This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Merger proposal

Surely this article, which is predominantly about a particular court case, should be turned into one just about that court case, and the residue merged into (and redirect to) Civil partnership? This article does after all start off by saying there is no such thing as same-sex marriage in the UK, which suggests to me there should not be an article on the subject (separate from Civil partnership). Ben Finn 22:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that a lengthy discussion of a very important court case could belong on the main page. I am for a merge with Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom. Bamkin 19:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Against Merge. Merging will simply confuse the Civil Partnership article. You may consider adding some of it to the Civil Partnership Act page (a different article altogether) but I see no problem with this page as is. NB The merge suggestion was mooted six months ago - such old suggestions, if they garner no support in that time, are usually assumed to be unwanted. 86.153.93.200 07:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't merge. No logical basis to do so. The subject here is hypothetical - the CPA article ought not to be watered down. Leave as is. Vacant Stare 10:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The merge suggestion has not even been tagged properly! Pffff! 86.153.93.200 12:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Please see Wikipedia:Merge for the proper procedure. Currently this discussion is invalid as there is no notification on either article to advise editors that the discussion is in progress. Road Wizard 01:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Merging is probably a bad idea because it would destroy the effect of {{Europe in Topic|Same-sex marriage}} template. Better to keep the articles split for consistency with the articles on other countries. --Legis (talk - contribs) 14:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Do merge. Substantially this information seems to be better placed in the Civil Partnership article. This article should probably be short, and refer to the technical non-existence of same-sex marriage, and the existence of civil partnership. Lawyerbot (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge (a) Civil partnership is legally not civil marriage (regardless of how many people call their partnerships marriage) (b) Even if same-sex marriage is legalized in the UK at a future date, the civil partnership article has historical value. (c) Same-sex marriage in UK article can track political developments/debates specific to civil marriage. Outsider80 (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

All of the points you are making are true, but they are not entirely relevant - the article on same-sex marriage as we have it now is substantially about civil partnership. I agree that it should be changed to actually do what you say it should do. Or do you think that it already does what you want it to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawdroid (talk • contribs) 11:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The section in question (that mentions CP's) is mainly about how the government developed CP as a compromise to SSM, and the historical couple in question rejecting CP's as a substitute for SSM. If it was only about CP's, I would move the content to the CP article, but it actually belongs here since it frames SSM in the context of CP (the government's response to SSM of creating CP, and couple in question rejecting government's compromise). imho the article should stay as is, tracking political developments of SSM in UK (if anything should be merged into the other, this article should be merged into the CP article -- but the two articles serve distinct purposes.) Outsider80 (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose per Outsider80's well-reasoned comments. If there had been any entusiasm for this concept, it would have been addressed between 2007 (!!!) and now! 81.159.21.128 (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Correction - this has been mooted since 2006 not 2007! This is absurd! Unless there is a strong swell of opinion in its favour by the end of the week, I'll remove the tags.81.159.21.128 (talk) 09:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Pre-70s Legality

This article states that there were some legal lesbian marriages prior to the Nullity of Marriage Act, though no citation is given. Does anyone have any more detail about them? My understanding was that the common-law definition of marriage has always been opposite-sex, and so even if not explicitly prohibited in legislation before the 70s, same-sex marriages have always been illegal -- any that did occur would only have been because no one 'noticed' both parties were women, and thus of dubious legality.K.d.stauffer (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism and commentary

Does anyone have any knowledge as to whether or not the application of private international law to the facts as described in the judgment, or gathered from other sources (as the judgment is quite scant on the facts) by the President was entirely orthodox? It would probably be informative to have listed any concurring/non-concurring cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawdroid (talk • contribs) 14:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"Wilkinson v Kitzinger"

Surely Wilkinson and Kitzinger were on the same side of the legal case? I therefore doubt this section should be called "Wilkinson v Kitzinger"...? --213.104.249.48 (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

See the full text of the High Court judgement. At the top, it states that Susan Wilkinson is the "Petitioner", and Celia Kitzinger is the "First Respondent", therefore Wilkinson was technically against Kitzinger. In paragraph 1 it states "... the Petitioner Susan Wilkinson seeks a declaration as to her marital status ...", not "Wilkinson and Kitzinger seek a declaration as to their marital status". Thus, the "v" is correct, although it does look strange in thus usage. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Redrose,

Firstly I should say that I have zero knowledge of legal terminology(!), but I still find it hard to believe that this usage of "v" is correct and think it is misleading and should be changed unless someone can show that it is true. Your link to "v" confirms what I'd expect that "versus" refers to people with opposing views (and offers no mention of an alternative legal meaning). Your link to the full text of the High Court judgement confirms that Wilkinson and Kitzinger were indeed on the same side of the proceedings (e.g. in point 3. "the Petitioner, with the support of the first Respondent, instituted these proceedings"), which is why I think the "v" must be wrong. Your link to Appeal#Who can appeal states that "a party on the other side is called a respondent", but does not state that a respondent is necessarily on the other side, which I think may be where the confusion arises? Can we agree that Wilkinson and Kitzinger were not against each other, and remove the "v" please?

