Talk:Civil union

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.


Contents

[edit] Uruguay

Uruguayan legislative power has approved the Civil Union Law (September, 2007). The map should be modified in order to showing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.221.25.167 (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Could someone edit the map? Uruguayan civil unions were legalized this year (and Colombia only has some right, not civil unions).

[edit] Opposition to Civil Unions/Partnerships

Under the UK section it mentions nothing of opposition to Civil Unions. Furthurmore though it mentions the fact that many supposedly "feel it falls short of full equality", it has not mentioned the actual fact that many in the UK think it is too close to same-sex marriage and is in fact same-sex marriage in all but name. I also agree with the Neutrality section below. This article seems to hint that the straight people created civil unions to silence homosexuals.

As I remember it the UK Law passed with the support of all three main national political parties and the regional parties in Scotland and Wales. Only some of the parties in Northern Ireland opposed it. It is true that some Conservative banckbenchers in the House of Lords opposed the Bill but they were heavily defeated. There was no substantial opposition from any national newspaper that I recall. There were also no large demonstrations in the street. So where is the source for the "many in the UK think it is too close to same-sex marriage" view? Wilmot1 23:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

I'll admit I haven't read through this whole entry yet, but the opening doesn't sound very neuteral. It seems to be attempting to convey that Civil Unions are a horrible unequal thing used to make homosexuals shut up for a while. I'm sure many people would rebutt that idea.

[edit] Denmark

Could someone who knows more about Danish law update the Denmark section to say whether or not it applies to French, German, and Canadian citizens, for example? Is it a requirement to be a CITIZEN of Denmark, or merely a RESIDENT? The current section looks somewhat out of date. --Bhuck 07:24, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison with marriage

I'm curious - are the registered partnerships exactly the same as marriage, or some kind of variation designed to bestow equivalent legal and economic benefits, or what? (Note: this question is without prejudice to the issue of should gays marry.) I'm interested in seeing some comparisons between marriage (in the traditional heterosexual sense) and any and all variants, such as Vermont's civil union law. --Ed Poor

In Quebec, they supposedly are, although I am not an expert; except that you must be 18 (not 16), there are special laws for filiation, and they can be dissolved by notary if both partners consent and there are no children. Information about this should go in the article. - user:Montrealais

The exact text of the Vermont law reads, in relevant part: "Parties to a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage." This includes laws about title, probate, adoption, insurance, civil causes of action, medical care, family leave, taxes, public benefits, and others. Further, if one of the parties to a civil union becomes a natural parent during the civil union, the parties share the same rights and responsibilities of married parents toward the child. Family court handles dissolutions in the same manner as divorce of married couples--the statement in the article to the contrary is mistaken, and I'll remove it. --LDC

In Germany, registered partnerships still have less rights than marriages, as explained in the article. The leftist government couldn't pass full equality (which they want) without the opposition. AxelBoldt

In France, the Civil Union, known as PACS (pacte civil de solidarité) is less than a marriage. For once, it's easier to break. It also gives some of the immediat benefits of marriage (fill common taxes, which saves money except perhaps in some very specific cases) only after 3 years. It's open to heterosexual and homosexual couples alike.

I don't feel enough pumped up to write a piece on it. David.Monniaux 22:55, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Do remember that marriage has its history as a religious display. Regardless of whether or not it is legally recognized, it is still by its very nature a religious act, not a legal one. A Civil Union, (at least in the USA), originally termed a Civil Partnership, has its roots in common law granted by constitutionally implied protections of civil liberties for all "humans". --Lostinlodos 03:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Full Faith and Credence

The article states:

A Vermont civil union is nearly identical to a legal marriage. It carries the same rights and responsibilities, granting partners next-of-kin rights and other protections that heterosexual married couples take for granted. However, despite the "full faith and credit" clause of the United States Constitution, civil unions are generally not recognized outside of the state of Vermont in the absence of specific legislation. Opponents of the law have supported the Defense of Marriage Act and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment in order to prevent obligatory recognition of same-sex couple in other jurisdictions.

The words despite the "full faith and credit" clause of the United States Constitution convey the sense that civil unions really ought to be recognized by other states: additional legislation should not be needed. This is a popular point of view, but it is POV -- not an obvious and undisputed fact -- and should this be attributed to an advocate.

Say rather that some advocates -- or, better, name some person or group -- ...assert the the Full Faith and Credence clause obliges all states to recognize civil unions of other states.

You see, there's a constitutional question involved, as well as two opposing public relations and legal strategies. One side says, make civil unions, and then a same-sex union or "marriage" in one state is valid nationwide. The other side says, let's pass a law that keeps our state from having to recognize those same-sex unions.

The Wikipedia shouldn't endorse the strategy or legal POV of either side, but just report on how well each side is doing; and explain each side's legal arguments. --Uncle Ed 15:39, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Austria?

