Talk:Same-sex marriage in Spain/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

By February

This article says gay marriages were expected to become law by February but I haven't heard anything about that yet. Does anyone know anything?

When is it legal?

According to the BBC, 'the bill will become law in a month's time'; currently the article says it became law today. Does anyone have an authoritative source on this? Radagast June 30, 2005 12:00 (UTC)

Update- another source: The first marriages of gay couples can begin after the law is published in Spain's official journal, expected as early as 15 days, gay rights activists said.

Radagast June 30, 2005 14:03 (UTC)

Royal Assent?

Does Juan Carlos have to (ceremonially) assent to the bill (as Elizabeth II does in the UK)? (Alphaboi867 30 June 2005 17:23 (UTC))

I belive under the Spanish consititution the king can with-hold Royal Assent and effect a veto, but as time has shown the king did give his Royal Assent to the act. Drachenfyre 00:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
According to the Spanish Constitution, all the official tasks performed by the king or queen must be cosigned by the real responsible of it (the President of the Parliament, or of the Government). No provision is made regarding a veto. In fact, the royal sanction of the laws is just symbolic in practice. Something like the King of Beligium resiging for some hours to avoid the Abortion law assent is just inconceivable in the Spanish Constitution.

Your'e going too far and giving Gay people bad press

You have enough rights and this takes it too far. It's overkill and your wasting your time. There is no reason to be married. Give me good resons and I will listen fairly. Try to hold on to what you have. There is no reason to waste time with the Gay Marriage oxymoron. Your're trying too hard. I can't believe you want to force straight children around homosexual sex activities like kissing and holding etc. 95 percent of people are not gay and are repulsed by these things while gay people are not repulsed by non-gay activites. With marrage it would be near impossible to take the child away from the family if they arre repulsed.

No, 95 percent of the population is not repulsed by it, you are--whoever you are. In the article it says that a poll showed that the measure was favored by 66 percent in Spain. Roy 1 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)
This is still Wikipedia and this comment is first of all not in any way regarding the article and second of all if it WERE a comment on the article, it would be a gross violation of NPOV. In short: Take your homophobic BS and away from Wikipedia and go voice your opinion on some messageboard. Robrecht 1 July 2005 22:27 (UTC)

The 'Reaction' section seems a bit one sides doesn't it?

I mean, the entire section talks mostly about people who are AGAINST this measure, despite the fact that the first line states that 66% of the population seems to be in favour.

Is the person who added (to) this section trying to make a one-sided representation of facts?

Maybe. But even in that case, what else is there to say about those in favor of the new law? I'm Spanish and I'm in favor of the new law, but I don't know what else could be said. There has been a lot of criticism against the new law, including at least two demonstrations, but really, those of us in favor of the change can do little more than feel happy about it.--Pecholobo 2 July 2005 14:44 (UTC)

Position of the parties

Something should be said about the position of each of the major parties.

Marriage Numbers

[User: Crumbsucker] keeps removing factual data about total number of marriages in Spain per year, which is, IMHO, relevant to the topic, and essential for verifying the claims from both the politic Zerolo, and the conservative opposition, who weren't critic about gay marriage, but about technical aspects of the law, for example that the urgency in the approval of the law was excessive and unjustified because the few people that would actually benefit from it.

I don't think that showing factual data from one verifiable source clasifies as Original Research, and don't understand why I can't compare data from a full year with data from a part of that year. Instead of removing the data, Crumbsucker should have multiplied the result by 1.5 (data from 9 months). Trying to hide this info would be POV.

I will reinsert the link once again. If someone has a better link with more recent data, (and more focused in the total number of marriages) it would be great. A better way would be to include only the data per year in the article, and the link in a References section. DrJones 14:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually, I'm going to rewrite the section and clarify the numbers, because as it is, it is definitely Original Research. You are comparing incomplete data of less than a year to complete data from previous years (that have different numbers) to calculate a percentage, a very flawed method. Instead, you have should give the full numbers of the previous years and let the numbers stand on their own. BTW, the conservative opposition isn't critical of same-sex marriage? Since when? They are challenging it in court, wasting time and money. Crumbsucker 23:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The conservative opposition actually tried to approve a law that allowed same-sex marriages when they were elected on 1996-2000, but the opposition (the socialist party) managed to derail it. Current opposition is (as far as I know) due to technical aspects (undesirable side effects) of the law, which are probably related with the accusations about the law being done in a rush and carelessly. Mariano Rajoy, from the opposition, has stated that he compromises to fix the mess if his party wins the next elections.
I remember that one of the issues that came up was that the only arguments given in favour of same-sex marriages were also applicable to zoophilia, pedophilia and polygamy, which is currently forbidden. Approving the law as is leave the judges without arguments to oppose them. The answer of the government was to reprimand the judges for coming up with the issue. DrJones 22:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if those challenges on court are indeed well funded, but because the ruling party has already approved laws that go against the constitution, I can't trust either side. The statistics given by Zerolo should be treated with scepticism, too, because recently the socialist party (to which he belongs) has been accused by the media of continuously falsificating them.
Just to point that the above paragraph is merely informative (to state my personal concerns about this issue), and doesn't intend to start a discussion about politics and other controversies. DrJones 22:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I noticed that the article I linked to claims (near the end of the article) a very different number of same-sex marriages than this article, so I'll try to find a first source for this. DrJones 15:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)



I'd like to make a few comments about the recent posts here:

'The conservative opposition actually tried to approve a law that allowed same-sex marriages when they were elected on 1996-2000, but the opposition (the socialist party) managed to derail it'.

