Talk:Timeline of same-sex marriage

message: Now I don't pretend to be a scholar of this material, but it sounds to me like the writer is mocking Antonius for being treated like a woman by his boy prostitute (Curio the younger). This is a series of statements attacking Antonius for his "debauchery," connected with his bankruptcy. 
Given the attitudes toward pederasty in those days [as I understand it, it was socially acceptable for a civil superior male to take another male as his sexual "partner" so long as that other male was a social inferior, and this relationship would be seen as temporary and the superior would still be eventually expected to marry a woman and produce a child for the good of the state] it would seem to both confirm the existence of ancient "same sex relationships" but also show that they were given a very different form and focus [concubinage], including societal attitudes, compare to modern civil unions [a permanent partnership between equals].
Or is there a different translation that gives a different impression?
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.243.213 (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Cicero Reference

message: Can someone change the order of dates to be chronological rather than reverse chronological?
--Unsigned by User:128.86.161.137 on 1 September 2006 at 05:58.
2013 should be above everything, I hate rolling all the time when I want to read about the newest event, why it can't be like it was in the past? More important is what was few days ago not in Ancient times.
:Because timelines begin with the past and build towards the present. It would be easy if you just click 2013 in the Table of Contents. Teammm  19:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronological?

message: I tweaked two of the lines, to state "in modern history". John Boswell's book Same-sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe discusses marriage contracts et al. throughout Christian history. samwaltz 20:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Love to see some info on pre-modern same sex marriage. There's a lot more history there. --76.192.185.140 (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre-Modern History

message: Can things like "Uganda and Latvia amend their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage." really be said to be significant steps towards legal recognition of same-sex couples? I think a different title would be more appropriate for this list of events. René van Buuren 08:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Significant steps towards legal recognition?

message: 35 years ago, in 1972, the State Convention of the Minnesota DFL Party added  a plank to their platform supporting equal marriage rights for all adults.  As far as I can tell, that is the first time a major political party in the US has taken such a stand, and made it part of their party platform.
Question: is that considered 'progress toward same-sex marriage', and something worthy of being added to this page? T-bonham 09:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Political Support?

message: So I added Takei, he's got pictures on his website of him and Brad getting their license.  But it occurred to me they aren't holding a full-fledged ceremony until September.  So I won't be too upset if someone reverts it, but I'm still wondering what we're talking about - the license or the ceremony.
I'd actually say the license is more important, otherwise there would already be tons of people on the list because gay couples have been having commitment ceremonies for decades (probably centuries), it's just the matter of legal recognition that is disputed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.125.219 (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: License vs. ceremony

message: Should the Coquille Indian Tribe recognizing same-sex marriage be on there???Rump1234 (talk) 05:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Coquille Indian Tribe

message: Is this worth including? --Another Believer (Talk) 22:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  D.C. Council Votes to Recognize Other States' Gay Marriages 

message: This article is already pretty long, and it does not help that many things are listed twice, for instance:
* May 1: Same-sex marriage becomes legal in Sweden.
* April 1: Sweden legalizes same-sex marriage.
Is it really relevant exactly when the legalization took place? The important date should be the one at which people could actually start getting married. If there are no objections, I would remove legalization dates. --KarlFrei (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Legalization dates are important, IMO, but they don't need to be bolded. I think that bolding the date that the law comes into affect is good enough. --haha169 (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  many events listed twice 

message: The statement that Roman same-sex marriage used the same ceremony as other marriages is footnoted (#54 when I write this) with a description of Nero marrying a boy.  Since both referenced descriptions of Nero's homosexual marriages (by Cassius Dio and Suetonius) are in the context of how evil and perverted Nero was, these are not descriptions of common Roman practice.  The sentence ought to be removed or the footnote should be changed to give proper support.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgwicklund (talk • contribs) 18:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be an important reference as a historical precedent and also in showing certain ancient attitudes towards the institution (in my view). An Emperor's actions and then the reaction towards those actions by the historian. I'm in favor of the reference, so long as that context is understood.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.243.213 (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before 1970 -- Same-sex marriage in ancient Rome 

message: * Schweizer Fernsehen:Liechtenstein:Ja zur Homo-Ehe
On March 16, 2011, Liechtenstein parliamant passed legislation to allow civil unions. 92.252.112.31 (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liechtenstein allows civil unions 

