File talk:World laws pertaining to homosexual relationships and expression.svg/Archive 1

 

 

India

I guess some people want to state their opinion even though they have no knowledge over the issue. The Constitution of India applies to the whole of India, and not just a particular state or union territory. The Delhi High Court has given a ruling to amend Indian Penal Code following which homosexuality would be legalized all over India. Therefore, to say that the ruling applies only to Delhi is just ridiculous. There is reason why it is called "Indian" Penal Code and not "Delhi" Penal Code. --Deepak (talk) 00:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with opinions, only attempts to interpret a confusing situation (when even news media reports are not clear or conflicting). Both maps (India all grey, and only Delhi grey) exist in the file uploads history for use if needed. Current main discussion over what India's status on English Wikipedia is located @ en:Talk:Homosexuality in India. Wikignome0529 (talk) 05:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Subdivisions?

I really don't see the need to add the subdivisions in the map, when you can make separate maps for them. In fact, the European Union already has a separate image that is currently in use. Also, the Nigeria's subdivisions are not accurate at all. It only colors the northern part, making the north look like one huge state. Please excuse my wording, but can someone explain to me why it is that important? Wouldn't it be easier to make them a separate category? Something like "these states have varying opinions" or something of that nature. — NuclearVacuum 23:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If you look at w:Status of same-sex marriage, you can see separate maps of every continent. As for Nigeria, the northern part is governed by Sharia law, and is consequently harsher on homosexuals than the southern part. --Haha169 (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

One reason for including subdivisions is that coloring the United States with one uniform color would be rather misleading as to what the facts are, and so would not be too useful... AnonMoos (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Antarctica

Shouldn't parts of Antarctica be coloured in dark blue? The territories of Argentina, Norway and New Zealand in Antarctica, perform and recognize same-sex marriages, according to the legislation of Argentina, Norway and New Zealand respectively.

Argentina

The gay unions in Argentina are locals only in their provinces Río Negro, Buenos Aires and two cities more. I changed the map, if there's not another legal source, please shouldn't revert. [1], [2], [3]. I will do the same with Brazil, it's not in all the country. --Keepscases (talk) 12:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No federal recognition in U.S.

The federal government doesn't recognize same-sex marriage in those states that have it. So I wonder if it's consistent to use the same color as for, say, Canada. For example, if all 50 states recognized it but not the federal government, then the U.S. would look the same as Canada. But that wouldn't be right.

My conclusion is, a note has to be added about federal recognition in the case of the U.S. 82.120.177.181 06:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a separate color is also needed for marriages that are only recognized by certain parts of the government (whether state, federal, or local) but not by others holding jurisdiction in the same area. Furthermore, I think the color for Oregon is wrong, period, according to what I read on :en-WP about the Coquille tribe, whose same-sex marriage is not recognized in Oregon.--Bhuck (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Colour scheme

I recently got an email from someone who wanted to use this image (yay us! ) in a publication, but couldn't understand why large parts of the world were marked with "No information". This led me to the conclusion that we perhaps should change some of the colours so at least the lightest blue is more easily discernable from the grey. Any thoughts? -- SLB (no) 10:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Iceland has now gay marriage.

Parliament passed a law that will come into effect in 15 days. Aviad2001 (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Fallback language ?

Why all language names link on protuguese non existing page? Arno Lagrange ✉ 07:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Mexico

According to what in the world states that Mexico recognize "Foreign same-sex marriages". This is fake. Tbhotch (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

All States in Mexico must recognize the laws of other States. Mexico has no law like DOMA. http://www.oem.com.mx/laprensa/notas/n1552193.htm --Zotico (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

And now it's official: http://www.365gay.com/news/all-mexican-states-must-recognize-gay-marriages/ Aviad2001 (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The Mexican state of Quintana Roo has legalized same-sex marriage (See: en:Same-sex marriage in Quintana Roo) Changes need to be made to the map to reflect this. -- Sebastian Gay (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Ireland

I changed Ireland to the civil unions colour following the passing of the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010 which came into law in July 2010. Hekerui (talk) 08:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I got an error message because of server problems :( Hekerui (talk) 08:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the upload worked, only the thumbnail creation is still broken. Hekerui (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Legend

Same-sex sexual activity and Same-sex marriage recognized, but not performed are definitely more appropriate than Homosexuality and foreign same-sex marriage. Anybody could change descriptions in other languages? I changed descriptions to Polish and Spanish. Ron 1987 (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I reverted that because marriage is not an activity. Hekerui (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Same-sex sexual activity maybe is not perfect but is more appropriate than Homosexuality. Ron 1987 (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You make the description contradictory and the descriptions in the Wikis don't fit the file description any longer as well. On Commons we need to look out for all the languages. Also, where it's forbidden there is no difference made between activity and condition. Hekerui (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not a contradictory description. Ron 1987 (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

How can they condemn the "condition" if there is no "activity"? How would they even know? --ecelan (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Just saying it counts. In any event, changing the description should only happen if we can make it uniformly for all languages - first there would have to be a reasonable explanation for doing it though. Hekerui (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Explanation is reasonable. Homosexuality is inappropriate. Ron 1987 (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It's been that way and worked since the file was created, I think a better justification than personal taste is needed. Hekerui (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Justification is enough. Current 'way' is absurd. Ron 1987 (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like looking for consensus. Hekerui (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

What consensus? You defends wrong and inappropriate thing. Nothing more. It's not looking for consensus. Ron 1987 (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Maltese

Well, I don't know if you got my edits, I made a Maltese legend for the map, but after a while it vanished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.133.27.223 (talk • contribs)

The legend exists, thanks. If it vanishes for you it is probably because there is a button where you can choose what language appears. If you left it at "English", only English appeares. You can also choose to display all languages. Hekerui (talk) 10:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Death penalty colour

The legends claim that the colour for jurisdictions which impose the death penalty is #800000, but in the actual file the colour is #68210f. They do look fairly similar:

 

1. 800000

 

1. 68210f

but we should correct this nonetheless. I'm thinking it would be better to change the colour in the map, to avoid having to change legends all over the place; but does anyone else have any ideas on the matter? - Htonl (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggested new colour scheme

Homosexual acts legal

 

Marriage open for same-sex couples

 

Same-sex couples offered most or all rights of marriage

 

Same-sex couples offered some rights of marriage

 

Same-sex relationships not recognised

 

Same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions recognised

Homosexual acts illegal

 

Minimal penalty

 

Heavy penalty

 

Life in prison

 

Death penalty

Now that I've managed to revamp the map so that the colouring is easily changeable by editing the stylesheet, I'd like to suggest that we change the colour scheme. Any opinions on the colour scheme used in the map depicted on the right? - Htonl (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you thought that you will have to change the colours in the key of every article in every wikipedia where this image is included? That could be a couple of hundred articles in some quite exotic languages.

I like these colours better than the present ones, but I remember someone not wanting to change colours because of the visually impaired people or something like that. Do you know it these colours are better or worse for people with bad sight? --ecelan (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking that we could change it by changing articles to use the new file name instead of the current one, rather than by uploading it over the existing file. That way we could progressively update the various wikipedias over time, rather than having to update them all at once.

The Colorbrewer website states that this colour scheme (diverging, 9 classes, RdBu) is friendly to people with red-green colourblindness, which I understand is the most common color problem, and the one mentioned in the warning on the file page. - Htonl (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You forgot Sharia Law in Acéh, Indonesia. 189.106.123.96 11:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. - Htonl (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest swapping the medium and light blue. Recognition of foreign (or in Mexico and Brazil, recognition of a member-state) marriage is recognition of marriage, wherease partnership/cohabitation is not recognition of marriage. Since the map is used in articles on same-sex marriage, I think the states where same-sex marriage is recognized should have the darker shades of blue; states where only second-class relationships are recognized should be a lighter shade. That is, Canada, Argentina, Iberia, N.Europe should be level (1) [recognized and performed], Israel, Mexico, Brazil should be level (2) [recognized but not performed], the rest of Europe & Australasia level (3) [neither recognized nor performed]. Kwamikagami (talk) 05:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I was basically following the lead of the original map on that, but I think you're right. Actually, what I'd also like to do is make a distinction between civil unions that are marriage-except-the-name (like the UK) and civil unions that are distinctly less than marriage. ILGA does that for their maps and I think it is an important difference. - Htonl (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've been thinking more about this, and I'm not so sure. It seems to me that, for example, civil unions are "better" than recognition of foreign marriages - they mean that the government has at least taken an active step to recognise same-sex partnerships. But it's an arguable point, and really the issue of recognition of foreign relationships is kind of orthogonal to the issue of what unions can be created under local law. You could have a jurisdiction that allowed only limited domestic partnerships to be created under local law, but also fully recognised foreign same-sex marriages: I believe this is approximately the situation in Israel, and could potentially arise in some US states if DOMA is struck down. Maybe jurisdictions that recognise foreign marriages could instead be marked with some kind of symbol over and above the colour that represents the type of local relationship recognition. - Htonl (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, take Mexico. (Brazil was bogus, evidently.) All Mexicans can get legally married, though they have to travel to Mexico city to do so. To me, that is significantly different than not being able to get married at all. And in the US, if the situation arises again, it could simply mean that people from recognizing states honeymoon in performing states rather than somewhere else. If this were not important, why distinguish marriage from in-all-but-name civil unions at all? To a lot of people, it isn't just the legal benefits, but the social recognition that they want.

As for splitting civil unions, I've thought of that too, and I agree with you, but we'd need some non-OR way of determining which are all-but-in-name and which are legally inferior. That might not be easy. Kwamikagami (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

But on the other hand, consider the other countries in the category:

• Israel: recognises SSM from other countries, so same-sex couples must travel to a country that allows non-resident SSM (Canada, South Africa, ...?) I would actually rather classify Israel as "Same-sex couples offered most or all rights of marriage", based on unregistered cohabitation and following the ILGA report (see below).
• Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten: only grudgingly and partially recognise same-sex marriages registered in the Netherlands.

Actually, this makes me think that "recognises foreign same-sex marriages" is not a single category - each of these three cases is something different. We could drop Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten entirely, since their recognition does not even seem to be full recognition of Dutch marriages; change Israel to "most or all rights of marriage", as I mentioned above; and leave Mexico on its own.

