but also show that they were given a very different form and focus [concubinage], including societal attitudes, compare to modern civil unions [a permanent partnership between equals].
Or is there a different translation that gives a different impression?
[1][2][3][4]— Precedingunsigned comment added by173.20.243.213 (talk)22:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. The Cicero reference totally misses the point. It's a metaphor. I will delete it— Precedingunsigned comment added by77.230.117.239 (talk)06:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone change the order of dates to be chronological rather than reverse chronological?
--Unsigned byUser:128.86.161.137 on 1 September 2006 at 05:58.
2013 should be above everything, I hate rolling all the time when I want to read about the newest event, why it can't be like it was in the past? More important is what was few days ago not in Ancient times.
Still have to scroll which is annoying, it was like it was many months and of course someone were bored and created that AMAZING idea :/
I tweaked two of the lines, to state "in modern history".John Boswell's bookSame-sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe discusses marriage contracts et al. throughout Christian history.samwaltz20:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can things like "Uganda and Latvia amend their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage." really be said to be significant stepstowards legal recognition of same-sex couples? I think a different title would be more appropriate for this list of events.René van Buuren08:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35 years ago, in 1972, the State Convention of the Minnesota DFL Party added a plank to their platform supporting equal marriage rights for all adults. As far as I can tell, that is the first time a major political party in the US has taken such a stand, and made it part of their party platform.
Question: is that considered 'progress toward same-sex marriage', and something worthy of being added to this page?T-bonham09:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So I added Takei, he's got pictures on his website of him and Brad getting their license. But it occurred to me they aren't holding a full-fledged ceremony until September. So I won't be too upset if someone reverts it, but I'm still wondering what we're talking about - the license or the ceremony.
I'd actually say the license is more important, otherwise there would already be tons of people on the list because gay couples have been having commitment ceremonies for decades (probably centuries), it's just the matter of legal recognition that is disputed.—Precedingunsigned comment added by66.188.125.219 (talk)18:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should the Coquille Indian Tribe recognizing same-sex marriage be on there???Rump1234 (talk)05:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isthis worth including? --Another Believer(Talk)22:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is already pretty long, and it does not help that many things are listed twice, for instance:
Is it really relevant exactly when the legalization took place? The important date should be the one at which people could actually start getting married. If there are no objections, I would remove legalization dates. --KarlFrei (talk)12:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that Roman same-sex marriage used the same ceremony as other marriages is footnoted (#54 when I write this) with a description of Nero marrying a boy. Since both referenced descriptions of Nero's homosexual marriages (by Cassius Dio and Suetonius) are in the context of how evil and perverted Nero was, these are not descriptions of common Roman practice. The sentence ought to be removed or the footnote should be changed to give proper support.—Precedingunsigned comment added byTgwicklund (talk •contribs)18:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On March 16, 2011, Liechtenstein parliamant passed legislation to allow civil unions.92.252.112.31 (talk)14:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The list is getting too big and not all of the events are that important, because some of them refer to the same thing. For example there are events that state: "the assembly of x state passes a bill to legalize same-sex marriag"e; then in another event two or three days later "the senate of x state passes a bill to legalize same-sex marrige"; then in another event "The governor of x state signs the same-sex marriage bill into law"; then the last one "Same-sex marriages become legal in X state". So there are four entries regarding the same event. Things like that are getting the list overpopulated. I think we should only include two entries for every event: the day the bill was finally legalized (we can say in the same entry when was the bill approved in the different houses, this one should focus on the day the bill was signed or definitely approved), the other entry should be the day the bill come into effect.
Because this list includes events in the entire world, and making it to big could make it confusing. Also, there's already another one that lists events regarding same-sex marriage in the US only, that one should be the one updated with every vote's date, pou can find ithere.