All the best, --213.104.249.48 (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a legal expert either, inasmuch as I never read Law at University; but I am certain that for any case to be heard in the courts, there must be two sides (if there were only one side, there wouldn't be a case). Since the two sides are technically in opposition to one another (even though they have the same desired outcome), "versus" is used as a linking verb. For further clarification, I have invited opinion from WP:LAW on the matter. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(Coming here from a notice at WP:LAW) It is perfectly common in English law for people to want the same outcome but to be on different sides of a case, technically. The "v" here is entirely accurate and appropriate. Even where people want the same result, the Petitioner is on one side of the "v" and the Respondents are on the other side of the "v". Respondents to a petition, by definition, are not on the same side of the "v" as the petitioner. The "real" respondent was of course the Government in the form of the Attorney General and Lord Chancellor, so a fuller case name would be "Wilkinson v Kitzinger & Her Majesty's Attorney General (Lord Chancellor intervening)" (e.g. at this publication), or "Wikinson v Kitzinger and others" as shown elsewhere (e.g. the website of one of the barristers involved in the case), but "Wilkinson v Kitzinger" is still perfectly correct. A quick Google search shows it referred to under this title at University of Kent, University of Reading (and the title of an academic paper) and the University of York (interestingly enough in a paper co-written by Wikinson and Kitzinger). Bencherlite ^Talk 20:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I found the same in my searches. "Wilkinson v Kitsinger" is how the case is typically cited, so it would seem to me to be the most correct way to refer to it. Hartboy (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh! You learn something new every day :) Thanks for the clarification everybody! --213.104.249.48 (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If the couple were petitioner and respondent respectively, how was it possible for the court to award legal costs to the Crown? Surely the court can only award the petitioner's costs to the respondent, or vice versa? Petecollier (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I refer you to my first post above, that of 12:52, 7 August 2010; examination of the linked document shows "Her Majesty's Attorney-General Second Respondent". Also see Bencherlite's post dated 20:20, 29 September 2010, sentence beginning 'The "real" respondent was of course the Government'. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

UK or individual states

Your article states : Following this consultation, the government intends for same-sex civil marriage to be legal in the United Kingdom by the next general election.

I changed it to read 'England and Wales', because there is an entirely different consultation going on in Scotland, with different parties taking part and with a very different attitude being put forward by the national church (Church of Scotland) and a group led by Gordon Wilson. Scotland has traditionally lagged behind the rest of the UK in these matters. Homosexuality, legalised by England in 1967 or thereby, was illegal in Scotland until the early 1980s, when the church was dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century. David Cameron can do all he wants in England and Wales, but it will be the Scottish parliament (and churches, and public opinion) that decide what will happen in Scotland following an entirely separate consultation. All the major political parties support the idea, but it is wrong to say that the outcome of the UK governments's consultation will alter what happens in Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.195.73 (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I apologise: I forgot to sign, or to say that, the change I made last night (UK => England and Wales) was changed back to UK. Does that mean that the UK government will over rule whatever Scotland wants to follow the outcome a consultation for English and Welsh people? 86.151.195.73 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC) D Moncur 3 decembre 2011.

I think it means it won't include Scotland, but it will be done by the UK general election. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

IP raises an important point here. Scotland, Northern Ireland, and England and Wales are following their own paths. Wouldn't it make sense for this to be dedicated to UK-wide issues, such as the court case, and for the different jurisdictions to have separate articles about their own processes? This article makes it too easy to conflate United Kingdom with England and Wales, for instance the passage IP quoted above? -Rrius (talk) 07:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It would make sense to me for each jurisdiction (such as England and Wales, and Scotland) to have separate articles with this one doing a general overview much like Same-sex marriage in Canada and Same-sex marriage in the United States. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Newspaper Endorsements=

Is it worth putting in the attitudes held by the media? I know The Times, Economist and Graun have editorialised in favour of gay marriage and the Telegraph, Mail and Express have editorialised against. We could make Supporters/Opponents of gay marriage in the UK pages for that sort of stuff. --86.133.13.84 (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Coalition for Marriage

I don't have time for edit wars but any reference to the group Coalition for Marriage has been removed from this article and should be reinserted somewhere 82.2.113.170 (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Why? I live in England, and I've never heard of them apart from this article. I submit that they are not sufficiently notable to merit mention. Lawdroid (talk) 10:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say 400,000 signatures isn't to be sniffed at. I've added Coalition for Marriage and for that matter the Coalition for Equal Marriage in again. Quickbeam44 (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

MPs

It seems sensible to remove MPs' names from the lists in support or opposition (unless, perhaps, they have special prominence in the debate). There are 650, so it would become an unwieldy article if they were kept... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.21.157 (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Support for Gov. proposals section.