As to splitting civil unions, I've already done it in the alternate-color-scheme map - I changed the caption at the top of this section to describe it. I followed the ILGA report in classifying the types of civil union, except for a few jurisdictions which upgraded since the report was published in May 2011. - Htonl (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That's all very reasonable. Traveling within your own country is a lot different than going overseas, though at least it's possible to be married in Israel. So I'd want to mark Israel for both, though it's so small that I don't know if that could be done effectively. Maybe pinstripes? Or a bubble like we have for smaller countries? But certainly Mexico is a step up from France or Australia, at least IMO.

Interesting that so many of the "macho" Latin countries accept gay marriage. I suppose that's a consequence of military rule.

Anyway, if you're willing to move recognition of marriage up to 2nd place, I'd certainly support using this at WP-en. One minor point: I'd say "heavy penalty" rather than "large penalty", because AFAIK the latter would only be used for monetary penalties, and I'm not sure all of them are monetary.

I don't know if it would be better to switch the image over, and change the keys in all the linked articles, or just to start linking to the new image. Kwamikagami (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

How about what I've done with the map now? (You may have to refresh to see the updated image.) I've moved foreign recognition out of the blue-scale entirely and given a separate green colour, since it doesn't really fall within the same scale as the other categories.

"Large penalty" was copied from the original map, and I agree that "Heavy penalty" is better.

I don't think we should upload over the original image - it is in far too many articles in far too many languages, and inevitably there will be people opposed to the change who prefer to stick with the old map. The place to start (as far as English WP goes) will be w:en:Template:World homosexuality laws map. - Htonl (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that works pretty well. One quibble I have is with Israel: it's practically invisible, esp. with the green such a soft color. Could you nudge Gaza and the West Bank aside so they don't cover it up so much? Maybe a deeper shade, too? And the Maldives seems too far west to me, but that's probably not important.

How about California? There are, what, 8,000 legal marriages in the state? Marriage isn't 'open', but it is recognized. Some sort of striping, maybe?

The other problem I have is with the lightest blue. Because we're using blue for marriage/unions, light blue suggests some sort of union, when in reality it simply means homosexuality is not illegal. That doesn't mean there's any kind of tolerance, by the police or anyone else. IMO it should be blank/white—or maybe grey. Yes, the column is titled 'legal', but the color scheme is all about marriage equality, that's why people will be looking at it, and that's what they'll have in their heads when they see blue. Throughout Africa, for example, seeing blue gives a very wrong impression, as if there's some kind of divide between progressive and regressive countries. AFAIK there is very little actual difference between light blue Congo and medium red Tanzania next door. Kwamikagami (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

How's that? (Your program would probably space the blue colors out better. I simply changed the lightest to grey. California is striped in close-up, but doesn't reduce properly.) Kwamikagami (talk) 08:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm putting it on WP-en to see what kind of response we get. 07:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I'm fine with your changes. I see it's met with a somewhat curt response over there - I'm starting a discussion on Template talk:World homosexuality laws map. - Htonl (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't Brazil be striped blue–green? We've decided no dark blue, but there are scattered marriages across the country which are recognized. Kwamikagami (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Can someone change Quintana Roo in Mexico to dark blue?

On November 30, the Mexican state of Quintana Roo began offering same-sex marriages (see http://chflawyers.com/603/same-sex-marriages-in-quintana-roo/). I would change the image myself, but currently Mexico is a single path, and I am not talented enough with SVG to figure out how to "cut out" Quintana Roo from the Mexico path. Can someone help me do this? Xnux (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Too soon. That this lawyer claims that these marriages are legal because of a maybe-loophole is not enough to change the map. First I'd like to see legal marriages recognized or the fact that this is possible confirmed by a reliable source or the government. See this discussion. Hekerui (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Denmark

Denmark has same-sex marriage approved now, can someone change the map.Nicob1984 (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Has the law actually been passed by the Folketing yet? My understanding is it's still draft legislation at the moment. - Htonl (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It does not have SSM now, maybe in the middle of June according to news reports, so no change now. Hekerui (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

We seem to be following the rule of updating when the law is passed (as with Maryland and Washington, which are both marked as having marriage although probably neither of them will perform a same-sex marriage until next year) so what we probably want to know for Denmark is when the Queen signs the law. - Htonl (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Important for the map is whether it's the Kingdom or just Denmark. Kwamikagami (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The law was just proposed on 14 March. It has passed the first reading and the third reading is scheduled for 6 June, so that is the date it is expected to pass. It is expected to take effect from 15 June. I do not know on which date the queen can be expected to sign but that is also a purely ceremonial thing and not something I would consider to be as important as Htonl does.
As usual, the law will not take effect in Greenland and the Faroe Islands unless passed the local parliaments. I do not follow North-Atlantic politics closely but I expect that to happen quite quickly for Greenland and not for the first couple of decades in the Faroe Islands.
For those who can read Danish, the official page on the proposed act with all the Danish parliament's related information is at [4]. 95.166.78.149 13:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstand the Danish system, but the royal assent is when the bill officially becomes a law, isn't it? Personally I've always thought that the standard we should use is to change the map when the law is actually in effect, but the consensus view seems to be to update the map when all the bill becomes law. - Htonl (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You have a perfectly correct understanding of the Danish system and I apologize for my poor choice of words in the part of my post where I mentioned you. My point was that queen signing the bill is really just two ladies having a cup of tea and signing some documents and not part of the process of decision making. The decision is final if it passes the third reading, so that date represents the real politics better in my view. But I have no strong feelings about either date. 95.166.78.149 15:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't actually have any objection to changing Denmark's colour once the bill is fully passed by the Folketing. Let us know when it happens! - Htonl (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

It would make this page more useful if someone could change the map so one could click (or hover their cursor) on a country to see each country's name. It would save from having to go to a global map. And, not everyone can name every single country on a map of the world. Just a suggestion. Thanks. -- 23:04, 18 March 2012‎ User:75220dfw

corrections May 2012

The edit summary explaining my corrections was cut off. Here it is in full:

Corrections per ILGA report, May 2012: Afghanistan (local executions, but not state law), Mozambique (illegal), Sao Tome (illegal), Bahrain (legal), Sri Lanka (illegal), Iraq (status unclear), India (status unclear), S Sumatra (illegal), Jersey (no civil unions?), Lebanon (prison), Liberia (prison), Alagoas (not mentioned; unlikely per WP-en talk page. Dropped under Brazil layer: graphic is still there.)

Life in prison, reciprocity not verified.

Kwamikagami (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

In more detail: the report[5] does not list Afgh. among the death-penalty states, and it would appear the death penalty is the exception rather than the rule, so I changed it to orange. Two of the 'minor-penalty' states, Liberia & Lebanon, give a year in prison, so I changed them to orange. Added S. Sumatra, removed Algoas.

However, I did not assess the severity other than those mentioned above. Therefore some of the ones I changed from grey to orange might should be yellow or red, and if any of the existing orange or red was the wrong severity level, I wouldn't'a caught it. Kwamikagami (talk) 11:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Jersey does have civil partnerships. I don't have time to make that change right now, but I'll do it later if you don't get there first.

Also, I think we should discuss the "situation unclear" countries; I don't think that colouring them with a circular gradient like that is clear, and perhaps we should use stripes or some kind of symbol instead. - Htonl (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

In fact, the ILGA report says that the Delhi court's striking down of IPC section 377 has effect everywhere in India except Jammu & Kashmir. So we should really colour J&K brown and the rest of India grey. For Iraq it says that the law of the country does not criminalise homosexual acts. Since this is a map of laws, and not of social attitudes, I think we should mark Iraq in grey. - Htonl (talk) 11:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Made both changes. I was going off the ILGA summary, and clarified when I found the details in the text.

I added a brown ring to Iraq and Afghanistan for non-localized imposition of the death penalty. There are local courts which impose the death penalty, which is analogous to Nigeria and Somalia. We just don't know if there is a discrete location where that occurs. (I placed the rings near Kandahar and Nassiriya, but that's just a guess. Not wedded to the rings, though, if s.o. thinks another convention would be better.) Kwamikagami (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Abandoning the "minimal penalty" category

As of now, the only country still coloured yellow for "minimal penalty" is Bhutan. It hardly seems worth keeping this category for one country. Should we not drop it and simply have three categories: Illegal / Illegal with potential life imprisonment / Illegal with potential death penalty? Alternatively, we could introduce a category for "Illegal but unenforced", but that's a more subjective judgment. - Htonl (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

We'd still need 'illegal', and I doubt we can determine whether a law is enforced. I do think it's worth distinguishing a petty misdemeanor from prison time, though i don't know how reliable our claims are for other countries. Kwamikagami (talk) 06:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I still think we should do this - I think "Heavy penalty" should be changed to just "Illegal", since it makes no sense to distinguish just Bhutan from all the other countries. That way we also aren't making the fairly "original-research" decision of what is "light" and what is "heavy". (Unless we do something like what ILGA does - they draw a line at 14 years to distinguish two categories.) We can always restore the category later if we get better data, or reuse the yellow if we decide to add an "illegal, not enforced" category. - Htonl (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

What about imprisonment? Any prison time at all is pretty severe. AFAICT, all other countries may impose prison, but in Bhutan it's a misdemeanor. Seems hard to compare the two. Kwamikagami (talk) 08:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Change to Israel

It was pointed out on en:Talk:Same-sex marriage that the colour for Israel didn't entirely make sense, and I agree, so I've changed it. Israel doesn't just recognise foreign same-sex marriages, it also gives virtually all the benefits of marriage under unregistered cohabitation/"common-law marriage". ILGA classifies it as "Same-sex couples offered most or all rights of marriage". This is actually very similar to the situation in, for example, the UK, which has civil partnerships locally and also recognises foreign marriages as CP's. It seems reasonable, then, that Israel should be coloured the same. - Htonl (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

With the major difference that the UK does not recognize marriage, while Israel does. At least, AFAICT, a foreign marriage in Israel counts as a marriage. Kwamikagami (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think what a country offers in its own law is more important than what its citizens can only get by traveling abroad. I would suggest stripes but Israel is so small on the map that you wouldn't see them properly. Incidentally, we should actually consider the case of the Mexican state with civil unions, which presumably recognises Mexico City marriages like the rest of the country.