I'm not sure we've got Austria right here (I'm not sure Austria has civil unions). I can't find any information on civil unions in austria. Could someone check that Austria is listed correctly? Barnaby dawson 18:22, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

YES AUSTRIA RECOGNIZE COHABITATION BY SAME SEX. TTHI IS RESULT OF COURT DESISION IN 2003.IT EXTEND GAY RIGHTS FOR 45 BENEFITS. SINCE 1998 AUSTRIA RECOGNISED SOME RIGHT TO DECLINE DEPOSITIONS AGAINST PARTNER, AND COMMON APARTMENT with PARTNER. AFTER COURT DECISION THOSE RIGHTS ARE EXTEND FOR 45 MORE. MORE INFORMATIONS YOU CAN FIND IN "ILGA EUROPE" SIDE! THERE ARE LISTED ACTUAL INFORMATIONS ABOUT RECOGNITION OF SAME SEX COUPELS IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.

Actually, same-sex partners have almost no recognition in Austria. This is a mistake both in this article and in the map at Image:Samesex_Map_Europe.png; the issue could be considered "under consideration", since the Social Democrats introduced a bill to parliament this year which would legalize civil unions, but it will not pass since the ruling Christian Democrats don't want to - quote - "introduce a 2nd degree marriage". (POV) Bigots. (/POV) Anyway, point is: No civil unions in Austria. I'll remove them from the template, but someone else'll have to do the map, I haven't quite figured out how to do that yet. Nightstallion 11:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is not a question that civil unions are not extended _despite_ the full faith and credit clause. It is a staement of fact. Any contractual obligation that you might enter into is extended by that clause, if civil uinions are not that practice is presumptively unconstitutional. This staement should stand until the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of this practice.

[edit] Civil Unions versus Marriages

Not sure about whether there is a more accurate article, whether this is the right place for it, or whether there should be an article of its own. I've noted from being involved in my own country that there are some often significant debates over whether a LGBT community should pursue Civil Unions (or similar) rather than full Marriage.

Just curious as to whether we think something should be added at all and where. --S.P.Daly 23:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

ChrisTW 21:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Yes, I think this should top today's agenda. I've amended some of the Gay Marriage articles; "The framing of the debate around marriage in the United States may have been partly responsible for the defeat of a number of measures by sparking opposition from many conservative and religious groups. For example, in California, Schwarzenegger says he supports full legal protection for gay couples - but that the issue of gay marriage is best decided by the people or in the courts". Anyone familiar with social constructionism may share my view that this framing is a device guaranteed to raise the opposition of religious and conservative groups. The debate is about the legal rights of individuals who currently face discrimination by their governments, not about religious inclusion. Therefore, I believe it is important that discrimination is the central point of these articles, not religious inclusion.

anon: Some parts of this page are not neutral. Some people think that civil unions end anti-gay discrimination in states were gays cannot marry, some people think that civil unions cannot end anti-gay discrimination and that the only remedy to discrimination is to let gays marry. This page, at the time i write, does not report this... it communicates that civil unions end anti-gay discrimination. This is not neutral: it's wrong, unaccepptable. http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:213.156.52.107

ChrisTW 13:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC) If there is a debate, then the article should reflect it. Other contributions are requested.

ChrisTW 13:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Discrimination section has been reinserted to put the introduction of civil unions in their historical context. Whether Civil Unions END discrimination is indeed a matter of debate as not being able to Marry can be distinguished as religious discrimination.

[edit] Attacks in New Zealand?

Living in New Zealand, I can't remember "widespread attacks" during the Civil Union debate in our country. While this may be a matter of media reporting, I'd still like to know on what grounds the author of the New Zealand section asserts that there were widespread attacks. --S.P.Daly 23:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Nor can I. In any case I have moved most of it to the main article as I feel it is unnecessary. I'm sure most countries had protests of some kind but none of the others mention it and I feel it is unnecessary. The primary focus in this article should be about civil unions in these countries, when they were passed, under what bill, what they offer, differences between marriages etc as with the other countries. I have left one single statement about emotions although I personally think it should go Nil Einne 18:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
During the Enough is Enough rally in Wellington, there were many incidents of assault, and that night, people - presumed associated with the church - went looking for GLBT people in the city to beat up. One of my friends was one such unlucky chap. Mostly there were verbal attacks, and heated debate during this time. Enzedbrit 22:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research?

Too many of the facts and figures in this article are not cited. - Davodd 23:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Anything in particular? Crumbsucker 02:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

ChrisTW 21:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Obvious unreferenced facts have been removed. Please list others here, or correct and remove them. This is an important article in an historic debate.