message: The list is getting too big and not all of the events are that important, because some of them refer to the same thing. For example there are events that state: "the assembly of x state passes a bill to legalize same-sex marriag"e; then in another event two or three days later "the senate of x state passes a bill to legalize same-sex marrige"; then in another event "The governor of x state signs the same-sex marriage bill into law"; then the last one "Same-sex marriages become legal in X state". So there are four entries regarding the same event. Things like that are getting the list overpopulated. I think we should only include two entries for every event: the day the bill was finally legalized (we can say in the same entry when was the bill approved in the different houses, this one should focus on the day the bill was signed or definitely approved), the other entry should be the day the bill come into effect.
Because this list includes events in the entire world, and making it to big could make it confusing. Also, there's already another one that lists events regarding same-sex marriage in the US only, that one should be the one updated with every vote's date, pou can find it here.
If nobody minds, I volunteer to help reorganize this list (: --DrkFrdric (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the list should be shortened. Removing a lot of the unnecessary and unreferenced info is a very good idea. Thanks for volunteering! Be sure to only bold statements like "Same sex marriage becomes legal in X", where X is a country or state. This will help readers to identify the most important events each year. Del♉sion23 (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For the clean up, I'd start (a) by removing unreferenced items, (b) by removing items about 'stays' and other legal steps in on-going cases, (c) collapsing multiple items into one when they're just steps in passing a law, (d) where items are long and an independent article exists, trim the article and link to the article and (e) trim items which are sub-national. It may also be worth using country flag images. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Another idea is to only include the events when same-sex marriage is constitutionally banned, not the ones when is banned only by statute. This because the list must give a worldwide view, but if we add 50 different events regarding statutes in U.S. states the list will become confusing for non-american readers. Constitutional amendments are more important and definitive so I think those are the only events that should be listed. --DrkFrdric (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganizing events

message: I think we should remove the events that talk about officials who decided to conduct same-sex marriages and that were later invalidated. Because there are a lot of these and almost all of them were invalidated, so they weren't an advance in same-sex marriage. Maybe we could left the first one, or the ones that gathered the most of the attention, but there are a lot and they don't help to make the list better. Because if do accept those events, then we should accept a lot more that aren't cited (two marriages in vietnam, one in china, like 3 in france, and we don't know how many more). These are not relevant events in this list because they were not conducted in a legal framework, but by "rogue" officials. As before, I volunteer to help with this. --DrkFrdric (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Another idea is to only include the events when same-sex marriage is constitutionally banned, not the ones when is banned only by statute. This because the list must give a worldwide view, but if we add 50 different events regarding statutes in U.S. states the list will become confusing for non-american readers. Constitutional amendments are more important and definitive so I think those are the only events that should be listed. --DrkFrdric (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Invalid marriages

message: Should we include the events ehen unregistered cohabitations were legalized? Because there have been a lot of countries that approved those schemes (although the majority of them have since legalized civil unions or same-sex marriage)? I think we shouldn't, the only exception being the first time a country approved ir (the Netherlands), because as I said, the majority of those bills are now dead, being replaced by others; only the first one can be considered a historic event. --DrkFrdric (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Unregistered cohabitation

message: Some time ago three islands became municipalities of netherlands, those municipalities are ultramar territories of the that European State, (different from countries that form part of the Kingdom of Netherlands, but are independent). The way that event is highlighted is confusing, you may think that a new country legalizes Same-sex Marriage, maybe what happened is that authorities in Amsterdam remembered to islander authorities that the have to grant same-sex marriage as the are already part of the Netherlands State.  I suggest explaining better this issue, it is true that in 2001 when dutch same-sex marriage were legalised those three islands in the Caribeean had another status and not recognized SSM, and in 2010 they became administrative territories of Netherlands, accepting other legislation and geographically given the chance to gay and lesbians to legally marry in the Caribbean.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.244.203.249 (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: 10 Oct 2012:Caribbean Netherlands

message: It is lacking the brazilian states of Alagoas, Bahia and Piaui!! And Saba on the timeline!!!!!
Here are the links:
Bahia:
http://g1.globo.com/bahia/noticia/2012/12/forum-realiza-primeiro-casamento-civil-entre-homossexuais-em-salvador.html
 
g1.globo.com/bahia/noticia/2012/11/casais-gays-ja-podem-oficializar-casamento-em-cartorios-da-bahia.html http://www.vermelho.org.br/se/noticia.php?id_secao=58&id_noticia=199862
 
Piauí: http://g1.globo.com/pi/piaui/noticia/2012/12/tj-regulamentara-pedidos-de-casamento-de-casais-homossexuais.html
 
http://g1.globo.com/pi/piaui/noticia/2012/12/corregedoria-do-tj-regulamenta-casamento-homoafetivo-no-piaui.html
 
Sao Paulo: http://g1.globo.com/sao-paulo/noticia/2012/12/tribunal-divulga-norma-que-regulamenta-casamento-gay-em-sp.html
 
http://www.jcnet.com.br/Nacional/2012/12/norma-do-tj-obriga-cartorios-de-sp-a-registrar-casamento-gay.html
 
Saba:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/15/saba-legalizes-gay-marria_n_2306870.html
--189.104.29.5 (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is lacking the brazilian states of Alagoas, Bahia and Piaui!! And Saba on the timeline!!!!! 