I'm now repeating what I said a few sections above, but I don't think the "foreign recognition" category makes sense, because it means three different things in the three different cases. In Israel it means genuine recognition of all foreign marriages; in Mexico it means recognition only of Mexico City marriages; and in the Dutch Caribbean it means limited recognition only of Dutch marriages. - Htonl (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Israel is a little strange/unique because even heterosexuals have to marry abroad in certain cases (such as marriages between those of different major religions). AnonMoos (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The foreign-recognition category is relevant because it means that it is possible to get married. In Mexico, you can go to the City to get married. In Israel you have to travel abroad. But in both cases you do have marriages recognized by the state. In the UK, by contrast, you cannot be married. At all. Kwamikagami (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

San Marino

San Marino's changed the law; Now same-sex cohabitating has the same civil right of heterosexual's. http://www.ilrestodelcarlino.it/rimini/cronaca/2012/06/22/733337-convivenza-omosessuali-stessi-diritti-degli-etero-san-marino.shtml

¿Alagoas?

What the brazilian state "Alagoas" and (bahia) int's in dark blue?

¿Por qué el estado brasileño de "Alagoas" no está en azul oscuro?

Gracias.--Fobos92 (talk) 01:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Brazil

English (en)		Spanish (es)
There is an extensive discussion about this issue here, on the English Wikipedia. The situation is not clear to me, but if I'm not mistaken, a civil marriage is possible for same-sex couples in Brazil only if a judge converts their civil union. Same-sex marriages are not performed as such; each case relies on a judicial decision. (Bahia might have just recently legalized same-sex marriage, but I'm not sure.)		Aquí en la Wikipedia en inglés existe una discusión extensa sobre este asunto. La situación no está claro para mí, pero si no me equivoco, el matrimonio civil es posible para parejas del mismo sexo en Brasil sólo si un juez convierta su unión estable. Matrimonios del mismo sexo no se realizan per se; cada caso depende de una decisión judicial. (En Bahia puede que acabe de legalizar el matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo, pero no estoy seguro.)
Athelwulf (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Legend

The map shows some colours that are not shown in the Description (legend). This should be adjusted.--145.97.198.159 23:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

green to yellow

Green implies legality, whereas it is illegal. Green looks more pro-rights than grey, where it is not illegal. Now that yellow is no longer used for minimal penalty, unenforced penalty should be made that color. There is, after all, always the chance that a judge will enforce the law. Kwamikagami (talk) 04:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur with this. - Htonl (talk) 10:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Uruguay

This file has to be updated. Uruguay officialy legalized same-sex marriage in december 2012.

Source? Kwamikagami (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it will happen later this year. Aviad2001 (talk) 13:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, it seems that the law has finally passed, and now awaits signature by the president (who said he would sign it) and a couple more months to take effect. So what's the official policy, when do we change the map? Aviad2001 (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

We are waiting for the President to sign the bill, at which point it will have actually become law. - Htonl (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

President Mujica just signed the bill into law http://archivo.presidencia.gub.uy/sci/leyes/2013/05/mec_913.pdf --Ignaciojd3 (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

NZ

Please paint NZ with deep blue. Kf8 (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yup, I think NZ's made it. Aviad2001 (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Formally the law still needs "royal assent", so it isn't quite there yet, although it almost certainly will be. --RL0919 (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

France

French National Assembly voted on April 23rd (Yeah 331, Neah 225) a new law opening the "Mariage pour tous" (Mariage for all). This is the last and final vote (other component of of the French Parliement, the Senate agreed few weeks ago). So, France should be tainted in deep blue. I have tried to update the file (in the CSS section) but that did not work. It shows ok on my desktop but once uploaded, it still shows France in lighter blue. Please help.

France needs to be changed to deep blue, please!

We are waiting until the Constitutional Council decides on the law, and until the President actually signs it. - Htonl (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

He did. Kf8 (talk) 08:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Please don't forget french overseas territories for change as Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guyana, Mayotte and Reunion. -- 08:35, 18 May 2013‎ Kisscool57

And don't forget also french overseas collectivities, where the "Mariage pour tous" law also is applied (only the mariage decision, not for the adoption) : New Caledonia, French Polynesia. --Tharkun (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

States of Brazil

As of 2012, there is a rapidly increasing number of states in Brazil that legalise same-sex marriage. The 3 last states to legalise same-sex marriage seems to be Rondônia as of April 26, 2013, Santa Catarina and Paraíba as of April 29, 2013. Those states are depicted in the map with light blue and that should change to deep blue.

UPDATE: Actually, Brazil needs to be changed as a country. The Brazilian Conselho Nacional de Justiça (CNJ) decided by 14-1 vote that notary offices (where civil marriages are performed) in ALL 26 Brazilian states and the capital do Brasília have to officiate same sex marriages. Until this past week, the decision was up for local jurisdictions: 12 states and the federal district had already started doing them. Notary offices can't refuse to perform the unions, as it was happening in some places. In 2011, the Brazilian Supreme Court had decided that gay unions were legal, but left the regulation of marriage to Congress, that has never acted on the matter. Civil unions were law nationwide for the past two years. Federal benefits, like pensions and immigration, have been the norm since 2001. - 16:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Rhode Island

Chaffee signed the bill, time to paint RI dark blue. Aviad2001 (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This has already been done by User:Kwamikagami. Regards, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Adding states

How do you add individual states to the map?

The Brazilian states of Rondonia, Paraiba, and Santa Catarina should be colored in dark blue.Thevastdarkness (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Maldivas and Bahrein?

I don't find any information about that. Someone can explain or provide a link? --186.125.127.121 02:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Forget it, for some reason appeared to me in light blue.--186.125.127.121 02:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Delaware

The Delaware legislature has passed a marriage equality bill and the Governor will be signing it imminently (he may already have done so by the time you read this). - Htonl (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Brazil should be blue (May 14)

"The Supreme Court decision 'is binding' and should be followed by the lower courts..." This means that same-sex marriage is legal in Brazil, even though Congress has still not passed a law explicitly allowing or forbidding it. Thus I have reverted the image to make Brazil blue. Path to gay marriage in Brazil cleared Dempf (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Minnesota

Minnesota should now be dark blue - I'd have done it myself had I known how. Aviad2001 (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. You may need to clear your cache and so on to see the update. - Htonl (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Anti-discrimination and propaganda laws and green color

Modifying this map (or creating a new map) and including propaganda laws and anti-discrimination laws, such as in this ILGA map [6], could be very useful. The green colour for de jure penalty that is de facto not enforced is also problematic. Cavann (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Кружок

Что за кружки смерти в Ираке и Афганистане?--Kaiyr (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Taliban and like. De facto controlled areas with strict Sharia laws. 178.94.59.150 14:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Green

Per previous discussion, there should be no green. Angola could be yellow. Since there are now instructions not to edit the map graphically, I reverted to the last good version, though it's out of date. Maybe s.o. else can edit the updated version. Kwamikagami (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. We also need "propaganda" laws. This is my suggestion in line with the source http://old.ilga.org/Statehomophobia/ILGA_map_2013_A4.pdf]

 

Laws restricting freedom of expression and association

 

Imprisonment without precise indication of the length / unclear / other

 

Imprisonment up to 14 years

 

Imprisonment from 14 years to a life-long sentence

 

Up to death (ring = local judges)

Cavann (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Protection for two weeks

Please discuss the latest changes without edit-warring on the image itself. Thank you. New national law changes should be discussed first as those may not be effective immediately. --Denniss (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The court ruling is a fact, and the deadline has passed. There is no reason to not include Colombia and protect the file. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Can a gay couple walk into a notary's office in Bogotá today and get legally married? That is, come out with something that is legally a marriage and not a unione de hecho? - Htonl (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The ruling of the court was that rights would be extended after two years if the Congress failed to act between that time. It is that simple. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

This article says: 'It remains unclear whether gays and lesbians can actually tie the knot in Colombia because the court’s ruling did not contain the word “marriage.” The judges instead said same-sex couples could go before a notary or a judge to “formalize and solemnize their contractual link.”'. That's why I ask what is actually happening "on the ground". - Htonl (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

So basically you're arguing over language and intent. Without a direct source to the contrary, we have no reason to interpret the ruling as such that it falls short of full extension of legal rights including marriage as equal to that between a heterosexual couple. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying that reliable media sources say that the situation is unclear. And that it is not our role to interpret court rulings, but rather to report what is actually happening. - Htonl (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly my point, it is not our role to interpret things. The ruling said "extension of all rights". Why are we attempting to interpret "all rights" doesn't include marriage simply because of an omission? Fry1989 ^eh? 23:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Because every article I can find about this situation in reliable media sources (e.g. [7], [8] [9] [10]) says that it is unclear whether or not same-sex couples are able to marry. And that is what we must report, no matter how you believe the ruling should be interpreted (a point on which, incidentally, I agree with you). - Htonl (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with what I believe it should mean, and everything to do with what it actually says. Nowhere does the ruling deliberately exclude the word marriage. Nowhere does it clarify that marriage is not to be considered one of the rights to be extended. To say such is so is purely speculation. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

That would be all very well, if there weren't multiple reliable sources saying that the situation is unclear. Your interpretation of the ruling may well be entirely correct, and yet it does not currently reflect the situation in reality. - Htonl (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The law and "reality" are often two different things. We report the law. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Some of my friends in Colombia, among them a gay couple, say that there are gay couples who already got marriage licences from a notary in Colombia. They just say that some other notarys do not do that. But there are other notarys that do give marriage licences to same-sex couples too. It is about having the RIGHT to get civil marriage licenses. Not about if some notarys don't want to accept the courts ruling and thus don't want to give marriage licences to gay couples. And since same-sex couples have the right, it means that same-sex marriage is legal now in Colombia. So Colombia has to be turned dark blue on the map!

"Some of my friends in Colombia" is not a reliable source. Keep it light blue until the situation clarifies. Edit warring here does not improve the situation in Colombia; it really is pointless. And there are more important issues, such as the anti-gay laws being passed in Russia. Cavann (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Every issue is important when you are an oppressed people. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

"And there are more important issues" Excuse me, but even if one issue is more important than another, that does not mean we can handle both issues. If my friends tell me that there are gay couples that already got married, how can I proof it when it is true? I mean it is true. That's a fact. I also want to add that even if no same-sex couples would get a marriage license in Colombia, they have the RIGHT to get married, because of the ruling of the Constitutional Court of Colombia. And it is the RIGHT to get married that counts, not if some homophobic notaries don't issue marriage licenses. Right is right. Law is law. Equal recognition means marriage. Same-sex marriage is the law of the land in Colombia. Period. It is false information, simply wrong and does not reflect reality if here at wikipedia Colombia is marked with only right for civil union. Why did the Constituational Court ruled in 2011 and said the ruling would take effect in June 2013, when it would not change status quo? That would not make sense. It is extremely logical that right now same-sex couples in Colombia HAVE THE RIGHT to get married. They have that right. Period. Also, attorney general of Colombia said that notaries are allowed to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Google it if you don't believe me. I read it today.