I noticed that in the section where supporters of the Gov's proposals on marriage reforms are written, many are missed out. A full list of supporters and opponents (fully backed up with evidence of views) can be found here:http://www.c4em.org.uk/support-for-equal-marriage/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.43.157.190 (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, the list of opponents is woefully small.. try the 580,000 who've signed a petition against it.. try Bishops and Cardinals, Rabbis and Immams, try gay Labour MP's like Ben Bradshaw.. These are woeful omissions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPeno1978 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Very one sided entry.. edits deleted.. poor. 3/7/2012

Hello.. tried to make some amendments to this article and they were all removed.. may i ask why? I am assuming that wikipedia entries are done to give a fair overview not a polemic propagandist view.. sadly I think this entry is just that, it's very selective on evidence and basically I would bet my mortgage that the writer of the article supported same sex marriage.. surely the point is that i shouldnt be able to tell.. isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPeno1978 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't the one that reverted the edits. But looking back at the edits you performed (I guess you are IP:95.149.230.137 in the edit history?) I think they were probably removed as everything you added was completely unreferenced. If you try again but with WP:REFERENCES you may have a better case. I agree that the subject should be treated neutrally and a lot of the info you added could balance stuff out, if correctly referenced and written with an encyclopedic tone. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look at some of the sections and I agree, some are solely covering the pro-side. I say that even as a supporter of SSM! I've added some info from the anti-SSM side to the lead of the article and the section on religious bodies to try and balance it up a bit. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 23:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.. fair point about references.. Whilst i don't support same sex marriage i think it's important that people get a balanced view and views and facts from both sides of the argument. I'll put together something with references but don't want it to get deleted straight away again. The Wikipedia page on same sex marriage (not the UK one) is even more biassed I'm afraid. Does anyone have a final say on these pages? IS there anyway of protecting edits or should I just delete the whole article! It seems a weird system to be honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPeno1978 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

What a joke! Do you really think you're additions were aimed at improving the article to make it mroe informative and factual? Looks like you are trying to push your own politics. Best left out thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Delusion23.. good to see we can have a proper discussion.. sadly our friend Contaldo seems to want the article to reflect one side only, yes I want to make it balanced thanks. Delusion23, whilst you and I disagree on the issue I think we both agree that Wikipedia, if it is to be any good, must fairly and accurately reflect the situation as a whole. I'll make some more referenced and encyclopaedic additions over the weekend (and make sure they'll all saved ready for repasting just in case) ..let me know what you think. If Contaldo goes deleting I'll have to take it to arbitration or something.. would be a shame though. JimPeno July 4th, 2012.

I'm all for balance, but I'm not in favour of selective propaganda. I don't think you had any intention in your comments with "fairly and accurately reflecting the situation as a whole". And incidentally my user name is Contaldo80Contaldo80 (talk) 08:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Update needed (18/12/12)?

Doesn't this article need to be updated to reflect the recent changes in UK law? I'm not familiar enough with all the details to do it myself, but the upshot is that gay marriage has effectively been legalised now, hasn't it?Goggle grinder (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It still needs to pass both houses, Parliament and Lords. The government have just announced a timeline for it to be officially legalised by 2014. This is likely, but to say it is already legalised would be WP:CRYSTAL. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom → Equal marriage in the United Kingdom – From my perception of the news on the matter, I believe that "Equal marriage" is the common term used in the United Kingdom, not "same-sex marriage". In particular, the government and its constituent parties use "equal marriage" instead of "same-sex marriage"; I think we should reflect this practice. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. The term "same-sex marriage" is the most precise term to describe marriage between people of the same-sex. "Equal marriage" term is not neutral. The fact that the term is used by the government is irrelevant. Ron 1987 (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

See, in the UK, that term is actually seen as inaccurate because part of the current plans for equal marriage, since even before the consultation, are explicitly inclusive of transgender and gender-variant people (see Liberal Democrat Autumn Conference 2010 Agenda, page 39). I'd also like to see evidence for your assertion that "equal marriage" is non-neutral instead of just assuming it is; some editors think the term "pro-life" re: abortion is not neutral, after all. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Support. As Sceptre says, equal marriage is more accurate, as the consultations and Commons statements and Scottish Parliament statements on their bills have said, the proposal is that any two people will be able to marry – regardless of their gender, sex, or legal status. Same-sex marriage would only be accurate if the proposals were limited to two men or two women. They are explicitly not, as it will be legal, for example, for a man who identifies as male to marry a legal woman who identifies as male, and later legally transitions to become male. Further, 'same-sex marriage' is not neutral, as it suggests that it is a new, different form of marriage – on this the UK and Scottish Governments have repeatedly said that the proposals are not to create new kinds of marriage, but to open marriage to any two people on equal terms.

Climatophile (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

All similar articles are titled "Same-sex marriage in..." For example see Same-sex marriage in France or Same-sex marriage in Denmark. There is no reason to name this article differently. Wikipedia is not a British only encyclopedia, it world-wide encyclopedia. "Same-sex marriage" is the commonly used term worldwide, the "Equal marriage" is not. It's the term used by the supporters in Britain only. Non-neutrality is absolutely obvious thing here. And once again, the title must be precise. "Same-sex marriage" is very clear and precise term. "Equal marriage" is not. To Climatophile: This article is about marriage between people of the same-sex, not marriage in general. Ron 1987 (talk) 09:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Sceptre: As far as neutrality goes, I would also say “equal marriage” is no more neutral than what we already have. As the term of choice for one side in an adversarial political system it is by definition non-neutral. And the term “equal marriage” also implies the current set-up is not equal, which is certainly not the view of at least some of the players in the debate.

