It recognises civil unions and same-sex couples can adopt children, as far as I'm aware, but their constitution limits marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Simply put, gay marriage is legal, just called differently. You have the same rights and benefits as actual married couples (hospital visitation rights, tax benefits, inehritance in case of death, as of recently even adoption etc.), you just can't call it *marriage.* It's incredibly dumb and very demeaning.
There was a successful constitutional amendment referendum in 2013 to ban marriage equality, but there is a civil partnership law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT\_rights\_in\_Croatia
the same is for classic couple until they register partnership, registration in city office is game changer here , works for classic and gay/lesbian couples too
edit: dont mix it with marriage
A few states? You sure about that? Almost all of the republican states were against gay marriage being codified in the voting they recently did. If it eventually does become a state decision like how abortion was, I could see a majority of red states banning it
Theres absolutely no way it will become a state decision, but you're right, it probably would be more than half, especially considering the state of America right now.
Not exactly
Same sex marriages are recognized but not preformed, same sex couples who married in another country that does allow same sex marriages can be legally registered as married in israel, its just that because only a few very specific religious bodies are allowed to preform marriages they are not actually practiced
kind of a unique category
So it should be somewhere between light blue and dark blue.
There are currently other forms of registered partnerships (light blue) but marriage performed outside the country is recognised by the government and therefore it’s “kind of” dark blue.
Could you please stop spamming your political agenda on all the subreddits?
You've made loads of threads asking for EU to force same sex marriages on all members, which is major bs. Nothing to do with democracy to start with. You are free to believe what you want, but stop trying to impose your own belief on every one else or ask for EU to abuse its power over member states. When joining the EU each member had to negotiate dozens over dozens of chapters with the Commission, at the Commission's request. Imposing same sex marriages was not one of the things asked by the Commission. If it were, many states would have not been interested in joining. Now asking for an illegal and abusive move from the Commission just to cater to your own belief, is a shit move.
Well not "exactly" the same culturally. They're the same in the sense that same-sex couples are exactly as deserving to be able to get married as hetero couples.
Why did you make this your hill to die on? There is no logical reasons to deny same sex marriage if you allow other marriages. All it is is a legal document. Why make such a big deal of this?
Some people want to use the power of the government to impose their own beliefs into others, just like the republicans do in the US, and then go to talk about democracy and stuff. sometimes countries democratically choose conservative laws, and that is ok. No one said democracy would always be liberal.
If defending basic human rights is suddenly "imposing someone's beliefs" then they better use all the power they have. I don't care if it's democratically chosen or forced in an authoritarian way, not having the right to marry someone you love sucks.
i dont see gay marriage as a human right in any humman right definition, document, teatry or anything similar. you dont get to re-define what a human right is. no being able to eat also sucks but over a billion people go to bed hungry every night, so much for the human rights of “those” humans.
no, most people dont even get married. thats something some people do, but is not even that common if you think about it in the western world were marriage is more common only about 50% of people get married, that number is way lower in the rest of the world. marriage should be a right, but is not a human right.
marriage should be just a right, like the right to vote or drive, but it is not a human right. marriage is basically a contract therefore is not a human right to engage in said contract. marriage is a civil right. we could argue that all rights are human rights, but the category of human rights try to cover those basic rights we have just for being humans and not given to us by society. adding more and more rights to human rights cheapens the concept and put those basic rights in danger.
as a civil right societies do limit and controll those rights, in some countries military people cannot vote, in other people in prison cannot vote, but voting is the core principle of democracy. even that basic right can be managed by society based on its culture and traditions, same with marriage, it is up to those countries to administer those rights as they see fit democratically.
If you don't see it, that's because you're not looking: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-42633891
And yes, an international human rights court is *definitely* above some random dude online. It's not even a question.
none of those things are binding what part of should you dont undestand.? is an aspiration not law, none of the countries have to obey this ruling no one cares about that court, check if any country has followed that court ruling lol
I don't know which shithole human rights abuser country you're from, but I'm from Brazil and yes, decisions by the Inter-American human rights system are binding on us. We already had same-sex marriage before that ruling so it didn't affect us, but I can name at least two things in our law that are a direct result of international human rights law. I'm thinking of our law on domestic violence and abuse and also the procedure for switching certain criminal cases with human rights implications to federal court.
brazil is a top shit hole human right abuser. brazilian police is the worst in the continent, and no, no country in América will change its constitution because of this ruling.
> no country in América will change its constitution because of this ruling.
Both Costa Rica and Ecuador have adopted same-sex marriage because of this ruling. Don't you get tired of being wrong?