If nobody minds, I volunteer to help reorganize this list (: --DrkFrdric (talk)01:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that all activity by one house of a state legislature should be removed leaving only a law is enacted or comes into effect. I doubt anything at all should be in bold. Linking should be minimal. BUT material that is unreferenced should have citations added. Lack of a citation is no reason for removal without a more considerate review. Many need to be rewritten. And one-house details don't belong in the US timeline either, I'd say. I tried my best at 2012.Bmclaughlin9 (talk)02:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should remove the events that talk about officials who decided to conduct same-sex marriages and that were later invalidated. Because there are a lot of these and almost all of them were invalidated, so they weren't an advance in same-sex marriage. Maybe we could left the first one, or the ones that gathered the most of the attention, but there are a lot and they don't help to make the list better. Because if do accept those events, then we should accept a lot more that aren't cited (two marriages in vietnam, one in china, like 3 in france, and we don't know how many more). These are not relevant events in this list because they were not conducted in a legal framework, but by "rogue" officials. As before, I volunteer to help with this. --DrkFrdric (talk)16:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should we include the events ehen unregistered cohabitations were legalized? Because there have been a lot of countries that approved those schemes (although the majority of them have since legalized civil unions or same-sex marriage)? I think we shouldn't, the only exception being the first time a country approved ir (the Netherlands), because as I said, the majority of those bills are now dead, being replaced by others; only the first one can be considered a historic event. --DrkFrdric (talk)01:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some time ago three islands became municipalities of netherlands, those municipalities are ultramar territories of the that European State, (different from countries that form part of the Kingdom of Netherlands, but are independent). The way that event is highlighted is confusing, you may think that a new country legalizes Same-sex Marriage, maybe what happened is that authorities in Amsterdam remembered to islander authorities that the have to grant same-sex marriage as the are already part of the Netherlands State. I suggest explaining better this issue, it is true that in 2001 when dutch same-sex marriage were legalised those three islands in the Caribeean had another status and not recognized SSM, and in 2010 they became administrative territories of Netherlands, accepting other legislation and geographically given the chance to gay and lesbians to legally marry in the Caribbean.— Precedingunsigned comment added by201.244.203.249 (talk)17:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is lacking the brazilian states of Alagoas, Bahia and Piaui!! And Saba on the timeline!!!!!
Here are the links:
Bahia:
g1.globo.com/bahia/noticia/2012/11/casais-gays-ja-podem-oficializar-casamento-em-cartorios-da-bahia.htmlhttp://www.vermelho.org.br/se/noticia.php?id_secao=58&id_noticia=199862
Saba:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/15/saba-legalizes-gay-marria_n_2306870.html--189.104.29.5 (talk)21:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why are the American Indian tribes (such as the Odawa Indians) included in the chronological list and why does it lack much bigger and populous entities such as the Brazilian states of Sergipe, Piaui, Alagoas, Espirito Santo and the Federal District. This is discrimination, English language sources are deemed as more credible than non English language ones.— Precedingunsigned comment added by31.171.153.130 (talk)09:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to CNN México, after the initial two weddings in Quintana Roo, on November 2011, any other wedding has been held in this state, despite the statement of Government Secretary in May 2012, telling that has no legal impediment to perform gay weddings.The civil registries argues that has no instructions from state authority to accept this marriages.
"Luis Alberto González Flores, government secretary of the state, said in an interview that Quintana Roo isn't an entity which allow same-sex marriages, and even acknowledged that in law there is no legal impediment to celebrate such weddings are municipal civil registries that will determine whether to accept or not to celebrate marriages."
In these conditions, ¿is really recognized the gay marriage right in Quintana Roo? ¿Does it make sense to keep it on the list?http://mexico.cnn.com/nacional/2012/12/07/la-resolucion-de-la-corte-motiva-a-parejas-del-mismo-sexo-a-ampararse (in spanish, December 2012)Paucazorla (talk)02:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused as to why Andorra is not listed as third country worldwide to legalize same-sex marriage. Do principalities not count as countries (even though they have their own legislation, passports, etc.)?
JoOleaN (talk)20:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Julian[reply]
what about same-sex marriages conducted in territories controlled by armed movements, e.g.http://www.gmax.co.za/look05/02/08-phillipines.html ?— Precedingunsigned comment added by155.245.69.178 (talk)12:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, we all agree that as to clarify the posts we have to put all the infos such as intentions of voting, lower house's votes and upper house's votes as they go, yet when gay marriage is legalised we put all of them together in one post. But what's considered the last post ? Is it when the Bill is being voted as law, when it's signed by the executive, or when it's effectively enforced and marriages can happens ? Because there's examples of each of those in this Article. We should settle this. I propose that by now we put them by date of the Bill being voted into law, as it's the turning point and the rest is only proceedings.