[edit] Some parts are not Neutral point of View, i edit/cancel them

Some parts of this page are not neutral. Some people think that civil unions end anti-gay discrimination in states were gays cannot marry, some people think that civil unions cannot end anti-gay discrimination and that the only remedy to discrimination is to let gays marry. This page, at the time i write, does not report this... it communicates that civil unions end anti-gay discrimination. This is not neutral: it's wrong, unaccepptable. http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:213.156.52.107

[edit] Parts of Australia and Italy

The situation in the states of Australia and in the regions of Italy is difficult: some states in Australia and some regions in Italy have a recogniton and some states in that both countries not.

[edit] Opening doesn't make sense

"A civil union is a legal partnership agreement between two persons. They are typically created for same-sex couples with the purpose of granting them benefits that are found in marriage." Shouldn't the 2nd sentence say either:

They are typically created by same-sex couples for the purpose of gaining the benefits that are found in marriage.

or

Legislation for civil unions is typically created for same-sex couples with the purpose of granting them benefits that are found in marriage.

Also, the 1st sentence should distinguish civil unions from business (etc) partnerships. How about: A civil union is a legal partnership agreement between two persons, akin to, but usually different from, marriage. Nurg 11:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] i've corrected the introduction

It had a lot of errors inside, including Belgium adoption laws.

[edit] Chile and Uruguay need articles

Check this, Uruguay will pass a law shortly, and Chile later this year. —Nightstallion (?) 08:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section unity in value

It seems that the contents of this page are not divided appropriately.

The contents of the page are divided into sections in a way that does not show unity in value of each section. Sections 2-9 should be put as subsections of section one, as the sections 2-9 discuss different jurisdictions allowing civil unions. Sections 2-9 are not directly related to Civil Unions as much as they are to section one's topic of juristictions allowing civil unions.

An alternative to putting sections 2-9 as subsections of section one would be creating an entirely new page called "jurisdictions allowing civil unions".

ONeill 22:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Italian regions

The votes that has been held on coppie di fatto unions in some Italian regions, are only votes to support a national law, and not to create regional laws. Therefore, the map on same-sex recognition in Europe is wrong. However, some municipallies and cities have adopted coppie-di fatto laws. See http://www.arcigay.it/show.php?152

Maybe the map to Italy will be wrong, because in italian parliament is now a bill for civil unions in Italy in 2007...Prodi is good for Italy.

[edit] Reformatting

I've just done some extensive reformatting and rewriting of the introductory section and the "jurisdictions" section. I think the intro material is more clear and concise now; and the countries in the jurisdiction section are now in chronological order, per region. With the sidebox, I'm not sure the jurisdiction section is really needed, but I took what was there and tried to put it in a more logical arrangement.

The European map was already there; I've added 3 more good ones that I knew where to find.

I have a feeling that a number of the remaining sections could use updating and expanding, but this is all I can do for today. Just wanted to make the beginning parts easier to read and follow. Textorus 05:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Civil union"

This seems to be too public-sector a term for the practice of gay marriage-under-another-name. Also, it reminds one a bit too much of the civil wars of history books - or of municipalities and counties named Union - or even of the onion. Furthermore, it is a five syllable term, whereas "marriage" is a three-syllable term. Why not call them "espousals" or "espousas"? ("Espousal" is one of those Scrabble-dictionary and/or thesaurus and/or literary words meaning "marriage", but hardly anyone seems to use it except to sound chic or like smart alecks or artsy, so it might serve as a useful term to distinguish the same-sex variety of tying the knot from the different-sex version. 204.52.215.107 00:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the violation of WP:NOT (a soapbox), but felt I had to get this out of my system. 204.52.215.107 00:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "same sex"?

Are all civil unions really "same sex" as the article's lead now says? I am pretty sure that civil unions are available to opposite-sex couples (in addition to marriage) in many areas. DanB†DanD 00:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