Sorry, this is not entirely true. The opposition submitted a proposition not of law to regularize same-sex unions, and the Popular Party systematically shot it down. The Popular Party made a proposition that left partners and their children wildly unprotected before the law, and that was what was derailed. It wasn't going to 'allow same-sex marriages' by a long shot.

'The statistics given by Zerolo should be treated with scepticism, too, because recently the socialist party (to which he belongs) has been accused by the media of continuously falsificating them'.

You mean COPE radio, which belongs to the Episcopalian Conference. Not even La Razon questioned those figures, and limited themslves to reproduce them (it surprised me too!). So it's just one media questioning those figures, and it wouldn't take a great stretch of imagination to thing they might be the tiny part biased (they belong to the Catholic Church), huh? The only source we have for the number of same sex marriages, like it or not, comes from the government. The media don't have access to the same data as they do. I suggest we limit ourselves to reproduce it. After all, it's an official source. If you find other documented official sources, great. But I doubt it.

No, I mean the media, and I mean "continuously falsificating statistics" in general. There have been a lot of statistics that have been controversial: the level of unemployment (the system of measurement has been changed, and then compared with data taken with other system of measurement), the number of people on manifestations (that has been heavily manipulated, using the same trick that people uses to tell you that every second, a kid starves to death [[1]]), even the difference of salary between men and women ([[2]]). The EGM also manipulates the audience of the radios, which directly repercutes in the ammount of money they can charge for advertisements. Media tell lies, but politicians too.
In particular, about the percentage given by Zerolo, you may take into account that the political weight of minorities rely heavily on the percentage of population they represent, so it's pretty understandable that both Gays and the Catholic Church manipulates them, which is a shame. I just don't believe the 10% Zerolo or ElJueves says, as much as I don't believe the 0.001% ElZapatazo tells. Since you can't prove that you are gay (isn't falsifiable), the most objetive way to find the percentage I found is the number of marriages. DrJones 01:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this from the article:

'The number of opposite-sex marriages during this period is unknown, but there were 210,155 marriages in 2003 and 216,451 marriages in 2000, suggesting that the percentage of same-sex marriages may be lower.[13]'

What happened in previous years indicates merely a probability of what may happen in this one. Using this as an argument to counter attack the percentage of same sex marriages so far and say the number is lower does not seem a solid argument. It's highly speculative AND those figures are taken for an entire year (the years 2000 and 2003) while same sex marriage in Spain hasn't been legal for a year yet (became legal in July 2005). Those figures cannot be compared. When July 2006 comes by and we have the total figures of same sex marriages for an entire year, THEN we will be able to make comparisons and statements. But not now.

That data was there to give Neutral Point of View to the article. Factual data instead of possibly made-up statistic is preferred, even though the data is from other years. The variance between years is not so big that you can't form an idea of the actual percentage. Comparing data from a year with data from half-a-year can be done just by halving the first number. I wrote that data because it's the only way we have now to measure how accurate are the words of Zerolo. We could always edit it once we have more accurate data, but it's the only data we have right now. I suggest you either to reinsert it, or to remove Zerolo's claim, which doesn't give factual data either. DrJones 01:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Now that we have the final numbers from 1 June 2006 we can state that, not only Zerolo is a liar with zero credibility (which was already known), but also that the percentages have not deviated at all from the data I included six months ago. You cannot fight against reality. Fight against the obfuscation of politics and media instead. If you have hope on this situation becoming better because it was only the first year afterall, you should know that the trend on same-sex marriages is regressive once the initial burst has passed, and it will only give worse numbers. Now, they already knew this when they approved a law to benefit 2500 people (which also was unrequired, because same-sex couples could use a contract instead, marriages are contracts). DrJones 13:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Finally, just wanna add that laws like this one make me proud of being Spanish. There's less inequality in our country now. Cheers! Raystorm 23:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Same-sex and man-woman marriages. Are they the same?

I have split this section in two, which was going off-topic. This section is just for polite discussion about the equivalency of homo and hetero marriages (do they have the same purpose, do they work the same, etc.), and about the usefulness of having a global ruling for both, over having specific rules to treat each one separately, which would be best suited if there were differences between them, but would require introducing a different term to designate same-sex marriages. DrJones 13:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, are happy that you can marry, but I'm not very proud of this law. I do think the benefits that are there to solely incentive procreation (as Spain has a very low birth rate) shouldn't be applied to same-sex marriages, which cannot be done because they have the same denomination. This is not discrimination, it's just that these marriages don't function that way. I'm okay with other benefits like legal protection and other technicalities, though. DrJones 01:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