I’d also note that the definition of marriage as being for "any two people on equal terms" is itself a bit discrinminatory, if only to polygamists...Moonraker12 (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

oppose One, the title of the topic area is same-sex marriage. So although the term equal marriage is rising in prominence in the UK that's not the case everywhere. What must be kept in mind is that the article is not only for UK consumption but for any english speaking reader. So, simply because the term is employed in the UK does not necessarily mean its the most appropriate title. Secondly, I am not convinced that the majority of the sources in the article even employ the term equal marriage more than same-sex marriage. My cursory review didn't seem to show that. Can any of the principle article editors speak to this point.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose This article is about possible marriage by same-sex couples. The laws enabling that are formally in general not saying "same sex marriage is possible", but "marriage is open to people of opposite or the same sex"; you could say: creating an "equal marriage law". So, I would say "equal marriage" is an ok an neutral term, but it is not the most apt description of an article focussing on one part of that marriage: same sex marriage. A second reason why I oppose the change is that commonname should be applied throughout the readership, and not only in the country that is most relevant to the subject. And the most common term for same-sex marriage (even when referring tot he UK) is still same-sex marriage (or gay marriage, but we don't use that for other reasons). (I am regularly involved in same-sex marriage discussions, mostly on Template:same-sex unions; and Ron notified me of this discussion). L.tak (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. 1. All the articles for other countries and jurisdictions are titled "Same-sex marriage in X". 2. "Equal marriage" is arguably a POV term - as I recall we've previously had similar debates about the term "marriage equality" in the US. 3. "Equal marriage" is somewhat ambiguous; I am fairly certain I have previously heard it used to refer to (legal) equality between husbands and wives in opposite-sex marriages. - htonl (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. As said above, "equal marriage" is a bit ambiguous compared to the very clear title of the article as it currently stands. Plus, I do not believe that "equal marriage" is the common term; the current title is used far more frequently (including by the citations). – Richard BB 12:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Contrary to the claims above, "same-sex marriage" (or "gay marriage") is most certainly the common term. "Equal marriage" is never or hardly ever used in the British media, whatever its official status. What on earth does it mean anyway? I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone, in the UK or elsewhere, who'd even heard the term. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose: As the subject of this article isn’t the Equal Marriage Act (2013) (if that's to be the name) , or the Legal aspects of transsexualism , but same-sex marriage in the UK, the current title is the “simple and obvious” choice, being being recognizable, the natural search term, and consistent with other pages on this issue.

WP TITLE also says we should follow the reliable sources in the article; of over a hundred sources given here, only two seem to use the phrase “Equal marriage” in the title; the most common is in fact “gay marriage”, closely followed by “same-sex marriage”. If neutrality is an issue, I suggest the current title is already the more neutral choice over the common name. Moonraker12 (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: the title is at odds with all similar articles about the situation in other countries. What's more, it implies that there is somehow greater "equality" than heterosexual marriages, and I don't actually believe this to be the case. The UK government can call the law anything they want for reasons that are unique to the country, but WP has policies of WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 13:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- While agreeing with your opposition, I think the actual intention of the name (if it is used) is to emphasise that the act is intended to make same-sex marriage "equal" to heterosexual marriage (as opposed to the civil partnerships now in place, which are not true marriages), not to suggest that there is more equality within the marriage itself. Which of course makes the renaming proposal even weirder. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment. I have no idea what term is used in the UK, but I do agree that whatever it is should be used instead of the term that our other articles use, or what we call it, or what it is most often called. I get 777 websites using same sex marriage[1] and 782 using equal marriage.[2] But also there are 810 which use only same sex marriage,[3] and 778 that only use equal marriage.[4] At a minimum I would say the article should mention "frequently called equal marriage in the United Kingdom", and not just in the name of the legislation, which without explanation is slightly confusing. Apteva (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- The point is that these are different things. "Same-sex marriage" is what it actually is. "Equal marriage" is the campaign for it (i.e. to make marriage between people of the same sex equal in law to marriage between people of the opposite sex), which is why you are getting a lot of ghits for it at a time when people are campaigning for it. This article is about "same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom" as a whole, not just about the campaign for same-sex marriage. As such, it should use the current title. As a British person, I can assure you that "equal marriage" is certainly not the common term for the marriage itself in this country. Neither do I think it is intended to be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose As a pro-same-sex-marriage gay man, much as I'm a big fan of the term "equal marriage" and the term "marriage equality", they are political terms. "Same-sex marriage" isn't. There are other campaigns for marriage reform including, for instance, to open marriage up for multiple partners in poly relationships: people supporting poly marriage may wish to refer to their campaign as "equal marriage" too, given that they are asking for the state to recognise poly relationships as being equal to married hetrosexual relationships and, if same-sex marriage were to pass, married gay relationships. In addition, the bill uses it, the media use it... and it doesn't seem insulting or problematic to me. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

geographic scope

If legalized, where would it be legal? All UK territories? Just the British Isles? — kwami (talk) 07:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