message: I don't understand why are the American Indian tribes (such as the Odawa Indians) included in the chronological list and why does it lack much bigger and populous entities such as the Brazilian states of Sergipe, Piaui, Alagoas, Espirito Santo and the Federal District. This is discrimination, English language sources are deemed as more credible than non English language ones.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.171.153.130 (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I spliced in the blurbs from the Recognition of same-sex unions in Brazil article Dralwik|Have a Chat 16:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odawa Indians vs Brazilian states and Federal District 

message: According to CNN México, after the initial two weddings in Quintana Roo, on November 2011, any other wedding has been held in this state, despite the statement of Government Secretary in May 2012, telling that has no legal impediment to perform gay weddings.
The civil registries argues that has no instructions from state authority to accept this marriages.
"Luis Alberto González Flores, government secretary of the state, said in an interview that Quintana Roo isn't an entity which allow same-sex marriages, and even acknowledged that in law there is no legal impediment to celebrate such weddings are municipal civil registries that will determine whether to accept or not to celebrate marriages."
In these conditions, ¿is really recognized the gay marriage right in Quintana Roo? ¿Does it make sense to keep it on the list?
http://mexico.cnn.com/nacional/2012/12/07/la-resolucion-de-la-corte-motiva-a-parejas-del-mismo-sexo-a-ampararse (in spanish, December 2012) Paucazorla (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems in Quintana Roo 

message: I'm confused as to why Andorra is not listed as third country worldwide to legalize same-sex marriage.  Do principalities not count as countries (even though they have their own legislation, passports, etc.)?
JoOleaN (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: See Recognition of same-sex unions in Andorra. Andorra has not yet legalized same-sex marriage.--В и к и T  20:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andorra 

message: what about same-sex marriages conducted in territories controlled by armed movements, e.g. http://www.gmax.co.za/look05/02/08-phillipines.html ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.245.69.178 (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Liberated" Territories 

message: Ok, we all agree that as to clarify the posts we have to put all the infos such as intentions of voting, lower house's votes and upper house's votes as they go, yet when gay marriage is legalised we put all of them together in one post. But what's considered the last post ? Is it when the Bill is being voted as law, when it's signed by the executive, or when it's effectively enforced and marriages can happens ? Because there's examples of each of those in this Article. We should settle this. I propose that by now we put them by date of the Bill being voted into law, as it's the turning point and the rest is only proceedings.--Aréat (talk) 09:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not always the case. Presidents have vetoed same-sex unions laws before. The point is to include the date where the definitive "yes" has been given. For example, in New Zealand, it received Royal Assent two days later, but the Deputy Prime Minister couldn't refuse to give Royal Assent to the law, so the final "yes" was the one given to Parliament, the same goes for Uruguay. In other countries, like France, the President has the final "yes", in this case by having the possibility to call a new vote by parliament. --Freddy eduardo (talk) 13:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uruguay's president can veto a law, as did the previous president on an abortion law that was already passed in both the lower and upper house in 2008. As for New Zealand, the Governor-General has the power to withhold the Royal Assent, even if he never do so. It's the same in France, the president can't refuse to sign a law, he only can make it go through parliament for an other round, yet it never happened in the whole fifth republic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aréat (talk • contribs) 20:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in New Zealand a bill cannot be denied Royal Assent except in exceptional circumstances – specifically if democracy were to be abolished; which wasn't the case, so the third reading was actually the final "yes". --Freddy eduardo (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordered by which date ? 

message: Now that Brazil has legalized same-sex marriage in the entire country, we should merge the entries for each of it states, they take a lot of space, and the main event is the legalization of same-sex marriage in Brazil, which is already included. I think we should just let the first entry, that would be Alagoas, and include in it something like "Other states followed suit: Rondania (May 2013), blablabla"; or we could also include it in the entry of the Supreme Court legalization of civil unions. I think the first option is better. We have an antecedent for this, i.e. Canada, many regions legalized same-sex marriage before the entire country, but we don't include it, because the main event is obviously the legalization in that country. If no one is against the idea, I will merge the entries in the coming days, this timeline is really big already, not too comfortable for readers. --Freddy eduardo (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly oppose. Each legalization should be noted in this timeline. Ron 1987 (talk) 02:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

text: I agree, as long as we redirect to the "Same-sex marriage in Brazil" page which has its own timeline.--Aréat (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Brazilian jurisdictions

message: Last week an appellate court in Florence has overruled the lowers court decision. However, the court didn't rule on the constitutionality of the marriage, but insisted that the couple sued the wrong agency. The judges sent the case back to the Civil Court of Grosseto. (http://www.gay.it/news/Annullata-la-sentenza-di-Grosseto-in-Appello--Alfano-contro-Merola) I didn't change the article on my own, because I wasn't sure how you handle those kind of things.Olliyeah (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grosseto (Italy) 