DrJones please next time you answer me a post, don't insert your comments in my previous post, it's kinda confusing. :) Let's see, I agree with you about 'factual data is prefered instead of possibly made-up statistic'. Of course it is. The thing is, I do not believe that the data I removed is factual. It can't be until July 2006. And you can't just halve the first number, it doesn't work that way. Social conditions cannot be accurately predicted like that. One of the reasons I wanna wait until July 2006 is fairly simple: more people get married in summer. We have no reason to believe this won't be true for gay people. Reasons of holidays, better weather for a ceremony (not religious, you understand), family'll be able to attend....have to be taken into account. I merely see as guesswork (for now) the claim I removed. This is the first time in the history of Spain that gay marriages are allowed. We can't accurately predict what'll happen this year. I do understand you wanting to give a counterbalance to Zerolo's claims, but I don't think that actual claim is a valid one that should be in the article.
By the way, I find it curious that you think I must be gay because I'm happy about this law. And I think that the benefits you spoke about should be applied. Lesbian women can (and do, in fact) have children. What about them? Cheers! Raystorm 13:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
No, I assumed you were gay because I think most people interested in this article is homosexual. Nevertheless, I apologize if you are not gay. Now, about the article: I can wait until July arrives to add that info to the article, though I still don't understand why is not reasonable to include the total number of marriages from previous years, but it is to include a claim from the lobby that offered no data to back it up. It takes away objectivity from the article.
Second, lesbian women do have children, but that's not product of the marriage. People with children may marry, too, and that doesn't mean these are result of the marriage. As I see it, in that example, one of the lesbians is helping raising the child of the other. As my aunt doesn't have benefits for raising the son of my cousin, I don't see why they should have benefits. They can have benefits for having children, just not for being married (and your point still doesn't justify why gay marriages should have those benefits). DrJones 22:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
*Grin* Having an interest in something is one thing... I may be interested in politics, but that doesn't make me a politician! Same difference. Let's see, about the marriage data... I don't say that the numbers from previous years are totally useless. But they cannot help us to make a valid comparison yet. I'd rather wait until the figures from July come rolling by, and then we can start really talking. About the 'claims of a lobby that didn't offer to back it up'...Do you mean the figures that Zerolo gave? Because he did say how they obtained them, and they are official. You may look at them with skepticism or not depending on your political orientation, but they're official (kinda like when there are public marches against something: everyone gives their own figures. So I think it's okay to have Zerolo's claim here, because it is an official one. It'd be great to have another one to counterbalance it, from the law sector or whatever, that have the resources to either back up that claim or not. I fully agree with that).
About the lesbian women argument...If two women marry and decide to have a kid, for eg in vitro, it's the same as a het couple with fertility problems that need help having a kid. It is no mere 'helping to raise a kid', as an aunt would do, it's having and raising a kid as two parents. It's having and doing a life project, thought-out, decided and executed, like any other couple would do. There is no difference. That's why the same kind of benefits should be applied, in my opinion. Because it's a family born out of a marriage. Cheers! Raystorm 15:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
While I do understand the desire of same-sex couples to have their own children, right now there aren't methods (that I'm aware of) to mix two gamets from the same gender, so it wouldn't be a children from both parents. This also brings out oddities like sisters and brothers (the term stepbrother would be more correct) having no bonds in common, which would theoretically allow some of them to marry some of the others without it being inbreeding. I say theoretically, because it's illegal, and the law shouldn't do distintions within the same family.
Instead of trying to equipare same-sex marriages and normal marriages, people should just accept that they are different things, which should be managed differently for the sake of both. The "lesbians have children" argument is no more than a shield against the unfortunate fact that homo relationships just aren't productive (in the sense of procreation, workarounds of questionable morality aside). That's why gays want to be able to adopt: they want to overcome the stigma that prevents them to be like everyone else. Though I sympatize with them, I don't think forcing things is the way to go. Cheers DrJones 23:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a link to a webpage which offers some points against redefining the concept of marriage to allow same-sex marriages. It also has a link to a FAQ that, like others, avoids answering the hard questions, but shows that they aren't against same-sex unions "per se": 

 P: Si algunos aspectos del matrimonio se asemejan a los de otras relaciones, ¿esto significa que no es distinto de otras relaciones?
 R: Es cierto que las relaciones de parejas de hecho producen hijos, algunos matrimonios no, y algunas parejas del mismo sexo tienen hijos sea de relaciones anteriores o con la ayuda de las nuevas tecnologías. Lo que es importante es no dividir el matrimonio en sus componentes sino mirar a su fin más importante que está profundamente arraigado en nuestra historia, cultura y tradiciones religiosas. 

 P: ¿Qué se puede decir sobre las uniones de hecho del mismo sexo?
 R: Hay otras relaciones entre adultos que implican compromiso, cariño e interdependencia emocional y financiera, impliquen o no un componente sexual. Si el gobierno ve conveniente tratar sus preocupaciones a través de uniones civiles o parejas registradas, se debería hacer de manera que no redefina radicalmente el matrimonio. El matrimonio debe mantenerse como una institución de sexos opuestos.

Now I'm curious to know about which benefits are exactly there for promoting procreation in marriages. Free days for Honeymoon trips? DrJones 13:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. I think we've gone a little off-topic here now. We were discussing about putting certain marriage figures in the article. If you wanna debate about the validity of using the word marriage, I'm not sure this is the place to do it. It is mentioned in the article that such a debate exists, so I'm not sure what you wanna do here now~(well, I do know, but I'm not sure if that can be done). Understand, I like to debate about this topic as the person next door, but I don't think this is the place. Here we gotta correct articles to the best of our ability. Aren't we going off-topic doing anything else? Like debating, in the feminism article, if feminism is valid nowadays or not, for eg. I'm just asking, I'm still new to this and am not too sure what is and is not appropiate here. Cheers! Raystorm 19:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think that too. I only intended to split the marriage numbers section, because it was going offtopic, then I read that we were discussing about the benefits given by the state to marriages without talking about which ones were. Then, I found that webpage with info about the debate on the term, so I posted the link if anyone want to read it. I don't plan to argue more about this, unless someone wants to write a section on the "controversial aspects of this law" on the article. DrJones 11:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Polls removed

I have removed three links to polls with vote tendency because they felt out of place. I also have corrected some numbers from an unverified source that seemed to claim that the Gay Parade March was more successful than the March for the Family, something that is blatantly false. By the way, the explanation given by official sources to the discrepancy between their data and the one from the organization on the first march is that official sources counted 4 people/m², while organization used as estimation the full capacity of the place (2 Million, reached during the visit of the Pope). An aerial photograph from both events would be enough to see which numbers are closer (75% according the organizers or 7.5% according official sources).