YES. I debated that same question myself before I rewrote the article's lead paragraphs recently. But I found that it is a same-sex term (which conveniently avoids the dreaded "M" word, ha). This is not on my own authority, though: you can see 3 different dictionaries and their definition at [1]. However, some jurisdictions do offer domestic partnerships, with lesser status and benefits, to both kinds of couples; that's where the confusion comes in. --Textorus 01:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The Australian Capital Territory's proposal for civil unions would have applied equally to same-sex and opposite sex couples. The proposal was passed by the ACT's legislature however was overturned by the Federal Government. (see: Civil Unions Act 2006 ). I don't know about other jurisdictions. -- Adz|talk 05:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, the folks in the ACT didn't consult the dictionary. LOL. I suppose if and when that law does finally get passed, this article should so indicate; though of course, even in the ACT, it would still be a union expressly made to include same-sex couples in a marriage-like relationship. At the moment, in the U.S. and Canada civil unions are available only to same-sex couples, as far as I know. Other than the proposed law in the ACT, I'm not aware of any other countries using the term civil unions at this time.
But then there are domestic parterships, registered partnerships, civil partnerships, significant partnerships, reciprocral beneficiaries, stable unions, life partnerships, civil pacts, etc., etc., etc. Depending on the country, state, or city, some are marriage in everything but name; some are so lame they are hardly worth signing up for. Somebody ought to hold a World Naming Congress and get everybody to agree on consistent terminology here! But we don't have that yet. The times are a-changin' . . . but I think this article as currently stated is still correct at the moment.  :-) --Textorus 05:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Upon further research, let me correct myself. New Zealand, since April 2005, has also offered same-sex civil unions to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. (They didn't read the dictionary, either. Ha.) In fact, an opposite-sex married couple can even change their marriage to a civil union; though why anyone would want to is a mystery to me. So--I guess the definition in this article needs a little tweaking, after all. Darn it. I'll see what I can do with it. --Textorus 08:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems that while civil unions were legal in Quebec (before marriage was recognised) (see Civil unions in Quebec), the too applied to opposite-sex as well as same-sex couples. because it is a relatively new term only gradually being adopted, or 'invented' by different jurisdictions, I'd say that perhaps the dictionaries are getting a bit ahead of themselves by defining a term that is obviously still being defined by lawmakers. ... And why New Zealanders, or Canberrans, or Quebecois for that matter would want to consult U.S. dictionaries when developing terms for their laws, is a mystery to me. Even before you factor in language (the Quebecois speak French), legal and political terms often have slightly different meanings in different jurisdictions. -- Adz|talk 09:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I was just MAKING A DAMN JOKE, Adz. Lighten up. Sheesh! I've just worked 2 hours rewriting this effing definition. If you want to pick it apart and rewrite the article, you just go right ahead and be my guest, buddy. I'm done with it.  :-| --Textorus 09:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes they are also between Men and Women. I, a man, had a legal Civil Union to a women preformed. They exist and are more common then the article states. --Lostinlodos 03:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

THERE ARE NO SAME_SEX UNIONS IN PORTUGAL, MAP IS INCORRECT —Preceding unsigned comment added by BolinhasFofas (talk • contribs) 20:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revised definition

Okay, folks, see what you think of this version. The dictionaries will just have to catch up with Wikipedia now.  :-) --Textorus 09:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US History is incorrect

In the USA, the premise of the civil union dates back to the early 1800s. NOT the 1980s-2000s, as the article indicates. I believe, but can't verify, that the same goes for England. They were adopted to allow owners of slaves to join legally with the intention of children. The earliest record I have found was in North Carolina, on public record in the State Archives Library, dated 1802. There are Texas records of a Mexican/Caucasian union being granted in the "Spanish Territory" or "Republic of Texas" in 1839 as well. In the US, the practice was of much debate during the "Civil War" but after the national liberation of blacks, became a way for whites and blacks to have inter-racial relations with many of the same protections of marriage. They were used in the 1970s in the US to help soldiers gain citizenship for the women they brought back with them from the Vietnam war. In most states, at the time, the bonding required in a civil union granted permanent residency status: a fast-track to guaranteed citizenship. Only in the last 10 years has the issue involved same-sex relations to any publicized degree in the US. This whole article seems to miss the more than 200 year history involved in this topic.--Lostinlodos 03:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image of Mitterand and Kohl

What's this image doing in the France section of the article?

Image:Mitterrand and Kohl in Verdun 1984.jpeg
François Mitterrand of France with Germany's Helmut Kohl in 1984. 'Civil pacts' under French law and 'life partnerships' under German law are available for samesex couples in their respective countries.

Although the caption makes the image sound like it has some connection to the text, really, it has nothing to do with the legal recognition of same-sex couples at all. It appears to be the leaders of France and Germany at some sort of commemoration ceremony (a war memorial?). I would suggest therefore that the image be removed and be replaced with one with some connection to same-sex marriage. (Maybe an image relating to the passage of the law in question?)--SJK 21:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] South Africa

Is there any way we can include civil unions in South Africa today? The current article makes it look like they were superseded by same-sex marriage, but according to the Same-sex marriage in South Africa article, couples can still choose to enter a civil union (or a marriage). Carolynparrishfan 01:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civil Unions in Argentina

I updated the information on Argentina. It has long been reported that the province of Rio Negro recognizes civil unions, but this is the not the case. The legislature in the province did indeed pass the legislation recognizing civil unions, but the office that records such unions never drew up the code, in effect never bringing the law into effect.

[edit] Revert incorrect edits

I just reverted 2 incorrect factual edits by an anonymous editor.

The New Jersey DP law is now limited to couples 62 and older; see Civil unions in New Jersey.

And since New Jersey has civil unions, it is correct to refer to CU's in East Coast states, not merely New England.Textorus (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)