"Excuse me, but even if one issue is more important than another, that does not mean we can handle both issues." Yes, we cannot since you got the article locked for 2 weeks. Cavann (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

We did not add Brazilian states when some judges issued licenses and others did not. That is not open to marriage. If the local notary can refuse to marry you, then you do not really have the right to marry. Kwamikagami (talk) 04:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

So since you all decided to lock out editing for this file, does that mean no one has permission to edit? It kind of irritates me considering that California now has marriage again and I cannot change the image to reflect that. Every other map reflects that reality, but one of the first ones that an everyday user sees on the main article will be in error. Even though there is an ongoing dispute over Colombia's status I don't think that editing should be prohibited. Like all of you say, legal situations can change any day and the timing that this was done in was poor to say the least, We all knew that the United States Supreme Court was going to issue rulings this week... Chase1493 (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"You all"? No, one person, and he's reverted himself. 19:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Missing legend colours

The version of the map as at 09:43, 23 June 2013 uses 12 different fill colours, but File:World homosexuality laws.svg/Legend shows (in English, anyway) the meanings for 8; and of these, one is not used as a fill colour:  . Given that one of the undescribed colours is   which represents the seas, this means that there are 4 unexplained colours used for filling regions of the map:        . Could the legend please be updated? --Redrose64 (talk; at English Wikipedia) 11:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  is also used but unexplained; in this case it's a stroke: colour, not a fill: colour. --Redrose64 (talk; at English Wikipedia) 11:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

California to dark blue

As per the supreme court ruling and alread made changes to the US map, California should be changed to dark blue again. --U5K0 (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

We also need to add two tribal jurisdictions and restore the consensus colors. The file shouldn't be protected because of one editor. Kwamikagami (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

What is "severe"?

This is rather vague. IMO, any prison time is "severe" (you can be killed in prison), but that may not be the cut-off here. If we changed the legend to "penalty includes prison", would we need to change the colors of any countries? Kwamikagami (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

This is why I suggested precise terminology "Imprisonment up to 14 years", "Imprisonment from 14 years to a life-long sentence", "Up to death (ring = local judges)" in line with this map [11]. Someone who knows how to make svg maps can do it in 15 min's. Cavann (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I can make an edit like my last one, but would need a ref. We're not following the ILGA. Kwamikagami (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Why not? I can find the sources but it'll take time. Do you agree with "up to 14 years" "more than 14 years" tho?

Also, meanwhile, can you add this:

 

Laws restricting freedom of expression and association

for these Russian regions [12]? Cavann (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

We'd need to know we can apply the latter evenly across the world.

Why 14 years? Minimal/unenforced, prison, life, & death would seem natural categories; also, from the ILGA ref alone we don't know which countries are over 14 years. Kwamikagami (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

What is "minimal"? And what do you mean we don't know? ILGA has a map. There is also this [13] Cavann (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Minimal should be no prison time, IMO. ILGA has a map saying they don't know. Kwamikagami (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

A lot of the countries in yellow do have jail times, such as Guyana, Oman, etc. Cavann (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Some of them have jail times that are never imposed. Kwamikagami (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I still find it imprecise and vague. These are my suggestions:

 

Laws restricting freedom of expression and association

 

Imprisonment without precise indication of the length / unclear / other

 

Imprisonment up to 14 years

 

Imprisonment from 14 years to a life-long sentence

 

Up to death (ring = local judges)

OR

 

Laws restricting freedom of expression and association

 

Criminalization under review

 

Unenforced / unclear / other

 

Imprisonment

 

Up to death (ring = local judges)

Cavann (talk) 02:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

What's vague or unclear? Prison is prison.

The second is better, but a bit backwards. Unenforced should be the lightest color, and should not be lumped together with enforced prison time. Kwamikagami (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I find the current wording vague, because it doesn't spell out what "minimal" (or heavy) is. It could be a fine, or short-term prison sentence for minimal. How about this then?

 

Laws restricting freedom of expression and association

 

Unenforced

 

Criminalization under review / unclear / other

 

Imprisonment

 

Up to death (ring = local judges)

Cavann (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The countries with life in prison sentence for homosexuality generally have homophobic vigilantes everywhere, including Islamist terrorist factions in some, lots of government and police truculence and corruption, a very unstable record on human rights, and general political instability. I find it seriously inaccurate to put Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Algeria, the Small Antilles and Lebanon (if they start to enforce the anti-gay penalty of up to 2 years again) all in a same boat. Lguipontes (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Cavann, though, that we should add parts or eventually all of Russia to the list of countries with "anti" laws, since now, for example, they ban most comprehensive and complete sexual education and anti-bullying campaigns by private institutions, not to say about the lobby groups, that were never really allowed. To me this sounds like a hostile environment to sexual minorities, even though those laws aren't [directly] related to human intimate relationships. Lguipontes (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that any prison time is heavy or severe, so I changed the imprecise terminology. There is no such thing as minimal penalty, as no country seems to have solely fines and it is arguable that that can be called "minimal." I also added Russia for propaganda laws, although the colour is a bit different than what I had proposed. Cavann (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Mozambique should be yellow, shouldn't it? We have ministers saying there is no law, but dig deeper and what they really mean is that they think the law is silly and so ignore it. But AFAIK it's still on the books. Kwamikagami (talk) 06:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I personally think it shouldn't be included. They prohibit "those usually/regularly falling to the practice of vices against nature". I think nations that have legislation against discrimination based on sexual orientation would know better about the existence of "gay penguins and bi dolphins"; furthermore it doesn't mention men-with-men or women-with-women anymore (the pre-1830s Portuguese penal code was explicit against sodomy; Portugal changed it to "practices against nature", and Brazil - that stopped prosecuting sodomy charges in 1824 due to the will of Peter I AFAIK - removed it altogether). I think they meant not removing it because it would still be "useful" against zoophiles or else it would become Brazil, who knows.

It is sort of what Ilga describes as "legislation not clearly homophobic but that can be used as such". But this "can" is much distant from current reality, no Portuguese-speaking country imprisons LGBT people for being such, even when they have explicit laws (e.g. Angola, São Tomé and Príncipe for a time; IDK why they made the wording explicitly homophobic when they were granted independence, in 1975 people were still not aware of the AIDS pandemic :/), and when Equatorial Guinea was in the process of joining us we demanded them to de-criminalize it first. Also, the penalty for this in Mozambique is labor camps, not imprisonment. Lguipontes (talk) 09:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

US colour after DOMA decision

Shouldn't it be grey with light blue stripes, since there are some federal benefits all over the country (such as immigration, military benefits, etc) Cavann (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

While DOMA was in effect, each state should have been striped, since there was not full recognition. We were remiss in not doing that. Now that there is full rec, the states should be solid blue – which they already are. There is no law allowing marriage in Arkansas, so Arkansas should simply be grey. If the courts rule that states have to accept marriages performed elsewhere, then we'd shade the US like Mexico. Kwamikagami (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You are right about the past but incorrect about now. All grey states should have light blue stripes now. For example, in Alaska:

Green says she has worried about her family getting her federal benefits if something happened to her -- which Wednesday's ruling will change. According to the American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska, the ruling means Green and Huebler can receive federal benefits if they get married in a state that allows same-sex marriage, even though it's illegal in Alaska.[14]

It is limited tho, so that's why it should be grey with light blue stripes

Some of the more than 1,000 potential benefits, based on how the individual measures are written, apply either to the state of residence’s definition of marriage or the state of celebration’s definition of marriage, Atwood said. And for other benefits, the definition of marriage isn’t made clear at all.To apply the intent of the ruling that struck down DOMA, each benefit may be subject to congressional or administrative review, Atwood said. She said that’s why President Obama addressed the tricky chore of enforcing the DOMA ruling Wednesday.The president asked Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday to conduct a review of federal laws affected by the ruling to ensure benefits are implemented.[15]

Cavann (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we were correct in the past to ignore the absence of federal benefits in states which had state-recognized marriage, and we will be correct now to ignore the (possible) presence of federal benefits in states which don't have state-recognized marriage. - Htonl (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Another possibility is to add, just for the sake of exactness, a new color just for the US, implying "federal recognition only", or something to that effect. Aviad2001 (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I lean with either the suggestion of Cavann or that of Aviad2001. The situation in the U.S. is clearly different from that of most of the world. It is called marriage and an entire elected level of government accepts those marriages for its purposes. And they accept foreign marriages, while Mexico does not. Lguipontes (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Another example from Florida:

Lawyer: Gay couple in Fla. is 1st to win petition for immigration benefits, path to green card

So, grey with light blue stripes as I said. Cavann (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That would falsely imply partial recognition by the state of Florida. Kwamikagami (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not an independent country. Residents of Florida has limited recognition, although not by the state. Cavann (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

In the case for the United States, it is unique as opposed to Mexico where every state has to recognizes same-sex marriage performed in Mexico City (or wherever is legal) only. While in the United States, now the Federal Government, recognize same-sex marriage from other countries and the Federal Government also if someone get married in New York and move to Florida, they would have FULL marriage, as Florida doesn't have income tax, so they would get all the benefits even if the state of Florida doesn't recognize same-sex marriage. A great example is the couple from Ft. Lauderdale where one of them got approved for the Green Card and they got married in New York City. So I think the US should be in baby blue where same-sex marriage is not recognized yet.--Vrysxy (talk) 01:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think that while DOMA was in effect, the states should have been striped blue/grey, since there was not full recognition in those states. Now that it's been appealed, they should be solid blue. There is no recognition in Florida: the couple was recognized because they were married in New York. The fed is not recognizing anything about SSM in Florida, so Florida should remain grey. You simply cannot get married in Florida and have it recognized by the fed. Kwamikagami (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Again you do not understand the concept of federalism and being resident of a state. Even though they were married in NY, they are residents of Florida. Limited recognition. Cavann (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Colima, Mexico

The Mexican state of Colima now has civil unions. How do you add states to the map?