About the Gay Parade March, no official explanations were given to any of the numbers. I cannot talk about it, but as Pedro Zerolo was among the organizers if I remember correctly, I expect his claim to be absurdly exaggerated. DrJones 12:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I wish you had left the polls, because it would have been informative to show how events developed after the law had been passed, at least to give people an idea of the support/opposition it had, citing the different (and opposing) sources. I disagree with the 'blatantly false' statement, by the way, especially since the government of Madrid, lead by the Conservative party, refused to send an helicopter to take aerial photographs of the gay march, which actually speaks for itself, but that's my POV, and this is not the place to discuss it anyway. Cheers Raystorm 11:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
You can't adjudicate the impact on polls to a single political decision. For example, the vote intend could have lowered/raised by this motive, but raise/lower by another. By doing that, I fear you could be committing the same mistake that if you attributed the lack of pirates to global warming. Besides, I don't rely too much on political polls on Spain because they have a (well-earned) fame of being baked/skewed by the supporters of the study. If they were more about the topic of discussion I would have kept them, though.
About my statement about the falsification of numbers, you are free to disagree with me, and encouraged to find alternative sources with actual numbers. I spent a day looking for them and finally wrote the only ones I could find (cited one source, but found two throwing those numbers). It's sad that we live on a country where the media is more interested in disinformation than the other way around, so we can't contrast them, but my POV is that the numbers given by the organizers (*cough* Pedro Zerolo *cough*) seem too suspiciously "slighty higher than the ones of the manifestation we try to counter" to have reasonable doubts about their legitimacy/credibility (this doesn't automatically make accurate the numbers given by the other organizers, of course).
Lastly, the government of Madrid, though technically it is leaded by the Conservative Party, it is also leaded by the most "progressist" (I don't know if that's the most accurate term) of their representants, who has married same-sex couples himself. The government of Madrid gave very low numbers for the manifestants for the "Forum of the Family", too, so I just don't see a solid basis for your point. DrJones 23:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I repeat, what's wrong with handing out the official versions of the polls? Give out Zerolo's version and explain he's a liberal very much in favour of the law, give out the government of Madrid's estimates and explain it's ruled by the conservative party, and give out the government delegate estimates, and explain the Spanish government is the one that approved the law. People will get the idea of who is trying to inflate or deflate the figures with that. I just think it might be informative, in a how-the-law-was-received kind of way. Later, we can talk about the Family Forum march and give out the same official estimates. Those two marches congregated a lot of people just for a single law, I think it's worth mentioning. Raystorm 21:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Why in the section 'marriage numbers' the only sources cited are La Razon (a blatantly right-wing Spanish newspaper) and an article whose headline is, 'Unmasking the gay lie?' I mean, can we get any more POV here? If we can't find other sources to give a balance to the section (and a balance is needed, because there are always two ways to make the numbers speak for themselves), I suggest putting a tag there warning of possible POV. Cheers Raystorm 11:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, that's because the other side intentionally hid the data. That's not my fault. If you search for same-sex marriage numbers on the web, you will find a lot of pro-same-sex marriages sites questioning why was so much uproar about same-sex marriage then, if it was such a disaster (sic). The data, however, is accurate both with the number of same-sex marriages given by Zerolo at that date, and with the usual number of marriages on Spain every year. The data also comes from real civil registries, you just have to call them if you want to be sure. I understand your doubts about the POV of these sources, that's why I have searched the web before posting them, and no reliable sources were found disputing the numbers. Please don't just dismiss data based on their sources, that's Ad Hominem. Cheers. DrJones 00:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I have read your changes on the marriage numbers section and I don't know if I have fully understood what you wanted to say. Do you mean that LaRazon might have intentionally left out registries against their point? That's a valid point, but wouldn't it count as Original Research? "Half the country" is an assumption also likely to be Original Research. It could be perfectly more than that (assuming that the registries aren't uniformly distributed), or fewer than that (people aren't uniformly distributed around Spain, either). The article already stated that the info only takes into account half of the registries, so I find the remark somewhat superfluous. DrJones 00:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, I mean that LaRazon intentionally counted missing registries as favoring their point. Most of the registries did not distinguish between het and gay marriage when giving their total marriage numbers. LaRazon just made estimates from those registries based on those registries that had made the distinction. And about not finding reliable sources disputing the the numbers, it depends on what you call reliable. You can check Spanish gay and lesbian associations (such as felgt, cogam) for their data. Would that be biased? More than LaRazon and the other article cited? I don't know. But would it give a balance to what is presented? Certainly. Raystorm 21:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Took off from the article the statement from 'Unmasking the gay lie' (http://www.esposibleelcambio.com/cms/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=2081&forum=24&post_id=24240), but not because of what you may think. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/examples#Use of electronic or online sources. Material from bulletin boards and forum sites, Usenet, wikis, blogs and comments associated with blog entries should not be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence. Cheers Raystorm 18:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Children born within a lesbian marriage

Could anyone edit the last paragraph in section Reactions ?

The 7th November 2006, the government amended the law on assisted reproduction, allowing the non-biological mother to recognize children born within a lesbian marriage.

http://es.news.yahoo.com/07112006/185/lesbianas-podran-madres-hijos-in-vitro-parejas.html

Done. Next time, be bold! :) Raystorm 12:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Nominated article for Good Article status

Let's see how it goes... Raystorm 18:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

