Jump to content

Talk:Same-sex marriage in the Netherlands

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

Germany

[edit]

same-sex marriage (or civil union) is performed in Germany nationwide. Please somebody (established user) add this to the little link box.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by T maia2000 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs more info on HOW exactly the gay marriages became legal. Was it a decision of parliament? If so, how did the vote go? Or was it a court decision? user:J.J.

It was done by Parliament after the Government proposed the bill. It got large majorities in both houses of Parliament - I added these things in the article under the 'Marriage' section. -Thorin

Also some information about other churches in the Netherlands has to be found, I assume the Catholics will not bless same-sex marriage, but perhaps the 'Oud-Katholieken' [1] do? Furthermore I assume some Protestant churches that do not belong to the Protestant Church of the Netherlands also won't bless a same-sex marriage. So, we need information about these groups too if possible.

Same-sex marriage illegal for Dutch Royals?

[edit]

If I remeber correct, there is a third restriction, namely members of the Dutch royal family/The Crown Prince(ss) cannot have a same-sex marriage, unless he/she abadones his/her right to the throne.

Where does it say that? Are there any gay Dutch royals? Spinboy 18:41, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There no (openly)Gay Dutch royals, but I thought they added such a ristriction to prevent possible future marriages.
I read something like that as well, but neither the Civil Code or Constitution mention that homosexual members of the Royal House cannot marry someone of the same sex. However, the Constitution prescribes that every royal who is eligible for the throne and wants to marry someone, must get permission from Parliament to marry that person. If not, the prince(ss) automatically loses the right to ascend the throne. So hypothetically speaking, Parliament could give permission to a gay crown prince to marry his lover, and indirectly to have a gay king and a gay prince-consort... Thorin 23:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Legality in the rest of the EU?

[edit]

Are gay marriages performed in the Netherlands (as well as Belgium) legally recognized throughout the rest of the European Union?--Wasabe3543 16:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Probably not, but that's probably up for the courts to decide. --Spinboy 16:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The dominant legal doctrine in all other nations considers these marriages to be absolutely void, in that they have no direct legal consequence whatsoever, though of course the factuality of a marriage would be taken into account whenever a law allows the court to decide an issue using its own discretion. However a court would often be obliged by its own legal system to apply Dutch or Belgian law when Dutch or Belgian citizens are involved in matters of family law. In those countries which have themselves a system of "partnership", the obvious course for a court would be to rule that a Belgian or Dutch gay marriage is covalent to such a partnership.

--MWAK 16:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Restrictions section removal

[edit]

The adoption restriction appears to have been removed at the same time marriage was allowed according to this NYT article: Same-Sex Dutch Couples Gain Marriage and Adoption Rights —EqualRights (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that picture on somebody's userpage?

[edit]


Aruba and Antilles

[edit]

I summarized this section, as it was almost identical of the main ones. Also linked to those.Thorin (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the necessity of mentioning that The Netherlands considers "same-sex" and "heterosexual" marraige the same...

[edit]

The necessity lies in the terminology. Most countries around the world insist on thinking of "same-sex marriage" as being something different (and usually less worthy) than "regular marriage". Particularly the United States (within the nations that don't want to kill gays outright) gets its knickers into a twist about not placing gay relationships on the same level with straight ones. For that reason it is important to point out that the term "same-sex marriage" is incorrect in that The Netherlands doesn't have a specific "same-sex marriage", but one single, civil marriage open to all couples. -- BenTels (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It unnecessary. In all countries and states where same-sex couples can legally marry, marriage is defined as a union between two people. It obvious is one marriage law. In all these countries same-sex couples was allowed to marry by change existing definition of marriage. There is no need to explain that. This sentence: the main article in the Act changed article 1:30 in the marriage law to read as follows: Een huwelijk kan worden aangegaan door twee personen van verschillend of van gelijk geslacht. (A marriage can be contracted by two people of different or the same sex) is absolutely enough. It explains everything. Ron 1987 02:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What after the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles????

[edit]

The Netherlands Antilles was officially dissolved on 10 Oct. 2010, and Saba, Sint Eustatius and Bonaire became part of the Netherlands proper. Is same-sex marriage legal in these 3 special Dutch municipalities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.69.2.171 (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

still the same situation as before the dissolution; as part of the civil code was copy-pased from Netherlands antilles version: Het huwelijk kan slechts bestaan tussen een man en een vrouw. (Dutch: Marriage only exists between a man and a woman). I will make some changes and provide refs... L.tak (talk) 09:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal not including this page: merger of same sex marriage articles in the kingdom of the Netherlands in the caribbean.

[edit]

I have put forward a Merge proposal, which does not include this page, but which might be of interest. Proposal is to merge Same-sex marriage in Curaçao, Same-sex marriage in the Netherlands Antilles Same-sex marriage in Aruba and Same-sex marriage in Sint Maarten to the new page Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten and the Caribbean Netherlands. Discussion is taking place here. L.tak (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

refs consistency

[edit]

I can think of more important things, but in view of consistency I'd like to discuss the ref setting. It is presently quite a mix between [url title], [bare url], NL-con [bare url], NL-icon {{cite web}}, {{cite web, incl language=Dutch}}. My personal preference is the latter, but I believe NL-icon {{cite web}} is the easiest form which has a significant history on this page... L.tak (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the term homohuwelijk....