Civil Unions or same-sex marriage?--Vrysxy (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

African States: Algeria, Libya, Botswana, Zambia

The card is now wrong over african states: many african states criminalize homosexuality, for example Libya, Algeria, Botswana, Kenia, Cameroon or Zambia have to be orange.--188.96.185.38 22:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

England and Wales

Royal Assent has been given – the map needs them in dark blue.

Moldavia

Moldavia has also a law prohibiting "homosexual propaganda" [16][17] Should have the same colour as Russia. --ecelan (talk) 09:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

And don't forget Lithuania! [18] --ecelan (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Lithuania not only has the law, but also applies it effectively [19]. She should be the same colour as Russia. --Ąžuolas (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The category should be removed altogether. This map isn't about the freedom of speech - it's about homosexual acts and unions. It's hard to determine with certainty which countries have such laws - for example I'm pretty sure that the Arab countries that don't criminalize homosexual acts certainly criminalize homosexual propaganda. If some gays here hate Russia just because they enacted laws you don't like, Wikipedia isn't the right place to vent your anger.--Kohelet (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The map is about "World homosexuality laws." As for Arab countries, read the legend. Wikipedia is not the place for Russian propaganda either. And that is propaganda as in its correct meaning. Cavann (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that laws restricting the ability to advocate changes in the law are relevant to a map of the laws. I do worry that we're missing countries, though. (Iraq? India?) Kwamikagami (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

State of Colima, Mexico

Colima allows civil unions: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23502039. The map shoud be updated.

Colombia

Colombia should be now dark blue.

• Advocate:Two same-sex couples married in Colombia

--178.11.191.121 12:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Not so long as it takes a judge. Kwamikagami (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Gay marriage in ACT

Should the map be changed already? Aviad2001 (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I think, like California and New Mexico, it should be blue until struck down. Kwamikagami (talk) 05:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Illinois

Illinois has pass the same sex marriage Category:Mexico

Mexico

Can somebody achange the color of the states of Chihuahua and Oxaca in Mexico? This had to be in dark blue. I don't know how to do it

Only if you can provide a source. Kwamikagami (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Sources : [[20]] [[21]]

The paper misunderstands the situation in Chihuahua, which only applied to that one couple, and only says the other case "paves the way" for SSM. Kwamikagami (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Time to change Hawaii to dark blue.

Governor signs bill. Aviad2001 (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

And what are we going to do about Vietnam?

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/vietnam-legalizes-gay-weddings131113

Aviad2001 (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Gah! Weddings are legal, marriage is not. So you're not married just because you get married. Wouldn't that count as unregistered cohabitation? Kwamikagami (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Omissions

Marriage is legal in all Spain and all Portugal. In the map,you have forgotten Canary Islands [[22]], Ceuta, Azores Islands and Madeira [[23]]

But the Canaries, the Azores and Madeira are all coloured in blue, the same colour as mainland Spain and Portugal. Ceuta is just too small to see on the map. I don't see what your complaint is. - Htonl (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Illegal in India

Now India Supreme Court criminalized "again" homosexuality... source Titanicophile (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Costa Rica should be blue marked

Country Costa Rica should be marked blue.

• http://www.google.com/hostednews/epa/article/ALeqM5g_WTE4-QCcQysPrw3g5qygZ9FnGA?docId=2082825&hl=es

--178.3.29.38 11:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

A judge has agreed to consider recognizing a single union. Once there's a ruling, we can decide whether and how the map should be changed. Kwamikagami (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

In 2013, in Costa Rica the parliament allowed civil unions. Laura Conchilla signed the law for civil unions.

• bild.de:Homo-Ehe in Costa Rica (german)

--Timohap (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Somalia, between 3 years of prison and death penalty

Hello. So... I have a question about Somalia. Its penal code says that homosexuality is punishable with 3 years of prison. Ok. Somaliland declared itself as independant and applies death penalty for homosexual people. Ok. Then, parts of Somalia, due to civil war legacy, apply Sharia and so death penalty for homosexual people. Not ok... Which are exactly these parts? And which text/law/website/etc proves that? Thank you very much! Titanicophile (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a specific source on hand, but the areas under Sharia law would be those under the control of Al Shabaab. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Is that these two separated islamic emirates? Well, thank you! Titanicophile (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It's the two red bits in southern Somalia, but it's run by one organisation. The recent split of their territory into two was due to a military advance by African Union forces to capture a road/town in the middle of their land. The 'borders' are just porous approximations anyway, so members of Al-shabaab likely cross between the two areas. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Right, thank you! Titanicophile (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Utah Needs To Be Removed

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=21432884 --Prcc27 (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for SVG edit on Utah

This file does not open correctly in my vector editor. Can a user who is able to edit this file please return Utah to federal recognition only; the state of Utah is not going to recognise same‐gender marriage as‐long‐as the Federal District Court ruling is stayed. ― Info por favor (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Jalisco

A ring still needs to be added for Jalisco.. --Prcc27 (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Lithuania

Lithuania laws has nothing to do with Russian laws and are completely different. The color should be gray as in all other EU neigbours. The "law on protection of minors" has nothing to do with gay people and has no connection with the Russian propaganda law -- 18:15, 15 January 2014 User:Jonaz777

---

User Ąžuolas cites the Law on the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effect of Public Information in editing Lithuania's color to that of Russia's, but in fact the clause has been edited in 2009 and homophobic elements have been removed. There is no connection between the law and the propaganda law in the Russian Federation. It only reaffirms article 38 of the Constitution of the Rep. of Lithuania, which describes marriage as a free consent between a man and a woman. Please change Lithuania's color to gray. -- 17:42, 18 January 2014 User:Mxae

But you said it yourself here that people are banned from "promotion" of a "sexual identity" (encouraging people to accept themselves as they are or certain sexual education classes would likely be banned). If this is not limiting freedom of expression, I don't know what could be. We don't include only homophobia here, even if attempts to "restrict homosexuality to adults" (rather than just sexuality in general, what is already [PoV]lame[/PoV]) by conservative political forces don't count as such (I find it somewhat controversial, at least). Banning debate on same-sex marriage or other unions also counts as enough for beige. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The colour for Lithuania is beige because of two reasons:

• the "Law on the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effect of Public Information" bans "promotion" of same-sex families, which actually translates as a ban on discussions about same-sex families and possible introduction of same-sex marriage / civil union law;
• we know all this because the authorities have recently confirmed that clause is in place and fully applicable. Russian law is definitely harsher, but currently there is no way (and no need) to distinguish it from the Lithuanian one.--Ąžuolas (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Scotland passed its marriage equality bill.

[24] Not sure if any further royal assent is needed or not. Aviad2001 (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Would be better to colore Scotland on the map when the royal assent will be given, it seems it would last one month according to this. :) Titanicophile (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Pacific

The Pacific Island countries (including Papua New Guinea) should be changed from orange to yellow. Homosexuality is de jure criminalised, and homosexuals face strong social stigma (these are all very conservative Christian societies), but homosexuals are not in fact prosecuted or gaoled. (See the various human rights reports on these countries.) Aridd (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Vietnam

• Huffington Post:Gay weddings

In November 2013 parliament of Vietnam voted for a kind of unregistered partnership. So Vietnam should be marked in light blue --188.96.176.44 16:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

HuffPost mentions property rights, so this would seem to qualify as unregistered cohab. Kwamikagami (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Kentucky

should be changed to light blue.[25] Aviad2001 (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Angola, Mozambique, & Botswana

Homosexuality is an imprisonable offense in Mozambique, but we don't mark it because it is not enforced (it's even denied by the govt), and there are anti-discrimination laws. According to the BBC,[26] There are also anti-discrimination laws in Angola and Botswana. Should all three be treated the same? Kwamikagami (talk) 10:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Chief of Justice in Mozambique said it was not criminalized (as law deals with "gross indency" or something like that, not homosexuality especially). But no official said that in :

- Angola [offense against public morality, Governement refused to meet a new gay ambassador, country considered as less tolerant than other former portuguese colonies which are tolerant]

- Namibia [sodomy law, President asked to police to "exit" gays from country years ago, Mister Gay was murdered]

- Botswana [crime against nature, rarely enforced but not never]

- Seychelles [crime aginst nature, gov announced intention to repeal but a friend who came last year said gays were sent to prison?]

- Mauritius [sodomy law]

... where there are anti-discr. laws (no Angola, the Civil Code wasn't edited)... but this is taboo and society is conservative contrary to Mozambique where it's a bit better... so I think whe should leave these countries as "illegal", except Mozambique... (sorry for my awful English) Titanicophile (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, you obviously know more about this than I do. Kwamikagami (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Owh. ^_^' I just checked on the articles "LGBT rights in [country]" to be sure, you know? But thank you. xD By the way, it would be nice to check if Seychelles (and Palau too) will decriminalize after they announced it... Titanicophile (talk) 11:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it acceptable or legal gays rights in Botswana? Ntete (talk) 10:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Uganda law? Capital punishment?

I have just seen that Uganda had now the capital punishment color... but, if I read well some sources, the capital punishment was removed of the law because of the pressures of lot of countries... "Although the death penalty was originally planned to be included in the bill, the Legal Affairs Committee has reported verbally that there is the recommendation to drop the death penalty. The final version did not include the death penalty." Titanicophile (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Kentucky again

Time to change Kentucky to light blue, as it now recognizes out-of-state marriage. Aviad2001 (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Death penalty in Brunei will begin at April 1st 2014

As the sultan decided to introduce a hard Sharia legal system in his country, which will begin at April 1st 2014... Titanicophile (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Source? Kwamikagami (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Here, many other sources if you want in Google here for instance. Titanicophile (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

New source : here Titanicophile (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Lebanon

Lebanon seems to have decriminalized homosexuality. Aviad2001 (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a trial issue, but it doesn't cancel the criminalization law, I think... Titanicophile (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It would appear that homosexuality is not illegal, "crimes against nature" are illegal, and the court has opined that homosexuality (or anything else, for that matter) is not a crime against nature. Since the issue is not the wording of the law, but only its interpretation, then if the courts reinterpret it, they've changed what's illegal without changing the law. Yellow would seem to be appropriate for now; if other courts agree, then Lebanon should be grey. Kwamikagami (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Gibraltar has aproved a new Civil Partnership Bill that allows adoption: Gibraltar aprueba una ley de uniones civiles abierta a las parejas del mismo sexo y que permite la adopción homoparental --ecelan (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Gibraltar will be changed to the civil union blue once Royal Assent is given. Dralwik (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Malta

In April 2014, Malta allowed civil unions (inclusive adoption rights).