We need more pictures for this article aside from the maps. I found a really good pic in the web showing people celebrating at the congress that the bill had passed. I have asked permission to use it (per Wikipedia's policy), and am waiting for a response. Meanwhile I've made a request at WP:RP for pictures of the two demonstrations, for and against the law. If anyone could contribute anything, it would be great! Cheers Raystorm 01:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I got permission to use the image, so I uploaded it to Wikipedia and added it to the article. I do hope I've done everything by the book about copyright issues according to Wikipedia (I've got half a mind to call an administrator to check everything is okay with the image and that I'm not missing some crucial step of the upload images' process). Oh well, guess I'll find out if they list it for deletion, but I hope it doesn't come to that. I did get permission, after all (in Spanish though, which is what is troubling me somewhat, though it shouldn't be a problem, right?)... Added a link to the web that gave me permission, btw, as per their request. Cheers Raystorm 16:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If you look carefully at the photograph of the "traditional marriage supporter" carrying a spanish flag, you will find the "supporter" is actually a boy of young age, approximately 13 years. I believe it isn't very accurate to refer to this boy as a "supporter" because at this age, although one might have opinions, one is rarely properly educated to support or express these opinions. I also believe the legal age of voting of the Kingdom of Spain to be 18 years. As such, I propose this photograph should be deleted or, if possible, replaced with an image of a supporter of at least 18 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.195.14.174 (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

He can't be a supporter because you think he's thirteen? He is supporting the cause, ergo he is a supporter. You are making an assumption based on age that I really don't think is grounds for the deletion or removal of the image. You do not need to be of legal age to support a cause. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 22:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

GA concerns

I think most of the article is perfectly OK. Some things necessary to improve:

  • Per WP:LEAD, I suggest the lead section contains a few sentences summarizing the history section; and one or two sentences summarizing reactions to the law. And also one sentence saying that at least one of the members of the couple must be a Spanish citizen.
  • In the section "Reactions", a reference is needed for the quote by President Zapatero. Is this an official translation of his statement? If not, please provide the original text also.
  • A reference is needed for the paragraph in this section that starts with Opponents to the bill also claimed that the government, by equalizing same-sex and opposite-sex couples [..]

Apart from that, I think the article is well written and covers its topic very well.

Fred-Chess 15:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


I think all of the above have now been adressed. How does it look? :) Cheers Raystorm 00:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I think your changes were very good.
Another thing. Would it be possible to write the first paragraph – and the first sentence in particular – in a simpler way? For example, I like the way it is written on Same-sex marriage in Canada.
Fred-Chess 13:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the first sentence, and a bit of the first paragraph. You're right, Canada's article has a very good lead (although really long!). Does it look better now? Raystorm 14:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:MOS#Article_titles, I have removed the links from the bolded parts:

As a general rule, do not put links in the boldface title or synonym in the article’s first mention or any section title.

Also, there is no need to repeat the links to Spain and same-sex marriage in the paragraph. Once is enough. Ground Zero | t 15:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Raystorm 15:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think the article could be passed now. I'll do it shortly, if there are no other concerns. / Fred-Chess 16:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yee-haw! We are a GA! :D Raystorm 17:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Zapatero's quote

These are decisions for freedom, to allow free people to choose freely. They are not meant to attack any moral position, since they belong to the civil realm, determined by the legitimate will of the majority of the citizens. ... Spain is a democracy whose sovereignty resides in the Parliament, which passes laws on social life. I deeply respect all citizens' religious convictions, and it's true that there are many Catholics in Spain. However, while respecting the best spirit of the Church's doctrine, we must make the difference between civil space and the intimate space of personal conviction. The worst occurs when the two are confused.

I had to change it for another one because I couldn't find a source for it. It's a pity, because it's quite beautiful. If anyone finds a reference for it, we could put it back. Cheers Raystorm 23:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I think that the only thing that might be lacking in the article is evidence of the effect that the law has had in the country. Things like the statistics on number of marriages so far recognized, maybe children effected, etc. Also, some specific comments from some of the parties involved throughout the legalization process about related topics could probably be included as well. Badbilltucker 15:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean, and I agree. The problem is, this law is very recent. It only has about a year and a half of life. I'm not sure if there are any in-depth reports about how gay marriage has affected Spaniards, or children (?). The statistics of numbers of marriages are provided in the article for different time periods up to the first year of the law. I'm not too sure what you mean about comments from some of the parties about related topics though. Which related topics?
This article will have a big expansion next year. Be aware that the law has been challenged in the Spanish Constitutional Court (where there will be no possible appeal -their decission is final, whatever they decide). Everything regarding that decision will be documented here as well. I just say this so everyone is aware that this article is by no means finished. As info about the topic is released (quite possibly beginning after this summers' end, as people for and against the law start positioning themselves and readying arguments and statistics to pressure public opinion and the judges), it'll be recorded here accordingly.
Which means, it's possible that some of the info you ask me for may not be found right now, but will be in a few months. Nonetheless, I thank you for your comments and suggestions. :) Cheers Raystorm 19:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

FAC

I completely forgot to say it here, but I nominated this article for FA status (as eveyone can see with the FAC template above). Cheers Raystorm 12:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yessss, we're a FA! X-D Raystorm 10:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Amendments?

Hey - if the law passed in 2005, and there weren't any amendments when it passed, can't that info be taken out? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm checking the amendments info and have provisionally taken it out from the legislation infobox. The thing is, I'm getting conflicting info about there actually existing some amendments to this law. I'm going to research this now. Cheers Raystorm 12:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotect?