[edit]

The term homohuwelijk is used routinely in the Netherlands for same-sex marriage, while the term "huwelijk van personen van gelijk geslacht" only is used in formal occasions. Therefore I think it is very useful here. It was however added and removed twice by Ron (as "dispensable"), so I am starting the discussion here... L.tak (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a place for a colloquial terms. This article is titled Same-sex marriage in the Netherlands, not Gay marriage in the Netherlands. Useful? Very doubtful. Ron 1987 (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a place to learn for all of us and relevant terms (even if they can be considered strictly not fully correct). Homohuwelijk is the term normally used for this type of marriage (although I'll be the first to agree it does not exist by law, where only the "marriage between people of the same or different sex" exists), which is clear from virtually all Dutch refs in the article and it therefore is useful to have it in... The title of this article uses the most neutral form, but that does not mean other forms used in synonymy should not be used... L.tak (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This idea is very doubtful and I am a strong opponent. Dutch colloquial terms are not needed and are dispensable. This article is in English, not Dutch. Ron 1987 (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with L.tak. I mean, take a look around on Wikipedia, and you'll see the word colloquial used a lot. That being what it is, and moving on: all of the Dutch names given to Same-sex marriage are basically the same, though slightly different. The formal way is 'huwelijk van personen van gelijk geslacht', but this is never used as such colloquially. It is called 'homohuwelijk' by the media. And, third, many homosexuals themselves find it degrating to refer to it as 'homohuwelijk', for they don't see themselves as 'special', so they refer to it simply as 'huwelijk' (marriage), which, basically, is correct, as the law itself is literally speaking of 'openstelling van het huwelijk' (opening of the marriage). This does make a diferrence, for the Dutch SSM is nót a special law, it is the already existing law concerning marriage, only re-edited. Robster1983 (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The neutrality and correctness of the term Gay marriage is doubtful. The term gay often refers only to homosexual men. What about lesbians? Not only two men, but also two women are allowed to marry in the Netherlands. Only most neutral and correct term should be used in the article. Ron 1987 (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In English language, being gay can refer to both homosexual- and lesbian people (the fact is, that 'gay' wasn't a word directed towards homosexual- and lesbian people to begin with, for it used to mean 'happy' or 'joyful'). In Dutch, the word 'homo' in 'homohuwelijk' refers to both.
However, I think I can put it in this article, without being part of the lead-in. Of course, I have all the sources to back it up. Robster1983 (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can refer to both homosexual and lesbian people or not. It's a question of interpretation. The correctness of the term is doubtful. It should not be used in the article. Ron 1987 (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the Netherlands it is often used to both. With homohuwelijk it clearly refers to both; a specific female version is never used indeed. With it being the predominant use for the topic I think it really should be in the lead. Maybe we should change the term "colloquially" to "normally" or specify that it is for both sexes? L.tak (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I (and, apparently L.tak) really feel that this should get some mentioning in the article (not in the lead-in, I agree with that one). I really want to put this in the article, for I have all the sources needed to back it up. However, I'm not looking to get into a giant edit-war, so maybe there is a way, if needed via some mediator, to settle this. Robster1983 (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the discussion is still young. Let's wait a few days and see if we can establish consensus. Shall I post a note on Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies so that members there can react as well?L.tak (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Often it's a relative concept. The term gay have 2 meanings. The correctness of the term Gay marriage is doubtful. Ron 1987 (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's not use "gay marriage", but use "homohuwelijk" untranslated as it seems to be the translation which is off... As for relative terms: google gives 115 hits on it; and 10x less onthe other term (the first term coming up by the way is nl:homohuwelijk). How does using the untranslated version sound? L.tak (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Satisfied? Ron 1987 (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the intro is concerned: Yes, that looks like ok and neutral to me... (could you also reply on the naming suggestion below by robster?)! L.tak (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like to add that it seems that everything added is qualified as 'dispensable', and although I admire your (referred to Ron 1987) attitude so that this article stays of good quality (I really do), just removing edits made by others, though never starting a discussion (or at least give an explanation as about why), might just create a status-quo, a standstill. If every Wki-article follows that path, then there's nothing to be done around here.
Just to let everyone see what I had in mind, concerning this article, you can find it here. I'm not sure about the title, though, and I'm sure other things might be ready to be improved also. But at least now people know what it's all about. :) Robster1983 (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am ok with that section; it's well referenced and to the point. This discussion makes clear that some extra explanation seems indeed to be useful. You could also add the introductory law (law changing the marriage law) "Wijziging van Boek 1 van het Burgerlijk Wetboek in verband met de openstelling van het huwelijk voor personen van hetzelfde geslacht" to clarify more that it is really a single marriage definition. I would make the heading: "Naming", or "Name".. L.tak (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added homohuwelijk to the intro. I think it's enough. The section about name is not necessary.Ron 1987 (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Well, if everyone can find themselves in both the intro and the article as it is right now, then I'm not gonna push it any further, and will agree with Ron 1987. And although I won't push it any further, I do think that there's no harm in putting the translations with it (as even Google translates 'homohuwelijk' as 'gay marriage', see [2], and the article about same-sex marriage itself is also including 'gay marriage' in its lead-in/intro). But again: if this satisfactory for everyone, then I'm gonna join that satisfaction. :) Robster1983 (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Same-sex marriage in the Netherlands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_the_Netherlands&oldid=1216786483"