• queer.de:Malta führt Eingetragene Partnerschaft ein (german)

--47.68.254.176 21:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

About this map

If this map is about "World Homosexuality Laws" then why doesn't it include laws that prohibit GLB discrimination..? That definitely qualifies as a law that pertains to homosexuality and is very important to the GLB community. Furthermore, same-sex marriage doesn't necessarily have to be between homosexual/bisexual people because anyone regardless of sexuality can get married to the same-sex. Plus, there's already a same-sex marriage map anyways. At the very least I suggest that laws that prohibit GLB discrimination should be added to this map; but I also think that the marriage/partnership laws have got to go! --Prcc27 (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

this map is good and correct. --188.96.228.58 10:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@188.96.228.58: Do you have a stronger argument than that it's "good and correct"..? How is same-sex marriage a homosexuality law..? It also leaves out other laws such as equal age of consent laws for homosexuals and homosexuals being allowed to serve in the military. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. This map has many problems, but nothing can be perfect. By the way, a single map cannot show every LGBT law (discrimination protection, military...) : I had the same problem for my own LGBT rights map and I couldn't place the marriage constitutionnal bans, for instance. And... Why would the marriage laws not be LGBT laws? These are the most emblematic! Titanicophile (talk) 08:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Move The Page

(Edit) It was suggested here --> Commons:Deletion requests/File talk:World homosexuality laws.svg to change the name of the page. How about "World laws pertaining to homosexual relationships and expression"? --Prcc27 (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a move. Just make sure all links are fixed across wikis?  SLB (no) 04:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

no good idea. I disagree. --Timohap (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The page was already moved. --Prcc27 (talk) 03:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Costa Rica

Costa Rica should be blue marked. In June 2013, Laura Conchilla signed law for civil unions.

• Bild.de:Homo-Ehe in Costa Rica (German)

--Timohap (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Our article at w:Recognition of same-sex unions in Costa Rica#Civil unions says that the bill doesn't explicitly allow civil unions but merely acknowledges same-sex unions. The bill doesn't seem strong enough to color Costa Rica civil union blue. Dralwik (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Changes without consensus

Did Lebanon really decriminalize homosexuality? As far as I know, it did not: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Lebanon-News/2014/Mar-05/249261-landmarkruling-rubbishes-anti-gay-lawin-lebanon.ashx#axzz2v5wovriX this case was an individual one, like the 2011-2013 same-sex marriages or the non-op trans people's legal gender changes here in Brazil, not a landmark case that scrapped the legal validity of such laws. Police officers still can harass the LGBT population based on these.

Also, why was that circle in Sumatra, Indonesia removed? I never got why it was there, but it probably stayed for such a long time for a reason. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 08:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, Lebanon decriminalized NOTHING, it's just a ruling, and the law is still in effect. For Indonesia, with the Aceh Province, there is a city (the circle) where Muslim men cannot have same-sex relations because of local Sharia laws. Titanicophile (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Belarus

I don't know how to edit svg files, but Belarus is not correct.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong? Titanicophile (talk) 08:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

U.S. Cities and Counties

There are a lot of U.S. cities and counties not represented on here as having other partnerships even though they do have them. --Prcc27 (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like mostly an issue of simplicity, as at the scale of the map the counties would be the dots we use for local cases like the Philippines penalty. I presume you're talking about File:Same-sex unions by US counties and cities.svg? With the US in such rapid flux with respect to marriage, I don't know if adding that many dots to the map (and trying to draw the big Arizona counties) is worth the effort when these states could be going full blue shortly. Dralwik (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that may be an issue. I still think they should be represented on the map though.. --Prcc27 (talk) 05:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

We could maybe clump the dots together so that say Florida has a civil union dot to cover all the counties. Dralwik (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Dralwik Wait, do you mean one dot for each state that has civil unions performed at the local level..? Would a ring be more appropriate? --Prcc27 (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I think a ring would suffice. --Prcc27 (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Unless you think having dots would be better than having rings... --Prcc27 (talk) 06:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back to you. Yeah, we could add rings for each state with local recognition of unions. I'll add that to the Luxembourg update with the Wisconsin marriage ring. Dralwik (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Prcc27: Here is the test map with the dots. How does that look? IMO I'm fine with the current map as this one is cluttered on the US. Dralwik (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

My question is what does a dot represent..? A ring indicates "areas where local judges have granted marriage or imposed the death penalty in a jurisdiction where that is not otherwise the law and/or areas with a case-by-case application." Do dots represent local application? --Prcc27 (talk) 03:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

A ring is a specific case or case-by-case law, while a dot is a local law that is applicable to everyone in that small jurisdiction. Dralwik (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, then I guess a dot will work then.. --Prcc27 (talk) 03:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Btw, I noticed a weird gray spot southeast of Illinois. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

(On the test map) Prcc27 (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Re-add Wisconsin ring

The ring for Wisconsin needs to be added without removing the cu/dps color. Prcc27 (talk) 08:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to revert the edit again since the law for Luxembourg hasn't been approved yet.. --Prcc27 (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

If you understand French, here's the page where the executive consent will be posted. [27] Dralwik (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't, but Google Translate translates the page for me. --Prcc27 (talk) 06:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

If you need help about French language, I may help if you want. Titanicophile (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

For some reason Luxembourg was turned to dark grey in the version 21:22, 30 October 2014. Why? --82.181.8.94 16:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Based on this page (in French) the Council of State will give consent on Tuesday, June 24. Dralwik (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Native American Tribe

I think there's a marriage dot missing for the native american tribe in Oklahoma; possibly other nations as well! --Prcc27 (talk) 05:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Ring on Missouri

I don't know if Missouri should have a marriage ring and a civil union dot. Otherwise, Utah would have to have both a ring and a dot (which they don't). --Prcc27 (talk) 06:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Russia

this map is heavily biased towards Russia, on the one hand it shows every US state as one single case but for Russia it shows like the entire country has this gay propaganda law. Thats not true only view provinces have this law adopted--Crossswords (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Russia#Regional_laws

Russia does have one "propaganda law" for the whole country. You can read it in English or Russian--ecelan (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

My "above neighboor" is true : Russia has a national law, and some of its states has another law. The map isn't false or biased. Titanicophile (talk) 08:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Wait until a law goes into effect

We should wait until a law actually goes into effect before updating the map. Prcc27 (talk) 04:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that a temporary stay is not akin to a law being passed. A court ruling is different from legislation as court rulings have an appeals process and legislation does not. Colorado and Virginia should NOT be blue at the moment!! Prcc27 (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree about the law : for me, we can declare the SSM was legalized once the bill is signed into law. If the couples must wait a moment, it doesn't matter : law permit them to marry even if isn't in effect yet. By the way, TV and newspapers often make news when the SSM law is passed or is signed into bill, but they won't wait for the law being into effect : so people could be disoriented if we don't edit the maps when the SSM bill is signed into law. Titanicophile (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Titanicophile: How about a transition color like the US map has..? People will be disoriented if they see a jurisdiction is blue that doesn't perform same-sex marriages yet. Same-sex couples will think that they will be able to get a marriage license when in reality they cannot. I will propose a transition color below. Prcc27 (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC) (edited: Prcc27 (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC))

Coahuila to marriage

Do we know if the law was promulgated, please? I didn't find sources but, if the map was alreayd edited, I think you have some.. Thank you! Titanicophile (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Well I assume the answer is yes. Sorry for question. Titanicophile (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Updates

Florida needs a recognition ring [28], and so does Arizona [29]. Also, since Indiana's and Wisconsin's rulings aren't stayed, same-sex marriage is "legal" and they should probably be shaded blue. Prcc27 (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure for Indiana and Wisconsin? I begin to be totally lost with all these rulings... Titanicophile (talk) 09:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Indiana is stayed now, while Wisconsin is in a tricky position. It is de facto stayed as a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court is pending, and the federal guidelines for appeals courts note that a ruling is stayed while the cert petition is pending. The first chance to see if the Supreme Court takes the cases is September 29. Rule 41.d.2 Dralwik (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This is the original Wisconsin stay. On page 13 note that the judge writes "The injunction and the declaration shall take effect after the conclusion of any appeals..." which implies her ruling would be stayed until any and all appeals are done. That language implies SCOTUS appeal = stay, although it's difficult to tell one way or another right now. Here is a news article from Milwaukee noting the Indiana stay and the lack of a stay request from Wisconsin. Dralwik (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Titanicophile: ; @Dralwik: But you guys agree that Arizona and Florida should have recognition rings right..? Prcc27 (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Euh, I'm not an expert on this map (I have mine) and on the american justice (sorry, I'm French... nobody's perfect!) so I don't know if I must agree or not because it's a bit complicated... Can't wait for a SCOTUS decision which will make the marriage legal on all the country! And for Mexico too. Titanicophile (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• These cases aren't that complicated.. Arizona and Florida are giving recognition to certain individuals so they qualify for a ring! Prcc27 (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, so, why not putting a ring on these states? Titanicophile (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't have inkscape... Prcc27 (talk) 04:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a free program, downloadable here. I'm not bothering with the world maps any longer, and will just stick to the US map. Dralwik (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Dralwik: Thank you, I will try to download it! Prcc27 (talk) 05:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Missouri needs to be green for recognition [30] (without the blue ring being removed), Wyoming needs to have a green ring for recognizing same-sex marriages (for divorce purposes only) [31], and I'm pretty sure Italy should only have one ring (individual case: Grosetto) and possibly one or several dots since there are many cities now recognizing same-sex marriage.[32] Arizona and Florida still need a green ring for recognition. Prcc27 (talk) 05:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

May Missouri's recognition-case face a stay? Titanicophile (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Crimea

Crimea, as a disputed territory, should be colored grey in the map. A.h. king (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

A.h. king, No, because this map is meant to show the laws regarding the LGBT community all around the world and Crimea follows Russian law. --Leftcry (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Leftcry, But Crimea is not a Russian' territory. Is was occupied by Russia and by the meaning of most countries in the world Crimea is the part of Ukraine, so the laws should be ukrainian and island must be coloured as grey. --xopbatgh (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that Crimea may be occupied may be your opinion but nevertheless it follows Russian laws and is coloured accordingly. Also, it's not an island, it's a peninsula. --Leftcry (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Five more states:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/06/us-usa-court-gaymarriage-idUSKCN0HV19020141006 Aviad2001 (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Nevada and Idaho, too. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/08/us/same-sex-marriage-bans-struck-down-in-idaho-and-nevada.html?_r=0 Aviad2001 (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Is a stay possible for Nevada and Idaho? Titanicophile (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

