File talk:Constitutional bans on same-sex unions by country.svg

Hi. Removing this as OR from WP-en. While you say grey means no "specific" ban on SS unions, the qualification is arbitrary. Some of the red countries speak of marriage between a man and a woman rather than directly banning SSM. Many of the grey countries have constitutionally mandated Islamic law, which is a de facto ban. Algeria, which is an avowedly secular state, nonetheless has a constitutional ban on any law that would violate islamic morals, which would include SSM. I could see them being coded with a different color, though. Also, I suspect that a lot of the grey states are simply ones that you've found no info for, and should really be a different color for 'unknown'. Kwamikagami (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey, are these actually all constitutional bans, or sometimes just national legislative bans? Kwamikagami (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Sharia

Sharia, and e.g. countries like Algeria w/o sharia but which ban anything that violates "Muslim" morality, are bans on SSM, so adding them. Striped where the laws apply only to Muslims.

Also fixed Mongolia, Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador per the WP-en articles, and removed a bunch of dots from uninhabited islands. Kwamikagami (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

DRC

What's the source for the ban in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? It's always been in grey "no specific law" on such maps before, and I haven't heard of a recent legislation. --Aréat (talk) 03:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

According to WP-en, banned since 2006: article 40, in the current Congolese constitution, states that "Every individual has the right to marry the person of their choice, of the opposite sex". Kwamikagami (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Striped cases

It's noted that striped countries ban same-sex marriage only for Muslims, but if you look into it, those countries also ban same-sex marriage for non-Muslims as well. What's the distinction here? Also does it make sense to emphasize Islam from an information presentation purpose if non-Muslim nations are also banning same-sex marriage? --Saledomo (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

This is for constitutional bans, including constitutionally-mandated Islamic law. The latter often only applies to Muslims. If you know of theocracies of other religions that have a similar situation, we can certainly add them. I suppose Israel and the Vatican might, but that seems to be stretching it.

I changed the title of this file. Otherwise it would just be a negative of the marriage map. Kwamikagami (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Romania

Romania should be red since following a decision of the Romanian Constitutional Court, it is clear that SSM is banned by Constitution. The decision I mentioned is Decision No.539 from 17 September 2018 [1] in which the Constitutional Court affirms that the original meaning of the term "spouses" (between whom the marriage can be officiated) is actually "a man and a woman" since the intention of Constitutional lawmaker wasn't to allow SSM. I translated the relevant paragraph from the decision: After an analysis of the compatibility between the proposed [constitutional] modification with the content of paragraph (2) of the article 152 from the Constitution, regarding the interdiction of suppression of rights and fundamental freedoms or of their guarantees, the Court examined article 48 paragraph (1) from Constitution in the state which was proposed by those who initiated the modification bill [(The family is founded on the freely consented marriage of _the spouses_ a man and a woman, their full equality, as well as the right and duty of the parents to ensure the upbringing, education and instruction of their children.)] in the view of the definition of the term "to suppress". Through replacing the phrase „of spouses” with the phrase „of a man and a woman” it is accomplished only specification in regard of exerting the constitutional right of marriage, in the way that it expressly establishes the fact that it [marriage] is officiated between partners of opposite biological sex,thus been, moreover, exactly the original meaning of the text contained in the Constitution of 1991 [the actual Constitution].--JOrb (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, the decisions of the Constitutional Court are final and generally binding. I wrote more about the status of SSM in Romania in Talk:Same-sex marriage.--JOrb (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Sharia

I am not an expert on Sharia or Islam or international law, but I am concerned that the way this is highlighted on the map unnecessarily stigmatizes Muslim-majority countries and by extension Muslims. I wouldn't be surprised if same-sex marriage is banned in those countries (though perhaps a better citation is needed), but why is another color necessary? If we are concerned about an established "religion," why are we singling out Islam? Aren't most bans on same-sex marriage religious in intent? (Note I put religion in quotes b/c religion isn't always/doesn't have to be homophobic) -TenorTwelve (talk) 09:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Because, apart from the Vatican, the only theocratic states are Muslim. Another color is necessary because these aren't clear bans: it's only an interpretation of Islamic law that it bans SSM, and theoretically a court could determine that it isn't banned after all. That's different from constitutional bans, where in many cases marriage is specifically defined as man + woman in order to prevent SSM. Though in the case of Nigeria, I think that the federal constitutional ban should probably trump state sharia, so the brown in the north should probably be removed. Kwamikagami (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Poland

The Supreme Administrative Court said in the reasoning to one of its rulings that Poland does not have a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, but it remains prohibited as the family law of the country defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman. The Constitutional Tribunal seems to disagree, so I'd simply create a category of "uncertain" for this case. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki: I agree with you. Whether same-sex marriages (or even civil unions) are prohibited by the Polish Constitution remains a very, very controversial issue among lawyers (not to mention politicians...); the "uncertain" category may be the best option. "No ban" is simply misleading in Poland's case (as long as the Constitution "protects marriage as an union between a woman and a man"). BasileusAutokratorPL (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be fixed with the 6 November 2022 modification. Not the way I think is the best but better than what used to be. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)