Anyone up for this yet? ZueJay (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As a rule the main page FA is never protected. It is often the first page of the "free encyclopedia anyone can edit" that new users come across. For them not to actually be able to edit it is generally seen as counterpoductive. Many people will watchlist the main page FA so vandalism should be reverted fairly efficiently. WjBscribe 03:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It is considered fairly often though; anything on the front page is pretty much literally a painted target to a vandal. More often than not, front page articles are hit the hardest. HalfShadow 03:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Okey-doke. Gonna be a long haul. Thanks for the info. ZueJay (talk) 03:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure we can't semi-protect? The amount of vandalism this article is receiving is pretty amazing. If only those vandals tried to read the article too... :-) Raystorm 15:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
This is actually really mild compared to the amount of vandalism some FAs receive! There'll be loads of other people reading the article as well and everyone seems on top of reverting the vandalism. WjBscribe 15:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed a bit of vandalism a few minutes ago from somebody called JoshKennedy. Pretty juvenile stuff. Ddb1965 20:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence

The first sentence does not tell me anything, I am not clear about what this is, Is it a Law?, a report?, a proposal?, a movement?, a convention, ???
I am at a loss from the first sentence. The first sentence should be changed to something like:

The Civil Marriage Act is a piece of Spanish legislation passed in 2005 that........

is a Spanish law governing.....

The Civil Marriage Act (XXXX) is an Act of the Parliament of Spain, passed in 2005 as bill Z-21.......

The Civil Marriage Act (full title: "An Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes") was legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in Spain. It was introduced as Bill XXX in the X session of the XXth Spanish Parliament on February 1, 2004. It passed the House of Commons on April 28, 2005, and the Senate on July 19, 2005. The Act became law when it received aproval by the prime minister on August 15, 2005
The Civil Marriage Act is a piece of Spanish legislation passed in 2005 that........

is a Spanish law governing.....

The Civil Marriage Act (XXXX) is an Act of the Parliament of Spain, passed in 2005 as bill Z-21.......

The Civil Marriage Act (full title: "An Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes") was legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in Spain. It was introduced as Bill XXX in the X session of the XXth Spanish Parliament on February 1, 2004. It passed the House of Commons on April 28, 2005, and the Senate on July 19, 2005. The Act became law when it received aproval by the prime minister on August 15, 2005
"Same-sex marriage in Spain is a law that became act in 2005"
or
"Same-sex marriage became law in Spain in 2005"

or something similar to the 8 examples given above!

What do you think?
Trade2tradewell 17:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the implication is pretty clear. 'Same-sex marriage in Spain was legalised in 2005'. What else could it be? :-) Just same-sex marriage. If it was legalised, it's a law. I would keep it as it is, nice and simple. Cheers Raystorm 18:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

note on lingering vandalism

This is the diff I am using to find "old" lingering vandalism. It's a diff between whatever is the current version and the last version of 13 March, right before it went up on the main page. I had to adjust some linebreaks to make all the paragraphs line up. As it is currently, I think I've gotten the lingering vandalism out. However, there seem to be a lot of wikilinks in the old version that have been removed or made less specific. That might be because the previous wikilinks were misleading, but I don't know if all of these were good changes. — coelacan — 20:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like MisfitToys decided many of those lost links were indeed useful. Thanks for taking the time to figure out what belonged! — coelacan — 22:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Estado Laico

Out of interest what does estado laico mean (in this Image:Gay March celebrating 2005 Pride Day and Same-Sex Marriage Law in Spain.jpg image). From Google translation it means lay state, from a Google search I found laico appears to be Laity so I can't guess what it means... Nil Einne 13:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Laicism :-) Raystorm 17:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah okay, I get it now. Thanks :-) Nil Einne 15:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
My pleasure. :-) Pretty sharp eye you've got there! Raystorm 17:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"Consular demarcation"

I'm trying to translate this article into Turkish, but I don't even know what on earth "consular demarcation" even means. When I searched for "consular demarcation" on Google, only 8 results came up (2 of which from Wikipedia's same-sex marriage in Spain and the featured article discussion page, about 5 others which are basically copies of original Wikipedia text). Could somebody please clarify "consular demarcation" for me? Thank you. Runningfridgesrule (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd say it's the place (in another country) where there is a consulate from your own country. There surely is a better wording for it than consular demarcation (it does seem like a direct translation from the Spanish demarcación consular :P), but I can´t think of one. Suggestion are welcome. Good luck with your translation! Raystorm (¿Sí?) 11:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting


  • (1) In-house only
  • (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
  • (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
  • (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.
  • (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences
  • (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.
  • (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates
  • (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
  • (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
  • (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.
  • (4) Typos and misunderstood coding
  • (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
  • (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
  • (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.
  • (5) Edit-mode clutter
  • (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.
  • (6) Limited application
  • (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
  • (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 09:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Marriage statistics

According to the Spanish National Statistics Institute (INE), 8,832 same-sex marriages have taken place in Spain from 2005 to 2007: 1,269 in 2005, 4,313 in 2006 and 3,250 in 2007. I think this information should be added to the article. You can check at:

http://www.ine.es/jaxi/menu.do?type=pcaxis&file=pcaxis&path=%2Ft20%2Fe301%2Fmatri%2Fa2005

http://www.ine.es/jaxi/menu.do?type=pcaxis&path=/t20/e301/matri/a2006/&file=pcaxis

http://www.ine.es/jaxi/menu.do?type=pcaxis&path=%2Ft20%2Fe301%2Fprovi07&file=pcaxis&L=&divi=&his=

Antares Dbd (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Think we should remove the figures from June 2007? Btw, at some point we're going to have to create a table or something so it looks 'cleaner'... Raystorm (¿Sí?) 22:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that the figures from June 2007 contradict the information from the INE. As it is stated in the article, they didn't reflect the actual amount of marriages, so I would only keep INE data, which seems more accurate... Yeah, maybe it would be a good idea to create a table that includes the number of marriages per year, classifying them in marriages between men and between women. Antares Dbd (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Pope John Paul's Opposition