In Nevada people are already getting married, can be turned blue. And there's more news from NC. Aviad2001 (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

And Idaho, too. It's getting hard to keep track of. Aviad2001 (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Kyrgyztan & Kazakhstan

http://www.buzzfeed.com/susiearmitage/gay-propaganda-ban-moves-one-step-closer-to-law-in-kyrgyzsta Kyrgyzstan’s parliament voted to advance a draft Russian-style “gay propaganda” ban Thursday, bringing the bill one step closer to law in the Central Asian former Soviet republic. The ban proposes up to a year in prison for individuals, including journalists, found guilty of spreading “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations,” RFE/RL reported. The bill would also ban LGBT advocacy organizations. Nika Yuryeva, an activist with the Kyrgyz LGBT organization Labrys, said in a statement that rather than protecting children, the bill would contribute to “growth of suicide rates among homosexual teenagers, who will be left without any access to information and right to support.” Russian President Vladimir Putin has used his country’s approach to LGBT rights to drum up support in other former Soviet countries, speaking of shared values throughout the Russian-speaking world. Russian is widely spoken in Kyrgyzstan, a Muslim-majority country. “We must defend the institution of the traditional family,” the Kyrgyz bill’s sponsor, MP Kurmanbek Dykanbaev, told RFE/RL’s Russian service. “Now, under the West’s influence, the norm of same-sex families is being imposed upon us.” Kyrgyz LGBT activist Akram Kubanychbekov, a member of the group Trans* Coalition on Post-Soviet Space, told BuzzFeed News that violence against LGBT people has risen since the draft legislation was first introduced. “Some people think that the bill became a law … and they will not be punished by the government,” he wrote in an e-mail. If the ban comes into force, Kubanychbekov believes doing LGBT advocacy work in Kyrgyzstan will become “almost impossible.” The draft legislation will move forward for another vote according to Kyrgyzstan’s parliamentary procedure. An earlier version of the bill cleared the human rights committee in Kyrgyzstan’s parliament last June. LGBT advocates told BuzzFeed News at the time that it was likely to pass if put to a full parliament vote.--Reprarina (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks the same in Kazakhstan : link here : have we more news about these two countries? Titanicophile (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Chile

http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=19621&MediaType=1&Category=24 Chilean Senate Approves Civil Unions Bill.

The Chilean Senate on October 6th approved a bill which seeks to recognize gay and lesbian couples with civil unions. The legislation, first introduced in 2011 by former President Sebastian Pinera, would allow gay and straight couples who have lived together for more than one year to enter a legal contract called the Life Partner Agreement (Acuerdo de Vida en Pareja), or AVP. Alvaro Elizalde, a government spokesperson, told Reuters that the approval is “an expression of a more inclusive Chile, which values diversity and guarantees equal rights for everyone.”

“The AVP does not weaken families, but strengthens them, because regardless of origin it gives them protection,” he added. Senator Juan Antonio Coloma of the opposition UDI party criticized the measure, saying “the next step is gay marriage and the next step is adoption, which is an extremely complex issue.” LGBT rights advocate Movilh said in a statement: “Today triumphed family diversity and the rights of children.” The law comes into effect at 6 months of its publication. (2015)

-- 04:34, 12 October 2014 User:Fhebynes

We must not add Chile to the map : the law hasn't passed yet : one of the legislative chambers didn't vote! Titanicophile (talk) 10:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Chilean lawmakers approve civil unions bill .

https://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/01/21/chilean-lawmakers-approve-civil-unions-bill/ http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Chile-Votes-for-Civil-Unions-20150121-0009.html . The bill must be reviewed by the Senate, but it was ratified and will become law later this month. Eighty-six legislators in the Chamber of Deputies voted for the bill, while 23 voted against it and two abstained. Fhebynes (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Civil Union Final Approval

Chilean civil unions bill receives final approval. http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/01/28/chilean-civil-unions-bill-receives-final-approval/ . http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-2930343/Socially-conservative-Chile-approves-civil-unions.html

The Chilean Senate approved the measure by a 25-6 vote margin with three abstentions. The bill passed in the country’s House of Representatives by a 78-9 vote margin.

President Michelle Bachelet has said she will sign the bill — under which unmarried heterosexual couples would also receive legal recognition — into law.

Bachelet’s spokesperson, Álvaro Elizalde, on his Twitter page described Tuesday as a “historic day” in Chile. “We are laying the foundation of a Chile for everyone, a country that does not discriminate,” he wrote. Fhebynes (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Applies in Easter Island.Fhebynes (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

If you're referring to that gray circle in the southeastern Pacific Ocean, that's for the Pitcairn Islands, a British territory. Dralwik (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The population of Pitcairn Islands is 49 (2014) and Easter Island 5,761 (2012) So why Easter Island is not on the world map?. Could someone fix it? Fhebynes (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Update

The Congress approved the bill. President Michelle Bachelet has to sign and promulgate the law ( supposedly March 2015). Civil Unions was a priority for Bachelet government. Also the support of Civil Unions is huge among politicians and Chileans, so there is no doubt this is going to become law. This is from the Chilean government official website, where the new law is explained. http://www.gob.cl/2015/01/30/acuerdo-de-union-civil-nuevos-beneficios-para-convivientes/

Translation. Civil Union Agreement: The new benefits for cohabitants.

• Important to mention.

-Recognition of civil unions celebrated abroad. With the passage of this law, now it recognized in Chile, civil unions and same sex marriages celebrated abroad, producing the same effect as a Civil Union. Fhebynes (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Palau

Palau decriminalized homosexuality, see [33]. Ron 1987 (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Wyoming should also be blue now, it seems.

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/blog/entry/wyoming-judge-strikes-down-laws-denying-the-freedom-to-marry-to-same-sex-co Aviad2001 (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Transition color

Have dark gray (#888888) be a color for laws in transition. Prcc27 (talk) 05:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Strong support. I'll go ahead and add it. Dralwik (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I find it's weird but why not. By the way, why is Lithunia grey? Titanicophile (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Lithuania legalized civil unions but iirc they haven't entered into effect yet. I added a footnote to clarify. Dralwik (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, Estonia legalized civil unions not Lithuania. Prcc27 (talk) 03:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Why not Nepal? There are lots of territories that would fit under this category but which are not included. We should either include them all or none, not just some of them. Kwamikagami (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this excessive information? I can't conceive the urgency to have this represented. I saw someone commenting in a talk page concerned with the many United States SSM maps that Wikipedia is supposed to be used to convey the burden of information, the maps are just simplified guides. Grey is also not a shade of blue. Not to mention that Dralwik's edits to the legends messed up the description. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I also find that it needlessly clutters the map. Aviad2001 (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Having Scotland, Luxembourg, Florida, etc. colored as dark blue before same-sex marriage can even be performed legally is misleading and confusing. We can change the gray to a different color.. what did you have in mind? Is there a shade of blue we could use instead..? Prcc27 (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Kwamikagami's marriage equality-focused map uses some sort of periwinkle for unregistered cohabitation and baby blue for civil unions. Since light blue here already represents the recognition of same-sex marriages by the federal government here, I think periwinkle works. But, speaking of Kwami's map, it is already a source for where same-sex marriage is stayed or legislated rather than the present law. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• As long as periwinkle is distinguishable from the blue colors I don't oppose using it... Prcc27 (talk) 10:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I am opposed to using a separate color for jurisdictions in "transition", but there appears to be some consensus to implement this, so I won't question that. However,

1. The color darkgrey is a badly chosen one; it is too close to the "no recognition" grey, which (imho) makes it much more misleading than not having this separate transition color.
2. why is this restricted to laws on same-sex unions? This map represents a broader range of laws, so if we're going to have a transition color, I have the impression it should apply to any change in law.
3. The description ("Government/court legalized or announced intention to legalize a level of same-sex union") is, as on the other maps, vague. Intention to legalize is very subjective (just look at the Nepal discussion above). I would put it as something like "A new law or court ruling is taking effect in the near future".

Regards, SPQRobin (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

1. Do you have a suggestion for a more proper color? Would periwinkle work or would it fail the color blindness test?
2. On one hand I see that point, but on the other hand wouldn't that mean an impending harsher ban (is Gambia's heightened penalty pending?) and impending higher recognition like Scotland are the same color? Personally, I'd limit the transition gray to cases where the impending legalization (or criminalization) are subject to a challenge undoing the change -- i.e. Florida, which I am uncomfortable coloring dark blue given the state's vow to appeal.
3. I'll support that wording change. Dralwik (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

1. Periwinkle seems like a good choice to me, though I don't know whether it's a good choice w.r.t. color blindness.
2. Well, this is exactly why I am against the transition color in the first place: it's appropriate for jurisdictions where the outcome is, by encyclopedic standards, uncertain. Scotland and Luxembourg on the other hand, are 99.9% certain to have marriage equality on 1 January 2015. At one point the U.S. transition color idea was merely expanded to them for the reason that the date of effect is still in the future. SPQRobin (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I would be willing to support flipping certain future jurisdictions like Scotland back to dark blue and either saving transition gray for a potential legalization like Florida -- or simply stripping off Florida altogether until it's a lock for equal marriage. Dralwik (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for removing it from the map, Dralwik. This removes the issues I raised, so fine by me :) SPQRobin (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Problems with this map

Krimin killr21 removed the Native American tribes in Michigan and I think managed to make the rings in Ohio and Florida thinner. Also, Italy should just have a recognition dot in the middle of the country since recognition is a local application kind of thing. The two rings should be removed (especially since there are now more than two cities recognizing). Prcc27 (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, Florida qualifies as blue per footnote #1 [34] Prcc27 (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done (Finally figured out how to do it!) Prcc27 (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

SC goes blue:

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/blog/entry/love-is-the-law-in-south-carolina-as-u.s.-supreme-court-denies-stay-in-marr Aviad2001 (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Kansas