British government's marriage legislation will cover England an Wales only. Scottish goverment also will introduce marriage legislation. If both approved, same-sex marriage will be legal on British Isles, except Northern Ireland. Ron 1987 (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, British Isles is a fairly loose term that can be used to include the Republic of Ireland, Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. In addition to the exception of Northern Ireland, the laws won't apply to the Republic of Ireland and are unlikely to apply to the Channel Islands or Isle of Man. Road Wizard (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Given that the parliamentary vote will be UK-wide, it would make more sense for the map for England and Wales MP support to cover the whole of the UK 86.181.1.145 (talk) 11:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a wider map is needed, with the data from the C4EM page. Climatophile (talk) 11:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

So if Parliament legalises equal marriage in England and Wales, who will do it in Northern Ireland. The Civil Partnership Act extends to Northern Ireland, and that was by act of the UK Parliament. Does the NI Ireland Assembly control same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland or is this reserved to the UK Parliament? If it is controlled by the UK Parliament, why are they only bothering to legalise it in England and Wales? 2001:630:E4:42FE:FFFF:FC36:567C:B729 (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Responsibility for marriage in NI lies with the Assembly. The UK Parliament has responsibility for E&W marriage only. (Though if it really, really wanted to, it could remove NI and Scotland's responsibility and legislate for all. It wouldn't do that.) Climatophile (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The Civil Partnership Act was enaced in 2004, at a time when the Northern Ireland Assembly was suspended. Presumably this is why Westminster felt it was able to legislate for NI? - htonl (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

There is no consensus to merge the articles into this one; and the discussion seems mute for months now

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose that Coalition for Marriage and Coalition for Equal Marriage be merged here into the support and oppose sections of the England section. I feel that if you remove the advertising sections for both articles you can quiet easily summerise both campaigns into one or two paragraphs thus strenghing the proposed merge sections. Additonally the Equal marraige one seems overly focused on a comment from the Marriage lot and the fact the Nick Clegg supports them. There is not a lot in both articles and only one or two paragraphs worth keeping and merging into this article. GAtechnical (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Not only is the only media attention for the C4M negative lately, but also that both are notable enough for their own articles. I oppose this very strongly for those reasons. They should not be merged for the sole reason of having a similar name as they stand for the opposites. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 22:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Just because it's getting negative responses in the media and have similar names are not valid reasons to oppose a merge. GAtechnical (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:Notability. We don't always merge something based on it being similar. I propose asking this on Wikiproject LGBT studies also since that's the main project for the article and you can get a bigger audience for this. I would consider it controversial. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 12:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Both the C4M and C4EM are notable per WP:GNG. There are other organisations that are both for and against same-sex marriage in the UK (gay rights groups like Stonewall, on one side; the various churches and Christian groups on the other). Merging C4M and C4EM into the article suggests that they are the only involved in the debate. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Again to Jenova and Tom, notability is not inherent. Jenova again talk nothing of substance "we don't alway merge something based on it being similar." What!? We don't have to have separate articles just because it's two sides to one debate. Tom, have you read any of the three articles. The other groups you mention are not talked about at all and is most certainly why in the oppose/support section it should be merged and other organisations if there is any independent sources should be added. You can't really add them to the C4M etc as that would be taking it off topic technically. GAtechnical (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I could use your same argument to merge opposites in any instance GAtechnical because it is vague. Please read WP:Notability and as others have suggested WP:GNG since you are looking at an example of WP:Snow otherwise. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 00:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose The organizations have significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, especially C4M. Per WP:GNG. Teammm ^talk
_email 17:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment I don't have a strong opinion on this proposal either way, but the decision needs lead to a clear policy on similar articles about campaigns for and against same-sex marriage. There are at least two other campaigns for same-sex marriage in the UK that are at least as notable, if not more notable than these campaigns. Equal Marriage - the campaign in Scotland (also the UK's first campaign for same-sex marriage) and Equal Love the first campaign for same-sex marriage in England and Wales. Neither of these campaigns currently have a page, so either they should all be merged or all be allowed. To allow some but reject others makes no sense. 94.173.13.236 (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.13.236 (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The actions or inactions of others to create an article on something do not factor into merging other notable articles together to create a bigger article. If the articles are individually notable then merging is unnecessary and harmful to wikipedia. There are 4 million+ articles because we don't merge similar individually notable articles. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 10:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand my point. Currently GAtechnical is rejecting some articles about same-sex marriage campaigns in the UK on the basis that all articles relating to same-sex marriage in the UK should be merged. My point was that either a decision needs to be made that all articles are merged, or all articles (of note) should be published. It is wrong to reject some noteworthy articles but allow others for no good reason. Thanks. 94.173.13.236 (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok I'm going to make a comment here. This is not a deletion request so therefore GNG does not come into it. The oppose by Teamm and Tom shoud be ignored, for not being valid reasons. It's a merge request on the bases of logic e.g. two sides to one argument; never about whether they are notable. 94.173.13.236 you are more than welcome to resubmit but in future please refrain from comments like above. I don't want to be seen or painted as a racist or anything else like that. Additionally I'd appreciate it if you kept you're comments to yourself as I do not want to get into a "war" or "fight" and be unfairly attacked. GAtechnical (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

don't merge The articles have sufficient content to stand on their own, and merging here would inevitably lead to removal of interesting and verifiable information; furthermore the subject matters of the articles are sufficiently separate to have individual articles. L.tak (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Second reading map error.