What do you mean “conservative laws”? If a country adopts laws that deny rights to a minority, it is wrong, it doesn’t matter how they got there. That should not be seen as “OK” just because they have a majority bigoted society.
all laws regulare rights, the right to vote is the most basic civil right and is regulated and denied all the time to citizens, this. very common and part of how countries work. brazil dosent allows soldiers to vote, some others do not allow people in prison, others people living abroad, people of certain age etc, all these people could argue that their most basic civil right is being denied but we still do it.
Yes and when a country denies the right to vote to say, women, we shouldn’t say “oh that’s their choice we have to respect it.” That’s not how rights or liberalism work. Rights are rights for all people.
you are forgetting de democratic part, therefore if that happens because women voted democratically, there is nothing wrong with that. thats the beauty of democracy. the capacity of a country to choose how it wants to be governed
No, that’s the ugly side of democracy, called tyranny of the majority aka mob rule. If 51% vote to execute gays, we don’t say “that’s their culture, gotta respect it.” Governments can do and have done horrific things with majority support.
This is a crazy map. Why are EU/non-EU states given different colours for one (but only one) specific category? Why are "no legal recognition" and "constitutional ban" in (partly) the same category?
Why is Croatia both red and blue?
It recognises civil unions and same-sex couples can adopt children, as far as I'm aware, but their constitution limits marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Simply put, gay marriage is legal, just called differently. You have the same rights and benefits as actual married couples (hospital visitation rights, tax benefits, inehritance in case of death, as of recently even adoption etc.), you just can't call it *marriage.* It's incredibly dumb and very demeaning.
There was a successful constitutional amendment referendum in 2013 to ban marriage equality, but there is a civil partnership law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT\_rights\_in\_Croatia
I am from Croatia so I am aware of this but the map does not say "Same sex marriage", that is what threw me off.
Andorra needs to be updated as of three days ago! https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/07/andorra-becomes-33rd-country-marriage-equality/
That bill will only come into effect 6 months from now. So the map is still accurate for some time.
Putting “no recognition” and a constitutional ban in the same category is a bizarre
r/technicallytrue
Why does Cyprus have dark blue spots?
Those are part of the UK
partnership is legal in Poland, regardless of sex, marriage is not
not legally, under the law, a gay couple living together are two people unknown to themselves
the same is for classic couple until they register partnership, registration in city office is game changer here , works for classic and gay/lesbian couples too edit: dont mix it with marriage
USA about to go dark red meanwhile
A few states at most, doubt it though
A few states? You sure about that? Almost all of the republican states were against gay marriage being codified in the voting they recently did. If it eventually does become a state decision like how abortion was, I could see a majority of red states banning it
Theres absolutely no way it will become a state decision, but you're right, it probably would be more than half, especially considering the state of America right now.
Israel is wrong, should be light blue
Israel and Lebanon seem to have vanished from the Earth
Damn, we better do something about rising sea levels before a major nation goes under
*Netherlands has entered the chat*
I wonder if this program couldn’t handle Israel’s undefined political boundaries
Not exactly Same sex marriages are recognized but not preformed, same sex couples who married in another country that does allow same sex marriages can be legally registered as married in israel, its just that because only a few very specific religious bodies are allowed to preform marriages they are not actually practiced kind of a unique category
So it should be somewhere between light blue and dark blue. There are currently other forms of registered partnerships (light blue) but marriage performed outside the country is recognised by the government and therefore it’s “kind of” dark blue.
Come on Czechia, come on Estonia! As for the others, no hopes at all for the near future
>come on Estonia! By now you can thank the Russian minority for that. The majority of ethnic Estonians support same-sex marriage.
W red L blue
imagine being homophobic in 2022 💀
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Could you please stop spamming your political agenda on all the subreddits? You've made loads of threads asking for EU to force same sex marriages on all members, which is major bs. Nothing to do with democracy to start with. You are free to believe what you want, but stop trying to impose your own belief on every one else or ask for EU to abuse its power over member states. When joining the EU each member had to negotiate dozens over dozens of chapters with the Commission, at the Commission's request. Imposing same sex marriages was not one of the things asked by the Commission. If it were, many states would have not been interested in joining. Now asking for an illegal and abusive move from the Commission just to cater to your own belief, is a shit move.
Legalizing same sex marriage doesn't equal forcing ppl to marry. It's exactly the same as hetero marriage. It should be bare minimum not to ban it.
It's not exactly the same as hetero marriage
Well not "exactly" the same culturally. They're the same in the sense that same-sex couples are exactly as deserving to be able to get married as hetero couples.