message: From what I understand the Nordic countries include both the Faroe Islands and Greenland; two countries without SSM. Should we add a footnote denoting how SSM isn't legal there (and maybe that civil unions, however, are)? Bezuidenhout (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Finland last of the Nordic countries" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Timeline of same-sex marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091211190349/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/lt_argentina_gay_marriage to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/lt_argentina_gay_marriage
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100704155648/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hSl5aRhJRk0Y00xcnrpK-4eWlz0gD9GLP4484 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hSl5aRhJRk0Y00xcnrpK-4eWlz0gD9GLP4484
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Timeline of same-sex marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121107062239/http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/07/maine-votes-in-favor-of-legalizing-gay-marriage/ to http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/07/maine-votes-in-favor-of-legalizing-gay-marriage/
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.npr.org/2014/02/13/276637801/judge-declares-va-same-sex-marriage-ban-unconstitutional
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Timeline of same-sex marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120119105757/http://www.centredaily.com/2011/01/31/2488574/illinois-governor-signs-historic.html to http://www.centredaily.com/2011/01/31/2488574/illinois-governor-signs-historic.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110628195443/http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7443148.html to http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7443148.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Timeline of same-sex marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.elcomercio.com/tendencias/azuay-glbti-matrimonio-homosexual-cuenca.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Timeline of same-sex marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140322001844/http://www.gbc.gi/news/3422/civil-partnerships-bill-passed-in-parliament to http://www.gbc.gi/news/3422/civil-partnerships-bill-passed-in-parliament
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141015083610/http://www.conseil-etat.public.lu/fr/ordre-jour/oj140624.html to http://www.conseil-etat.public.lu/fr/ordre-jour/oj140624.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Timeline of same-sex marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303172043/https://same-sex.web.ined.fr/pdf/DocTrav125/05Doc125TheNetherlands.pdf to https://same-sex.web.ined.fr/pdf/DocTrav125/05Doc125TheNetherlands.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150627081218/http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca:80/english/publications/generale/union-civ-a.htm to http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/english/publications/generale/union-civ-a.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ilga-europe.org/content/download/10988/65125/file/Andorra
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130525104444/http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/3286/Victorian-Relationship-Register-Opens-Today.htm to http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/3286/Victorian-Relationship-Register-Opens-Today.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121018225250/http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2008_general/sov_complete.pdf to http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2008_general/sov_complete.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gftV6RnfBC8iPPWGM0SGQeNLiC6QD9E71J3G0
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121022222722/http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/nswbills.nsf/7bd7da67ee5a02c5ca256e67000c8755/57f8af30e6a0d630ca25770d001af7dc?OpenDocument to http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/nswbills.nsf/7bd7da67ee5a02c5ca256e67000c8755/57f8af30e6a0d630ca25770d001af7dc?OpenDocument
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927065759/http://www5.tjba.jus.br/corregedoria/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=420:uniaohomoafetiva&catid=31:noticias&Itemid=142 to http://www5.tjba.jus.br/corregedoria/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=420:uniaohomoafetiva&catid=31:noticias&Itemid=142
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141015083610/http://www.conseil-etat.public.lu/fr/ordre-jour/oj140624.html to http://www.conseil-etat.public.lu/fr/ordre-jour/oj140624.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/landmark-as-same-sex-union-bill-signed-off/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Per the introduction this page is for significant events, not necessarily "only successful changes", therefore I readded the failure of a constitutional amendment in Baja California. Hekerui (talk) 08:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Criteria for addition

message: Is the fact that this is missing Elisa & Marcela, the First same-sex marriage in Spain, just an oversight, or is there some reason they are not included? I cannot find any discussion of this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.82 (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Elisa & Marcela, the first same-sex marriage in Spain 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Since I found the wording of that paragraph a bit weird, I checked out the article linked and after a DeepL translation from Swedish, it seems that the Bride herself came to the priest and noted that she suspected her husband of actually being a woman, which led to the arrest of Jens.
Not sure if a same sex marriage should be counted as such when one party wasn't aware of it being such, not to mention that, if one says Jens was indeed a male, it was a Hetero marriage anyhow. 193.124.77.173 (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jens Anderssen Fraudulent/Actually Hetero Marriage 

message: At least two of the litigants seem to believe that SSM is now legal, but it'll be next week before we know for sure. If we don't get news of couples actually marrying (tomorrow' a fed holiday), then something's wrong. — kwami (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nepal 

message: According to the article Same-sex marriage in Nepal Same-sex marriage is now legal in Nepal (and has been since November 29th). Multiple sources are cited there: 
*  
*  
* 
Perhaps this information should be added in this article as well. BenG 22:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nepal - now legal?