There are at least two errors in the map of how MPs voted in the Second reading of the same sex marriage bill in the House of Commons. Stephen Hammond (MP foe Wimbledon) and Daniel Kawczynski (MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham) are listed as Conservative MPs who voted against. In reality both of them voted in favour. This has already been discussed in the talk page to image but no action has been taken and I cannot edit other users images. This has also been discussed in the talk page to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill article. A full list of how MPs voted in the second reading can be found on the BBC News site. (Tk420 (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC))

Northern Ireland

Why is there no section in this article for Northern Ireland? There was a vote at the start of the year supported by Sinn Fein but it was rejected. Also recently there have been pro-gay marriage and anti-gay marriage protects in Belfast. Is this relevent enough to merit being put in? CH7i5 (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Mention of voting on MPs pages

May I ask an editor why the way that different MPs have voted on this (usually those who opposed the 2nd reading in the Commons) is often mentioned on their Wikipedia page? In some cases, their voting on other issues is not mentioned at all. For example, Richard Drax's page lacks much content yet the section which has his "parliamentary career" is summed up in his opposition to the Marriage Bill. Likewise, John Glen has a section of his page dedicated to his vote against this bill (even though it is only one sentence). The user contributions of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/109.153.104.163 for instance show that some users are editing politicians pages often noting their vote against this bill, even if there is no other record of their voting on any other issue on their page (or perhaps anything else about their political life). Is this some attempt at a witch hunt by singling out this issue over others? (I know this may not be the best place to post this topic, but it is a central location - to debate it on each MPs talk page would not be practical, neither would bringing it up on the general talk page for MPs in the United Kingdom. Thoughts would be helpful. 194.70.34.202 (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You are fully right... If there is no good reason to add it, the info is "undue weight" and should be removed... We are not in the business of recording votes for every individual political issue... L.tak (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It would seem that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.180.92.117 has also been adding these sections to MPs profiles. It does seem to be fairly widespread across Wikipedia overall. 194.70.34.202 (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Unless the biog of an MP shows how they voted at all House of Commons divisions since their election, it is WP:UNDUE to show how they voted on one particular bill. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Yvo2013 was at it as well. I concur that this information is generally undue unless there is a particularly special reason to include it on a specific MP's article. - htonl (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Stonewall2013 has also been adding these sections to several MPs pages. 194.70.34.202 (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Stonewall2013 and Yvo2013 are the same user; they were required to change the name because of our naming policy. You can see it in the history of the user talk page. - htonl (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with the earlier posts. These sections should be removed if there is not significant cause for their inclusion on a page. Unless anyone has any objections, I'll go ahead and remove them as per WP:BOLD. 82.26.90.44 (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this; I see one way that we might justifiably describe how a particular MP voted. If we can find a source that states that in the past the votes cast by this MP have been LGBT-sympathetic, but in this case they voted against the bill, that could be worth mentioning; as would the reverse situation. But we cannot simply work through Hansard tallying the voting behaviour - we need an independent source that explicitly states that this MP has gone against personal tradition. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if the MP's voting on this particular bill is significant in some way (perhaps their opposition or support was vocal in the press) or goes against their long-term record then inclusion on their page is noteworthy. 82.26.90.44 (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I have visited many of these pages now and made the agreed changes, removing sections that are generally WP:UNDUE for certain MPs. Where an MP has made a statement in the press on this issue or has a notable record of campaigning on this issue, the edits of the above users have been left intact. 86.31.253.5 (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. For the record I agree with the general feeling here and have removed a few on that basis. Blue Square Thing (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Why devolved?

The lede states, baldly and without citation, that "Marriage is a devolved issue in the United Kingdom". This may be true, but if so it'd be good to have both a reference and an explanation of why marriage is considered a devolved issue but the rights associated with civil partnerships are not. The Northern Ireland Assembly may have been suspended in 2004, but the Scottish Parliament certainly wasn't. --Jfruh (talk) 03:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Both marriage and civil partnership are devolved issues. In 2004, the Scottish parliament agreed for UK government's civil partnership bill via a Legislative Consent Motion. Ron 1987 (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

There are several threads at Template talk:Same-sex unions which mention devolution and the UK situation. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Article breakup