I can't find proof that he opposed the bill itself - only gay marriage in general here. Clearly he was opposed to the change, but the article suggests he opposed the bill. I think a rephrase is in order. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I do think too that if he opposed gay marriage it clearly implies he opposed the bill. :P Nonetheless, I've found this, which provides a kind of timeline of 'Vatican actions'. Pope John Paul II was the head of the Vatican, so when the Vatican exhorted Catholic politicians to oppose the bill, I believe it is not wrong to say that the Pope was behind this. However, if you are suggesting we rephrase in order to make even more clear his opposition to gay marriage in general, I am not against the idea. But the Vatican under his direction certainly was concerned about the Spanish bill specifically, and took pains to address the issue. That should remain clear as well. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 22:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
If the timeline of Vatican opposition fits with JPII's reign then I suppose it's fine. I think that briefly saying that he opposed gay marriage in general could be helpful either way. I was mainly concerned with the fact that he was dead by the time the bill reached congress! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, any suggestions about how we could introduce that in the text, so it doesn't lose the flow? Maybe with a note? Raystorm (¿Sí?) 00:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


The 21st Duquesa de Medina-Sidonia and Ms Liliana Dahlmann

On her deathbed in 2008, Doña Luisa Isabel Alvarez de Toledo y Maura, 21st Duquesa de Medina-Sidonia, married her longtime lesbian companian Liliana Maria Dahlmann, now president of the Casa Medina Sidonia Foundation (much to the chagrin of the 22nd Duque de Medina Sidonia!). Does anyone know the legal status of Ms Liliana Dahlmann? As she was married to the 21st Duchess, does that... by extension... make Liliana Dahlmann now a dowager duchess by marriage? Conversly, if a Prince of Spain were to marry a man, would his husband .... by extension... become a prince-consort?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 15:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, yes. I don't know about the Prince part, but I imagine it would be the same. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 18:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
WOW! Thank's for that find!!!! The the life of the Red Duchess would make an excellent movie!!!!♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 06:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Heh, you're welcome. And I agree about the movie part. ;) That said, I don't think the info about the Red Duchess looks good in the marriage statistics section. Hmmm, maybe the Reactions section? Raystorm (¿Sí?) 11:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Prehaps, I am uncertin as to its exact placement too to be honest. It is statistically noteworthy, one could argue, in that of the Duchess Luisa Isabel's high prestigious rank... what are the numbers of other nobles who have entered into a same sex union? I don't think those numbers are available. But if you feel it should be in another section, I am open to that. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 07:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey there again. Sorry, I've taken out the paragraph about the Red Duchess. I honestly don't know where to put it. I've been reading again the Reactions section, and that only deals with the reactions to the passing of the law. Same thing for Marriage statistics. I don't know, maybe we should create a new section and put the info there? Notable weddings? Same-sex marriage in the aristocracy? What do you think? Raystorm (¿Sí?) 01:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think "Notable weddings" would be appropriate.... if we could get some "wedding firsts" and broaden the section. Weddings of celebrities and other socially high profile persons (even if on a provencial level), high-ranking politicians, Spanish nobles, prehaps even religous leaders who have also wedded.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Do we know of any high profile weddings in Spain? Celebrities? Politicians?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 09:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm thinking judge Grande-Marlaska (the wedding in itself wasn't high-profile, but his announcement that he had married another man was), television presenter Jesús Vázquez... Surely we can find more. It'd be nice if we could find some women, too. And a religious leader would simply be splendid (but I think we'd have heard about it). ;) Raystorm (¿Sí?) 15:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Heh heh heh, first gay wedding in the military ^^ And we can't forget Zerolo's wedding or the first wedding in the party that opposed the bill, PP. ^^ Raystorm (¿Sí?) 16:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
That's 5 high profile weddings, inlcuding that of the Red Duchess! Great! And something of a cross section of Spanish society too, from a noble, to a celebrity or TV personality, to a politician, to two "knights" (of a sort)!♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 06:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll try and get to it tonight when I get home, if you don't get to it before I do.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 07:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I've asked for help gathering sources at the Spanish LGBT Wikiproject. Hopefully we can find something more of interest. :) Raystorm (¿Sí?) 12:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

ok, created Notable first weddings. I really wish someone could do a movie on the Red Duchess!!!!♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 08:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it looks wonderful. Thank you! And who knows, maybe some day there'll be a movie about her. :P Raystorm (¿Sí?) 13:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Added gallery

Added gallery for additional images of the Same-sex marriage in Spain event♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 06:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have additional images to add to the gallery, please first add them to wiki commons here so they may be filed and added to the main artical.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 06:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Queen's comments