Same-sex marriage isn't legal statewide in Kansas. It should not be solid blue. Prcc27 (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Then neither should Wyoming which is running off a preliminary injunction naming state defendants and specific county clerks. The only difference is Kansas is fighting it. We do not have a color for state ignoring of a ruling, so we go with the de jure deep blue. Dralwik (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Dralwik: AFAIK, every county in Wyoming is performing and the state is recognizing ssm without questioning the legality of ssm. The attorney general's opinion and interpretation of the law is important. When the AG of WV said the circuit court precedent was binding in the state we colored WV blue. When the AG of OR said same-sex marriage could be recognized we colored OR for recognition, despite the blatant ban on same-sex marriage recognition. Kansas's AG says that the ruling only applies to two counties so we have to go with it. It is their job to interpret the law, not ours. Going against what the AG and the reliable sources say is a clear violation of WP:OR. We don't get to pick and choose which AG opinions we honor and which ones we ignore. Prcc27 (talk) 05:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The AG is also not the ultimate word on Kansas law; the Kansas Supreme Court overrules him. You do have a somewhat valid point on OR, although that concern was brushed aside quickly on the US map talk page, which I feel is controlling here as well. Dralwik (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• You're right, but the Kansas Supreme Court decided not to rule on the merits. Instead, they said that individual counties had jurisdiction over whether or not to perform same-sex marriages. The Supreme Court did not say that marriage licenses had to be issued everywhere nor did they say it had to be recognized by the state. Furthermore, they didn't say the ruling applied to more than just those two counties. Instead, they left it open to interpretation at the county level and state level. Prcc27 (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• @Dralwik: Do you agree with my argument..? Prcc27 (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, but I agree with the solid blue argument from the US map talk. Dralwik (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Dralwik: IDK if other maps are binding on this one (especially since this map is broader than the US map) but it just doesn't make sense to have a blue dot for Missouri but Kansas gets to be solid blue when there is no recognition. If there isn't a source that says same-sex marriage is legal statewide then Kansas will have to go to blue dot because on this map, states with same-sex unions at the local level get a dot. Remember, this map is different from the U.S. map in that way. Prcc27 (talk) 07:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Finland

As of today Finland should go blue: http://yle.fi/uutiset/finnish_parliament_approves_same-sex_marriage/7657759 --→ Airon Ĉ 12:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if it was promulgated yet. Titanicophile (talk) 12:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Does Finland even qualify as gray..? [35] Prcc27 (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Kentucky

Should Kentucky have a ring for same-sex marriage recognition..? [36] Prcc27 (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Basically, does the individual marriage recognition override the local same-sex unions dot? Prcc27 (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

New colour

We need a new colour for areas which execute gays plus torture them in the process. Groups such as Isis believe that death is too god for gays therefore they throw gays off of tall buildings. These are not one off incidents but rather this is codified as part of their law. Multiple gays have been thrown off flat roofs to their death. This according to Isis has a scriptural basis so it does not seem to be going away any time soon. 80.44.186.213 22:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Alabama to blue?

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/01/23/court-strikes-alabama-ban-sex-marriage/ Aviad2001 (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Nope. [37] Prcc27 (talk) 07:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Mexico back in one piece?

Well, time ago I uploaded the map of Mexico divided in states in this map, why, because each state has its own laws like U.S, but a user Dralwik just came here and d-ded to back it in one piece, I hope some registered user here can reaupload Mexico divided in states again, same-sex marriage only in the mexican states of Coahuila and Quintana Roo. --187.210.63.190 19:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The map you uploaded had the wrong shape for the curvature of the map. Feel free to try and add another state map of Mexico that matches the projection of this map. Dralwik (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Chile

Chile shouldn't be blue since the president hasn't even signed the bill yet. We didn't update Scotland until royal assent was given and I feel the same logic applies here. Prcc27 (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

President of Chile signed on 14 April 2015. --88.70.211.136 01:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Marriage

Chile recognizes Same-sex marriages and civil unions performed abroad. The Immigration Department informed. [38] [39] Fhebynes (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Islamic State and Libya

First of all, the Islamic State-controlled region needs to be updated per http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Syria_and_Iraq_2014-onward_War_map.png

Additionally, Libya needs to be updated per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Libyan_Civil_War_detailed_map

ISIS again: Derna, Libya

The city of Derna in Libya needs to be re-added. It was taken away in the edit war.

Indonesia

Homosexuality is only illegal in the city of Palembang, not the entire province of South Sumatra. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It's also illegal in Aceh Province. Titanicophile (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Minor mistakes

Hi everyone, I couldn't help but notice two little mistakes.
1. Niue, the small microstate in Oceania far right under purple colored Wallis and Futuna, is on this map colored in yellow but it should be in gray. Homosexuality in Niue has been legal since 2007.[40]
2. Saba, which is part of the Caribbean Netherlands, is missing and should be colored in purple as same-sex marriage has been legal in the Caribbean Netherlands since 2012. Tangotopaz (talk) 15:38 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Easter Island (Chile)

The population of Pitcairn Islands is 49 (2014) and Easter Island 5,761 (2012) So why Easter Island is not on the world map?. Could someone fix it? President of Chile signed the bill on 14 April 2015. Fhebynes (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Belarus

Belarus was placed under 'restricted expression' category according to this artcile http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/09/03/comment-with-all-eyes-on-anti-gay-russia-there-are-three-countries-with-a-shocking-need-for-coverage/. However the only reason to claim that gay activism is terrorism in Belarus was a personal speculation by one member of local LGBT community who was never mentioned in local media for the last 18 months, as well as his Gay Alliance Belarus website is inoperative for at least last 6 months (is he still into gay activism?); all that hardly makes this single source a reliable one. Also his claims were not supported by any other Belarusian LGBT or human rights activist (sorry, I can't present proofs of nonexistence) just because Anti-Terrosism Concept had no impact on LGBT, it is merely a concept, not a statute authorising prosecution on terrorism charges. Futhermore ILGA-Europe's 2014 and 2015 Rainbow Europe annual reports didn't mention any occasion of repressions against Belarusian LGBTs because of that concept. So there are no reasons to believe that there is an 'anti-propaganda' law in Belarus.Крокозябрус (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Pitcairn Islands

Pitcairn Islands legalizes same-sex marriage : [41]. --Nikola62 (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

ISIS as a state -- is this serious?

Someone seems to have removed the borders within Iraq and Syria and added a new "state": the "ISIS country". This might be a fact in the wet dreams of self-declared ISIS idiots, but, this certainly should not revert the borders of existing real countries. This does not say that, like in Mexico, the de facto laws in these territories could be marked with a different color somehow or, maybe better, with a footnote. But the borders of Iraq and Syria should certainly not be removed. 90.184.23.200 22:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

We've long done the same thing with Somalia, showing facts on the ground. The UN may not recognize ISIS, but then these are not UN laws. Kwamikagami (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia should really respect recognized borders (of course, UN law!) and not the one's dreamed by these self-proclaimed fanatics. One of the worst arguments is: "We have always done it like this." (Somalia). Instead we should critically reflect what it really means if we draw new borders into a map. This means that we do not follow internationally recognized border but rather swear an oath of manifestation in favor of cruelty. As I said before, we might indeed put an asterisk on the map of Syria and Iraq and explain that parts of these countries are currently out of control and the official gay rights of these countries are not respected because of these circumstances. But even if a fanatic Christian somewhere in the Bible Belt would be willing to kill people because of their sexual preferences or behaviors, we would, hopefully, not redraw the borders of the U.S. in this map, would we? 90.184.23.200 07:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

90.184.23.200 -- I'm not taking a position on the map, but ISIS has de facto control over a substantial block of territory, and so is quite different from Eric Rudolph... -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I oppose including ISIS on the map. I'd prefer ISIS be represented with a ring. As for Crimea.. I guess they could be represented with a ring too since they're technically still apart of Ukraine. Prcc27 (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Support including ISIS per al-Shabaab precedent. Barbaric as they are, ISIS is the legal authority in those areas. (The borders are still on the map, just hidden under the ISIS blob.) Dralwik (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

2017

Oppose including ISIS or any terrorist group. That just legitimizes their existence. -socialistboyy 17:33 6 April 2017

They're not looking so impressive now, but in 2015 they had de facto control over a rather large chunk of territoy... AnonMoos (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Italian states

@AHC300: AHC300, you are mixing up a few things. First it is not the Italian states which offer very limited local benefits but Italian cities. Cities such as Rome, Bologna, Milan, Naples, Palermo and so on. These cities offer these benefits only to their citizens. The Italian states' recognition is merely symbolic as states do not have legislative power on the matter. Other cities offer these kinds of benefits, many of them are cities and counties in the United States as well as Beijing and Hong Kong in China. Futhermore I don't think these cities should be marked with a blue dot because the US cities and counties weren't.
As for the territories, I personally think they shouldn't be marked with a dot. Many of them have no native population. However some of these territories do have a native population (For example: Christmas Island) but they follow the laws of their country. In the case of Australia, 7 seven territories are directly administered by the federal government and thus do not have a legislative assembly. Norfolk Island has a legislative assembly and has been granted more autonomy, therefore has a dot on the map. Of course if you think they should be marked with a dot, I'll be happy to hear your ideas. Finally you shouldn't use Wikipedia to justify your edits as information on Wikipedia could be wrong or misunderstandable. Jedi Friend (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Enforcement in India

Since the Supreme Court judgement that upheld section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, the section is actually enforced: see here. I'm updating the map accordingly. --Superbenjamin (talk) 08:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Dezember 2015: Republic Cyprus

• In-Cyprus: Civil unions become law

The Republic Cyprus in Europe should be marked in blue. Civil Unions are allowed after parliament decision.

--454545jtrwe522htwsh52tw (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Same-sex marriages allowed on channel island Guernsey

After channel island Jersey, where civil unions are allowed, now the channel island Guernsey allowed same-sex marriages. The Island Guernsey in Europe should be marked in dark blue.

• Guernseyexpress.com: Guernsey will introduce same-sex marriage

--178.11.7.32 13:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Homosexuality is illegal in Chad since 2014

Homosexuality is illegal in Chad since 2014, punishable by 15-20 years imprisonment https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/gay-rights/ 212.71.237.36 00:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It is in the new Penal Code. But nobody knows when (if?) the new Penal Code will take effect... Titanicophile (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Slovenia

The marriage referendum in Slovenia passed, so a gender-neutral marriage will not be going into effect. http://www.hrc.org/blog/anti-equality-referendum-passes-in-slovenia Slovenia should no longer be dark blue.

Greece

• Gaystarnews:Greece to legally recognize same-sex couples for the first time

In Greece the parliament allowed on 23th December 2015 civil unions for same-sex unions. So Greece should now marked in blue in map. --188.96.230.37 01:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Терпр (talk • contribs) 16:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)