I think the article should be broken up into: Same-sex marriage in Scotland, Same-sex marriage in England and Wales, and Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland since there isn't one marriage law for all of the UK. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I've decided to be bold and start work on it, this article will be kept as an overview, and for Northern Ireland as I have no idea what is going n there. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure it's a good I dee and per Bold, revert, discuss have reverted twice for now (so Same-sex marriage in England and Wales is a redirect to this page). In view of the links between these subjects (the England and Wales law is actually a UK-law, also with provisions regarding recognition of Scottish law), I think it would also be good to have it apart… L.tak (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Brrr, and I have been reverted again… Me-, please discuss this further and see if you can get consensus before going on… L.tak (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it is fine for now, but as soon as one of them legalises SSM then it should be split into a separate article. So if Scotland legalises first then start a Same-sex marriage in Scotland, but until then it is fine as there is no difference at the moment. CH7i5 (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree completely. The United Kingdom is a sovereign state and is always represented as one in Wikipedia Articles. Splitting it up into separate articles is unnecessary and confusing. I would suggest having different sub-tobics for each constitutional area, with an introduction explaining that different parts of the United Kingdom each have different rules and legislations on gay marriage. It also means that if (and it's highly likely this WILL happen) all regions of the UK legalise same sex marriage then this article will have to be created again or, worse, left nonexistent creating confusion. Can I also point out that if gay marriage is legalised in England and Wales it is legalised in the United Kingdom. Maybe not all of it, but marriages taking place in England and Wales will have to be recognised by local governments in both Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Many thanks, Johnxsmith (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what amendments the House of Lords is considering, but the bill as passed by the House of Commons included clauses concerning Scotland and Northern Ireland: "a marriage of a same sex couple under the law of England and Wales is to be treated as a civil partnership formed under the law of England and Wales" - that is, local governments in both Scotland and Northern Ireland would not have to recognise a marriage, but a civil partnership. The relevant clauses are in Schedule 2 Part 1 of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

An overview of the situation in the UK, the UK being a sovereign state, is essential. Hence I am opposed to a split. That does not preclude articles covering Scottland and England & Wales and N. Ireland separately. It is certainly important enough for a fuller treatment.Dejvid (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I oppose the breaking up the article as well. The UK is not a federation, the government can overrule decisions made in separate parts of the country, so to treat them as legally distinct is a bad idea. The differences between the devolved states can be sufficiently covered in this article. Creating separate articles that repeat information from this page seems redundant to me, better make articles for specific legislation as in Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill. Hekerui (talk) 07:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Most readers will still want an overview article pertaining to the status of same-sex marriage throughout the U.K., so I disagree that the article should be broken up. I agree with Dejvid, however -- if someone wants to write an article much greater detail about the process in Scotland, for example, they are not precluded from doing so. But that doesn't eliminate the need for a main, overview article. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I support splitting it. I suggest four articles: Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom, Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland, Same-sex marriage in Scotland and Same-sex marriage in England and Wales. The latter three jurisdictions each have their own marriage laws. These could be summarised on the first (UK) page but detailed on their own pages. Civil partnerships could be covered on the UK page and their specific jurisdictional application on each jurisdiction's page. - AJF (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Nullity of Marraige Act 1971

Those working on this page may wish to edit Nullity of Marriage Act 1971. That article is now severely out of date and misleading following the passage of the [[Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. MrStoofer (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC:Split

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this RfC was not to split the article

Should we split this article into 3? i.e.

1 for England and Wales
1 for Scotland
1 for Northern Ireland

Op47 (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Any discussion in threaded discussion please.
Oppose. I came to the article because it has a long standing split tag. Personally, I don't thing the article should split. Unless and until the Scots vote on independence, the UK is a single country and attitudes etc. tend to be the same throughout. There may be the occasional anomaly in terms of law, but that doesn't mean we have to split this article up. I raised the RfC because when I read the discussion above, I didn't see a clear concensus one way or another and raised the RfC to form a clearer picture. Hope this helps. Op47 (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose-Likewise, I oppose splitting the article unless Scotland does abrogate the UK. This would warrant a several Scottish article. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Neutral I think each of the nation-specific sections should be spun off into its own article and the sections in this one shortened tremendously to a single paragraph each, as per Same-sex marriage in the United States which has subsidiary articles for Same-sex marriage in New York, Same-sex marriage in California, etc. This article is about legal codes instead of nations and it appears we're dealing with three independently functioning legal codes, each of which needs its own article. That said, this one should be maintained in shortened format. BlueSalix (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose I stand by my comments from last year, the regions are not run like a federation and articles on different legislation are sufficient unless we want to repeat that content on this difference in the proposed split articles. Hekerui (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Why 4? Welsh law concerning SSM is identical to English in all important respects - even the provisions of Section 8 of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (relating to the Church in Wales) are not bounded by any national borders. There is very little yet concerning NI except to note that the law there hasn't changed since CP became legal; SS couples marrying in England or Wales after 29 March 2014 will be treated in NI as CPs - as they will in Scotland, until Scotland passes its own law, which seems unlikely to fail. Since there is so little to write about NI, we really only have the potential for a two-way split. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

A thousand apologies, I misread the original proposal, it was for 3 i.e. England & Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Since no one has voted, I will correct the proposal and trust there are no hard feelings. If you really mean that you want 2 articles then I suggest that you say so with your vote. Op47 (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there a decent argument in favour of such a split? Is there a problem with the current situation?