I have to admit to being disspirited by the Queen's comments (as I have learned of them now). But then again, she is 70 years old and as Pons' said, the queen said what many 70-year-old Catholic women think! I can't imagine my own grandmother getting her head around gay relationships... let alone gay sex and marriage! So, dissapointment sure. But Juan Carlos is far more liberal, as is his son Felepe and media savy Letiza.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I have to admit I wasn't too surprised. She did deserve the hoodlam her comments generated. One way or the other it doesn't matter, they have no power of decision. ^^ But they should be more careful: they represent all Spaniards, not just some.
That said, would you mind if I trimmed the queen's comments a bit in the text? I think there's too much space dedicated to them in comparison to the other reactions cited in the section, it looks disproportionate. Specifically, I'd take out:
"I don't think many people would be surprised to learn these were the queen's views," said Fernando Villespin, president of the Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas (CIS, English: Sociological Research Center), a non-partisan government funded research institution.[42] Villespin continued "What surprises them is that she would say such things for publication.[42]
The Zarazula palace issued a statement on behalf of the queen stating that Sofia "profoundly regretted" the lack of clarity in the words attributed to her, and apologized for the "ill-feeling and upset" that the comments may have caused.[47] The statement continued "The supposed comments [...] were made in a private sphere, [and] do not exactly match the opinions expressed by Her Majesty The Queen".[48] Pilar Urbano, who admits to not using a tape-recorder and who authored a prior biography on Queen Sofia, defended her book and the comments she attributed to Sofia.[45] "The quotations in my book reproduce exactly what the queen said," and were reviewed by palace officials, Urbano told the German press service DPA.[45][42] Additionally, the conservative leaning El Mundo newpaper wrote that the palace's claim that Sofia was misquoted as "not very creditable".[45]
Antonio Poveda of the FELGT said his organization accepted the queen's apology, but added that there remains ill feelings by the gay community towards the queen over the comments[42] King Juan Carlos, known to be far more liberal then his wife, was reportedly incensed by the book, with reporters stating the king will fire palace officials who allegedly approved official royal endorsement of the book.[42]
I don't think that a full chronicle of that episode is needed. Although it might stand as an independent article. Or, if you feel the info is very relevant here, maybe it could be added in the form of a note? What do you think? Raystorm (¿Sí?) 15:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
In truth, the Queen's comments have more to do with the role of monarchy in a democratic nation then over what a 70 year old women may think. So yes, the section could be sliced and re-edited for weight. Though I would think that Poveda's statement that the Gay and Lesbian organization accepts her apology is necessary though, as a sense of closure for the event. The apology opens the door to how the palace reacts, and then the statement by Urbano to the Queen distancing herself from the comments. I think the remaining three paragraphs offer that closure so am unsure if they should be removed. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 06:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Having thought on it longer, I can see editing the whole event down to a two or three line one paragraph statement, one that would include the Queen's apology and omit much of the directly quoted sections.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 07:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Great! :D Raystorm (¿Sí?) 12:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Done!♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 06:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Beautiful! Raystorm (¿Sí?) 11:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Spanish gay couples in outher jurisdictions

Does Spanish law recognize same sex marriages in other countries? What of same sex unions? It may seem self evident that they would, but it is not clearly stated that a Canadian gay marriage would be recognized in Spain. Is there a full faith clause in Spainish law? Conversly, what would the expierence a Spanish gay couple who lived in say Italy or England be under the law?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've seen nothing to suggest that married gay couples are treated differently under Spanish law than married non-gay couples. Marriages between same-sex couples don't exist as a distinct category in places where gay marriage is legal; couples are simply allowed to marry regardless of gender, so I can't imagine why Spain would recognise a different-sex couple's Canadian marriage but not a same-sex couple's. As for other types of unions, well Spain does recognise UK civil partnerships (although a special application is required [3]) as for other country's civil unions I don't know. The legal status of Spanish same-sex marriages in countries where gay marriage is illegal is dependent on that nation's own laws, it may treated as a civil union (like in England) or it may have no legal recognition (I imagine this would this would be the case in most countries) or in a few cases it may be recognised even if gay couples aren't allowed marry within that jurisdiction (like in Israel). MaesterTonberry (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Same-sex marriage in Spain. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Errors in statistics(???)

I counted the number of same-sex marriages in the table and learned that the number of same-sex marriages in the table does not match the number that is given below. According to the data in the table from 2005 to the end of 2014, 33,703 same-sex marriages were registered in Spain. According to information outside the table,[1] 31640 same-sex marriages were registered in Spain during the same period. In addition, I found that data on the total number of marriages starting in 2013 coincides with the number of heterosexual marriages. Moreover, Hispanic Wikipedia led other figures for 2013. I will be grateful if someone will solve this problem. Oliviw (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://elpais.com/elpais/2015/07/02/inenglish/1435826279_516568.html?rel=mas

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Same-sex marriage in Spain. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Same-sex marriage in Spain. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Same-sex marriage in Spain. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

FA sweeps

The good news is that this article is in much better shape than many FAs promoted in 2007. The article has even seen considerable updating since then, with the article size expanding about 50% and the number of references more than doubling. The bad news is that I don't think it's fully comprehensive. There is now a body of research on the legal issues[4][5][6] political mobilizations that led to the law being approved earlier in Spain than in other countries[7][8][9][10] demographics and long term effects[11][12][13] Virtually none of this research is cited in the article leading me to doubt that it can meet the FA criteria of "well researched" and comprehensive", although it probably did when it was promoted. (t · c) buidhe 00:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

A. C. Santacruz Thanks for your willingness to work on this article! I've listed some possible sources above and can probably help you access most of them. Here are some specific areas that probably need improvement:
  1. History: section does not currently explain why Spain was one of the first countries to legalize same-sex marriage. For example, it says that Zapatero put it into the party platform and pushed for it once elected, but it doesn't explain why the issue was a priority for him. I think this is addressed in some of the papers dealing with the political aspect, linked above.
  2. Opposition court challenges: This explains the political aspect of the court challenges, but not the legal issues of why the court ruled as it did. I would expand the section with information about the legal issues from the papers linked above.
  3. Marriage statistics: currently has information about how many couples married, but doesn't cite research on other aspects of demography and the effect of the law on rainbow families (links above).
I'm certainly willing to help improve the article, and I think I can especially help with #2. (t · c) buidhe 23:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping buidhe! I'll finish my unfinished GA reviews, get ahead on some uni work, and start reading :). I assume you have this page watchlisted and the ping is unnecessary but thought I'd ping you now just in case Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Right now I'm reading the sources already within the article before I read the article itself, and then I'll move on to reading the sources you've provided. I thought it would be the wisest way to go about this, but it might seem like not much is being done for the first few days, so I'm making note of that here. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Número de parejas según tipo de unión y sexo de la pareja

Total (Parejas) 11.307,2 Pareja del mismo sexo 115,3. [14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.48.31.34 (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

hola 31.4.198.198 (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_Spain/Archive_1&oldid=1201924286"