--Aréat (talk)09:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now that Brazil has legalized same-sex marriage in the entire country, we should merge the entries for each of it states, they take a lot of space, and the main event is the legalization of same-sex marriage in Brazil, which is already included. I think we should just let the first entry, that would be Alagoas, and include in it something like "Other states followed suit: Rondania (May 2013), blablabla"; or we could also include it in the entry of the Supreme Court legalization of civil unions. I think the first option is better. We have an antecedent for this, i.e. Canada, many regions legalized same-sex marriage before the entire country, but we don't include it, because the main event is obviously the legalization in that country. If no one is against the idea, I will merge the entries in the coming days, this timeline is really big already, not too comfortable for readers. --Freddy eduardo (talk)02:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Last week an appellate court in Florence has overruled the lowers court decision. However, the court didn't rule on the constitutionality of the marriage, but insisted that the couple sued the wrong agency. The judges sent the case back to the Civil Court of Grosseto. (http://www.gay.it/news/Annullata-la-sentenza-di-Grosseto-in-Appello--Alfano-contro-Merola) I didn't change the article on my own, because I wasn't sure how you handle those kind of things.Olliyeah (talk)15:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand the Nordic countries include both the Faroe Islands and Greenland; two countries without SSM. Should we add a footnote denoting how SSM isn't legal there (and maybe that civil unions, however, are)?Bezuidenhout (talk)05:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links onTimeline of same-sex marriage. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If necessary, add{{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add{{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set thechecked parameter below totrue to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online01:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links onTimeline of same-sex marriage. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If necessary, add{{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add{{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set thechecked parameter below totrue to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online17:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links onTimeline of same-sex marriage. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If necessary, add{{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add{{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set thechecked parameter below totrue orfailed to let others know (documentation at{{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online09:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link onTimeline of same-sex marriage. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If necessary, add{{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add{{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set thechecked parameter below totrue orfailed to let others know (documentation at{{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online23:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links onTimeline of same-sex marriage. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set thechecked parameter below totrue orfailed to let others know (documentation at{{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online04:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links onTimeline of same-sex marriage. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set thechecked parameter below totrue orfailed to let others know (documentation at{{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)02:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per the introduction this page is for significant events, not necessarily "only successful changes", therefore I readded the failure of a constitutional amendment in Baja California.Hekerui (talk)08:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is the fact that this is missing Elisa & Marcela, theFirst same-sex marriage in Spain, just an oversight, or is there some reason they are not included? I cannot find any discussion of this.— Precedingunsigned comment added by192.76.8.82 (talk)19:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at thenomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk)01:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since I found the wording of that paragraph a bit weird, I checked out the article linked and after a DeepL translation from Swedish, it seems that the Bride herself came to the priest and noted that she suspected her husband of actually being a woman, which led to the arrest of Jens.Not sure if a same sex marriage should be counted as such when one party wasn't aware of it being such, not to mention that, if one says Jens was indeed a male, it was a Hetero marriage anyhow.193.124.77.173 (talk)09:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At least two of the litigants seem to believe that SSM is now legal, but it'll be next week before we know for sure. If we don't get news of couples actually marrying (tomorrow' a fed holiday), then something's wrong.— kwami (talk)21:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to the articleSame-sex marriage in Nepal Same-sex marriage is now legal in Nepal (and has been since November 29th). Multiple sources are cited there:
Perhaps this information should be added in this article as well.BenG22:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, so far, there is no consensus within Nepal, and only two couples (one of them, an opposite sex couple) have been married under the rulings, so perhaps Nepal should be removed from the list until things are concrete.— Precedingunsigned comment added by2603:6080:E5F0:9CF0:1A4A:9185:AA27:2A4E (talk)13:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The asterisk seems to be a point of confusion. The table has columns for 'First jurisdiction' and 'National ruling or final jurisdiction'. That covers the states and provinces of Canada, the US, Brazil etc. and the constituent countries of the UK, Denmark, Netherlands and New Zealand. We then provide an asterisk for any additional territories that don't have SSM and aren't covered by a national ruling or counted as the final jurisdiction.
For example, the dates for the US reflect the 50 states, and the dates for the UK reflect the four constituent countries. Both have SSM nation-wide, but in addition have possessions/territories that don't have SSM -- in the case of the US, American Samoa and some of the tribal govts, which aren't under federal law. In the case of the UK, Bermuda and the Caribbean territories, which are governed by but aren't part of the UK.
In the case of France and Australia, all territories follow federal law and there is only one date.
In the case of Denmark, there are no territories, just three constituent countries; the dates reflect those countries.
New Zealand is like the UK. Besides the 3 constituent countries, there is the territory of Tokelau with does not have SSM.
Netherlands is like Denmark. There are just the four constituent countries. The only other historical territories are now municipalities and follow Dutch law and have SSM. There is no territory that doesn't have SSM. If/when St Maartin allows SSM, the final date will be filled in, and all polities will have SSM, so there is no need for an asterisk.
We could also rm the asterisk from NZ, as we have no idea what Tokelau will do relative to the countries of Cooks and Niue. If the Cooks and Niue allow SSM, we will have our final date; if Tokelau still does not have SSM at that point, we could add an asterisk then.— kwami (talk)17:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