The fact of the matter is that our readers will expect the natural place for discussion of marriage in this country to be located at the name of the only sovereign state, the United Kingdom. No other instance on Wikipedia that I am aware of is the main topic of SSM NOT under the title of the sovereign state; if we were to accept the above proposal there'd need to be a good argument as to why this case should be different.

In the absence of said argument this is really a discussion over whether there should be additional articles on the constituent provinces. But why would we need them? Given that barring hell freezing over England, Scotland and Wales will all soon have marriage equality there seems little reason to create separate articles now, given the information contained in them would simply be a duplication of what is in the main article here, it's not like this article is terribly long. Once it becomes law there's going to be little province-specific commentary to add that could not be represented in the main article. There may be an exception to this in the form of Northern Ireland, where the issue may drag on a little longer. But the UK is in Europe, we have a human rights court that traditionally does not permit civil rights to vary between provinces within any state. The Northern Ireland situation may not take that long to be resolved either. ChiZeroOne (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It sounds good in theory, but in fact there's enough in this article that's general to the U.K. (most of the Debate section, in particular), or at least that can't be neatly apportioned among a set of separate articles, to justify this article's continued existence as more than a portal to country-specific ones. And then, the amount of content specific to Scotland or to England and Wales doesn't seem so large as to scream for compartmentalization; and, for Northern Ireland, there's clearly no point. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Propose keeping it as one article until such time as the article length grows too long (don't think it has yet). If that happens then simply follow standard wikipedia practice of an overview article with "main article" links to each sub-topic. Canada and USA both have state- or province- level articles about the issue as well as a national overview and that approach could work here too. Probably not necessary just yet though. Thom2002 (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

PS Recognition of same-sex unions in Mexico is probably a good structure to copy if it ever reached to that. But they have ten jurisdications capable of making decisions about SSM rather than just three/four. Thom2002 (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The current arrangement seems sensible to me. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Scotland marriage "expected" start date

@Roscelese, Ron 1987, Htonl, and 121.216.21.186: Regarding the little edit war over when same-sex marriages are "expected" to start in Scotland. Let's start with: expected by whom? Is it not possible that some analysts expect them to start in autumn 2014 and some expect them not to occur till early 2015? One edit summary reads "They states not before 2015" while the next one reads "They said that at one point, but now they're saying around October." Was it the same "they", being first of one opinion and later revising it, or did the editors read two different sources with different analyses, neither overriding the other?

Further, the source that is currently cited says nothing about expectations: "The first gay and lesbian weddings could take place this autumn." Speculation as to possibility is not expectation.

Can someone determine whether all sources have by now reached a consensus or whether there is still a genuine diversity of opinion? In the latter case, the article ought to reflect that: "There is a diversity of opinion as to whether same-sex marriages will start as early as autumn 2014 or as late as early 2015," with footnotes validating the divergence.

As for the "if"/"when" issue over royal assent: "if" is a little silly given the number of centuries it's been since royal assent was denied, and given that it wasn't denied over same-sex marriage in England and Wales.

—Largo Plazo (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Earlier in the process, the Scottish Government predicted that the act would not come into force until 2015. Now they are saying that it will probably come in late in 2014. The BBC article which is the linked reference for that sentence says:

In Scotland, the government says it wants ceremonies to become available "as soon as possible".
The BBC understands that it will be October - at the earliest - before this happens.
By the end of 2014, Northern Ireland is expected to be the only part of the UK that does not allow same-sex marriage.

Similarly, PinkNews says:

The first same-sex marriages are expected to take place later this year after the Scottish Government pledged to speed up the implementation of the bill.

I don't know of any recent (i.e. post-passage) sources that are still saying 2015.

Incidentally, I'm not exactly inclined to assume good faith from the IP editor, given their repeated use of homophobic slurs in edit summaries. Is there some way we can get those summaries stricken from the history? - htonl (talk) 12:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The expectation referred to by the BBC, then, is the BBC's, or Glenn Campbell's. Pink News isn't helping us out, because they don't identify whose expectation they are relating. Note, I'm not saying the autumn 2014 project is inaccurate, I'm just saying that when a Wikipedia article says that something is "expected", it should state whose expectation it is. From these two articles, we have confirmation that the BBC expects it; Pink News leaves us empty.

No disagreement with you from me about the IP editor. I doubt the edits can be removed, but you can check WP:Oversight. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

In the debate on the third reading of the bill, the Cabinet Secretary for Health said:

The priority now is to get the secondary legislation in place and to get the amendments to the Equality Act 2010 agreed. I give that commitment to members—I cannot give a guarantee, because it depends on the amendments’ passage through Westminster, although I put on the record the excellent co-operation that we have had from Maria Miller and her officials in the UK Government. Following the passing of those amendments and the secondary legislation we will, ideally, see the first same-sex marriages in Scotland this year.

I guess that's the basis for the statement that it will probably happen before the end of the year. - htonl (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:OVERSIGHT is not necessary to hide an edit summary - WP:REVDEL, which is included in any admin's toolbox, can be used for this; but using it needs a valid reason. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)