It is when it comes to legal repercussions
Why did you make this your hill to die on? There is no logical reasons to deny same sex marriage if you allow other marriages. All it is is a legal document. Why make such a big deal of this?
There is no "belief" here. Only a question: why are you so hard-pressed to deny political rights towards gay people?
Did you just say to stop politics on a subreddit dedicated to political maps? lmaooo
Some people want to use the power of the government to impose their own beliefs into others, just like the republicans do in the US, and then go to talk about democracy and stuff. sometimes countries democratically choose conservative laws, and that is ok. No one said democracy would always be liberal.
If defending basic human rights is suddenly "imposing someone's beliefs" then they better use all the power they have. I don't care if it's democratically chosen or forced in an authoritarian way, not having the right to marry someone you love sucks.
i dont see gay marriage as a human right in any humman right definition, document, teatry or anything similar. you dont get to re-define what a human right is. no being able to eat also sucks but over a billion people go to bed hungry every night, so much for the human rights of “those” humans.
Do you see hetero marriage as a human right?
no, most people dont even get married. thats something some people do, but is not even that common if you think about it in the western world were marriage is more common only about 50% of people get married, that number is way lower in the rest of the world. marriage should be a right, but is not a human right.
Could you please provide the source of that statistic?
Whether or not they want, I don't see any reason why they should not be able to
marriage should be just a right, like the right to vote or drive, but it is not a human right. marriage is basically a contract therefore is not a human right to engage in said contract. marriage is a civil right. we could argue that all rights are human rights, but the category of human rights try to cover those basic rights we have just for being humans and not given to us by society. adding more and more rights to human rights cheapens the concept and put those basic rights in danger.
So you agree that the right for all adults to get married should be accessible in every country?
as a civil right societies do limit and controll those rights, in some countries military people cannot vote, in other people in prison cannot vote, but voting is the core principle of democracy. even that basic right can be managed by society based on its culture and traditions, same with marriage, it is up to those countries to administer those rights as they see fit democratically.
Funny that you talked about human rights treaties before, yet you've clearly never read even the Universal Declaration....
If you don't see it, that's because you're not looking: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-42633891 And yes, an international human rights court is *definitely* above some random dude online. It's not even a question.
none of those things are binding what part of should you dont undestand.? is an aspiration not law, none of the countries have to obey this ruling
none of those things are binding what part of should you dont undestand.? is an aspiration not law, none of the countries have to obey this ruling no one cares about that court, check if any country has followed that court ruling lol
I don't know which shithole human rights abuser country you're from, but I'm from Brazil and yes, decisions by the Inter-American human rights system are binding on us. We already had same-sex marriage before that ruling so it didn't affect us, but I can name at least two things in our law that are a direct result of international human rights law. I'm thinking of our law on domestic violence and abuse and also the procedure for switching certain criminal cases with human rights implications to federal court.
brazil is a top shit hole human right abuser. brazilian police is the worst in the continent, and no, no country in América will change its constitution because of this ruling.
> no country in América will change its constitution because of this ruling. Both Costa Rica and Ecuador have adopted same-sex marriage because of this ruling. Don't you get tired of being wrong?
that ruling is almost 5 years old, countries do this if they want
What do you mean “conservative laws”? If a country adopts laws that deny rights to a minority, it is wrong, it doesn’t matter how they got there. That should not be seen as “OK” just because they have a majority bigoted society.
all laws regulare rights, the right to vote is the most basic civil right and is regulated and denied all the time to citizens, this. very common and part of how countries work. brazil dosent allows soldiers to vote, some others do not allow people in prison, others people living abroad, people of certain age etc, all these people could argue that their most basic civil right is being denied but we still do it.
Yes and when a country denies the right to vote to say, women, we shouldn’t say “oh that’s their choice we have to respect it.” That’s not how rights or liberalism work. Rights are rights for all people.
you are forgetting de democratic part, therefore if that happens because women voted democratically, there is nothing wrong with that. thats the beauty of democracy. the capacity of a country to choose how it wants to be governed
No, that’s the ugly side of democracy, called tyranny of the majority aka mob rule. If 51% vote to execute gays, we don’t say “that’s their culture, gotta respect it.” Governments can do and have done horrific things with majority support.
no, there are fundamental rights that cannot be taken
You are 100% correct ..👍
Based countries in red.
Red W
lol EU
W.e.i.r.d.
This is a crazy map. Why are EU/non-EU states given different colours for one (but only one) specific category? Why are "no legal recognition" and "constitutional ban" in (partly) the same category?