Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:31, 21 October 2014

	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 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 article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. 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

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 31, 32

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

New Zealand

Cooks Islands and Niue are not "New Zealand territories" but self-governing states in free association with New Zealand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.170.112 (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2014‎

Rogue counties

Hey, I'm not sure if we should have rogue counties on the timeline so I'm going to remove them. Also, should Australian Capital Territory be kept on the timeline even though same-sex marriage was invalidated..?

Colombia Marriage Situation Misrepresented

In the "National debates" section there is a mention to a union from july of 2013 "that is not matrimony" indeed it was not, anyhow since september of the same year there have been other cases already protected by higher courts with the word "marriage", that you can find in these links: http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/judges-allow-first-same-sex-marriages-colombia011013 , http://blabbeando.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/same-sex-couples-marry-in-colombia.html#.VAp6r_l5OSr and this one in Spanish http://www.elespectador.com/noticias/vivir/matrimonio-igualitario-un-hecho-articulo-449264 , the fact is that those marriages are registered and recognized by the Colombian State, it should be represented at some point, perhaps a brief mention in this article because there is a certainty that Judges are performing marriages using the 2011 Contitutional Court ruling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bor989 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This is definitely a case of NONE, SOME and ALL authorities granting marriage licenses for gay couples, and in Colombia there are Some. ALL is not true and will ignore the fact that gay couples face dificulties to get married, saying NONE ignores the reality the couples are married. So this SOME should be considered by you editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bor989 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

you got this news story, right?

Today's SCOTUS denial of certiorari. http://www.wtop.com/319/3716613/High-court-denies-gay-marriage-appeals 71.163.117.143 (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Estonia

G'day everyone, I think it should be considered to review the paragraphs related to these news http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29559012 . -- Torne (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Torne. I've added it ... though it may be re-classified as a 'civil partnership', the article is not very clear on that, it uses both terms. It seems that the only difference to 'marriage' is the lack of adoption rights though if it grants adoption if the couple is infertile... well, assuming that refers the fertility of the people IN the relationship, that would be all of them? Not sure. Thoughts? Akerbeltz (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Wording at lede

Someone did put a tag in the very first sentence of the article, but I think they could have been bold and deleted the alleged disputable content. This article by and large deals with legal discrimination against and equalization for couples that are seen by the law as being of the same sex, so I think we should do away with both "biological sex" and "gender identity", replacing it with whatever fits "what your government regards you as being either X or Y".

We have intersex males, females and non-binary/genderqueer people, and trans male, trans female and genderqueer or non-binary trans dyadic people, at various degrees of recognition by multiple cultures and legal systems (most of them multiple times more wicked toward said groups than in regards to cisgender non-heteros, that are already largely discriminated against). There are multiple combinations of this with what cis people are already used to consider . Reading what a SSM might be, depending on such potentially conflicting characteristics (according to the way it is implied to be), will just make it further confusing.

Personally, it seems rather trans-exclusionary to me to regard this particular nonsense sex x gender divide, given how it implies science's and law's invalidation of inner gender identity through this social construct of "sex" that legitimizes your designated social role based on an arbitrary bodily binary (that establishes a given bodily function-focused pattern for an infinite spectrum regarding multiple levels of dimorphism-related corporeality) often at the sake of what you get to say about it, as something we should officially respect as one given adequate worldview. That's bad.

Let me explain. I can understand Misplaced Pages citing "biological sex" - a particular worldview - in its science-related articles based on a contemporary established consensus, that is to be cynically expected when it comes to academic fields historically dominated by dyadic cisgender people (particularly male ones), but not here. There's nothing exact about classifying people as F / M , or F / M / N.A. - humans obviously don't work like this. "Biological sex" of the chromosomes, of the gonads, regarding the shape of genitalia, regarding endocrine gearing, regarding neurological wiring? They all are spectra that have at least a dozen of different possibilities (the last one has infinite variation... so that, if we were to take a certain so-called "neutral" standpoint, without needing to fit people into boxes , every single one of us could be their own micro-mini-"biological sex"), all are independent in status regarding each other, all are defined in different stages of development, and the three or four last could be ambiguous or "switched" in all humans ever, entirely depending on the course of the hormonal bath over pregnancy rather than a "perfect, intersex-proof" genetic code, as often people ignorantly think is what is related to such conditions.

The point is, if we know that a diverse, science-based understanding of "sex" that is also affirmative of the people who despise the concept is not just possible but real, why would we need to legitimize the dominant one? We could just discuss the legal aspects, as this article is already concerned with to the most part. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm thinking that some editors took a WP:Too long, didn't read approach to your above comment in this section; I mean no disrespect by that. What I mean is that it's an approach I see often when it comes to a section that begins with three or more decent-sized paragraphs, and especially ones that begin with four or more. Moving on to the matter at hand: We should go by what the WP:Reliable sources state...with WP:Due weight (WP:Due weight is an aspect of the WP:Neutrality policy; being neutral on Misplaced Pages means something entirely different than what it means in common discourse). Like I told you in the edit history of the Yaoi article in March of this year, WP:Activism should be left at the door. The sex and gender distinction exists, and it is a distinction that many intersex, and especially transgender, people go by; for example, when trying to explain the topic of gender identity being different than the how one's body is. This distinction is far more an intersex and transgender matter than a cisgender matter. Both "biological sex" and "gender identity" were cited in the lead before you changed the lead. So I don't see what exclusion of transgender people you are referring to in this case. Sure, the word "biological" was not needed, since, as we know by the existence of intersex and transgender people, biology is more complicated than just, for example, "You have a Y chromosome, so you're a male." But there's also the fact that, like I stated near the end of this section at the Transsexualism talk page, "Intersex people are usually biologically classified as male or female (based on physical appearance and/or chromosomal makeup, such as XY female or XX male), and usually identify as male or female; it's not the usual case that an intersex person wants to be thought of as neither male nor female. Being thought of as neither male nor female is usually a third gender or genderqueer matter." The same applies to transgender people (at least when you exclude genderqueer people from the category of transgender); they usually identify as male or female and/or as a man or a woman. "I'm not aware of science having actually identified a third sex, though intersex people and hermaphroditic non-human animals are sometimes classified as a third sex (by being a combination of both)... ...but gender is a broader field and researchers have identified three or more genders (again, see the Third gender article)."

That stated, the previous lead wording was unsourced. But so is yours. I tweaked your change here with regard to the WP:REFERS essay. And like I stated in that edit summary with a followup note here, your version currently includes a WP:EGG link...unless, of course, it can be demonstrated that people who type in "legal sex" will be looking for the Sex assignment article and/or unless that article is expanded to include explicit legal material regarding sex/gender assignment. Flyer22 (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I object to the revised version on a few points:

• It greatly narrows the scope of the topic to be only about legal aspects of SSM. The coverage of social aspects in the article isn't yet what it could be, but it is an important part of the topic and shouldn't be excluded from the scope.
• By making it only about same-sex couples in the eyes of the law, it excludes some marriages with a trans partner from the scope of the article.
• It's much less clearly written and rather difficult to parse for a lead sentence.

I would support restoring the longstanding version while consensus is built on a revised version to address the issues raised by Srtª above.--Trystan (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Mid-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• B-Class law articles
• Top-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class Human rights articles
• Mid-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters