Talk:Same-sex marriage

List of viewpoints

1. the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality as sin is 'merely a claim' rather than 'objective truth'.
   • The Bible's stance on homosexuality isn't a very clear one
     • the Old Testament considers it an abomination
       • The New Testament has very little to say about homosexuality.
       • Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.
2. We need to keep the Ten Commandments, as they help live a Christ-like life
   • The Ten Commandments say nothing about homosexuality.
   • What about Jesus' commandment to love your neighbor as you love yourself?
3. Old Testament prohibitions can be ignored, because
   1. it says quite a few things are abominations or illegal that we consider okay today.
   2. the old testament is somewhat irrelevant to Christianity
   3. only the New Testament really matters.
4. marriage is a right
5. homosexuals should have 'equal rights'
6. same-sex "marriage" is simply a matter of giving equal rights to gays
7. Very few homosexuals want to "marry" each other
   • "very few want to marry each other" is a lie
   • I want to marry another man.
8. the immediate intent of same-sex "marriage" agitation is to remove the stigma of being called a "fornicator"
   • There are many reasons for fighting for gay marriage. There are over 1,000 rights that married heterosexual couples have, all of which are denied to same-sex couples because they can't legally marry.
9. Same-sex "marriage" adopts the form of marriage for the supposed purpose of destroying the sanctity of marriage and justifying homosexuality.
   • You are all right in saying the institution of marriage is falling apart. But, instead of actually trying to look at the problem and say, "Hm, what can we do better?", you all would rather blame it on a minority population because that's what is easy. Divorce rates are up to 50% or higher nowadays. Why is this? Not because of gay marriage, you idiots. It's a complete lack of respect for the institution of marriage.
10. Nothing from the Old Testament is nullified unless it is nullified explicitly in the New Testament
11. The New Testament is hostile to homosexuality.
    • Oh really, where?
    1. The Bible is clear on this
12. Jewish religious law condemns the practice of male homosexual acts.
13. giving 'equal legal rights' to male couples has no effect on the spiritual condition of couples bound by the Christian sacrament of holy matrimony
    • Exactly!

Well there is also the viewpoint that, even if gay marriage is wrong in the eyes of God, Christians are instructed to "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" and more importantly "render unto Caesar (i.e. the government) that which is Caesar's (i.e. the provision of government-made rights)" -- Jesus didn't say "go ahead and stone the bitch", he prevented the old law from being carried out, and then used his witness alone to persuade the sinner, saying "go forth and sin no more".... he didn't say that she hadn't sinned, but demonstrated that the Christian course of action is not to have the law prevent people from sinning -- if the government (i.e. Caesar) wants to let gays be "married" and give them tax breaks and hospital visitation and such, that doesn't involve the Church, which ought not be tainted by the corruption that is all politics, anyway.... the Christian course of action is to tell the sinners of their sin, and if they refuse to hear, trust God to deal with it.... trying to get the government to interfere one way or the other is the same as denying God.... Pandeism 22:50, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

In this belated reply, I'd like to point out that marriage is more of a responsibility than a "right". It's something which society encourages because it is an institution which promotes social stability by protecting women and children.

I've also written an essay just know on the Mysterious male-female relationship. --Ed Poor ^Talk 08:19, 18 December 2009 (EST)

Discussion

A few problems with this. It's not exclusive to men, and Bush has pretty much given up on the Constitutional amendment. MountainDew 16:05, 10 March 2007 (EST)

• There are a lot of problems with this, which I've just tried to fix. The previous article seemed to be mixing up legal marriage and religious marriage. It implied that the President can amend the Constitution. etc. Dpbsmith 18:02, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Isn't this already kinda covered at Homosexuality#Homosexuality and Marriage? Maybe we should import content from that section and then link from there to a fleshed-out article here, or flesh out the section there with whatever may come up here. In either way, some kind of synchronization would be of benefit in my eyes. --Sid 3050 16:18, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Hey Colin what was wrong with Ed poor's version? --BenjaminS 08:18, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

For starters, this sentence was in the first paragraph: "Very few homosexuals want to "marry" each other; the immediate intent is to remove the stigma of being called a "fornicator"." (no citation) ColinR^talk 08:21, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I protected my first page. I am now a total Wikipedia pariah, since I used editorial power to 'win' an edit war. :-( --Ed Poor 08:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

If someone can provide a citation for "Very few homosexuals want to "marry" each other; the immediate intent is to remove the stigma of being called a "fornicator"," I will relent on reverting this back. Do note that I was originally reverting to Aschlafly's version, now I am reverting to a modified Ed Poor version (Aschlafly's first paragraph, the rest Ed's). ColinR^talk 08:58, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I had alrady removed the refrence to their intent. --BenjaminS 09:01, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

It still included "very few want to marry each other" which is either a lie or an uncited fact, neither of which are allowed on Conservapedia. ColinR^talk 09:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, lets remove that sentence altogether. --BenjaminS 09:06, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

There's also "has the actual result of destroying the sanctity of marriage and justifying homosexuality," which is opinion. Tsumetai 09:08, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

What was wrong with the sentence I added to the 1st paragraph? It was hardly bad enough for the rollback button. --BenjaminS 09:20, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

The rollback button is easier to use, my apologies. I doubt the truth of that sentence, but if that is the case, then surely a citation for it won't be hard to find. If you can't find one, I have no problem saying, "Some argue that giving equal rights to gays has the actual result of destroying the sanctity of marriage and justifying homosexuality (which they claim Bible condemns as sin)." This sentence isn't biased, doesn't have as much of a need for a citation (if one at all) and includes more viewpoints than the earlier sentence. ColinR^talk 09:25, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

That sentence is fine except for one thing which I fixed. --BenjaminS 09:30, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Edit war

Colin's version: accurate and uncontroversial. Ed's version: contentious. Therefore, the current version should remain until this issue is resolved. As sysops, we should be setting an example and sorting this out through discussion. Are we agreed? Tsumetai 08:59, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Tsumetai and have reverted all but one of my changes. I think I was too 'bold' here. Thanks for everyone's mild response. --Ed Poor 09:05, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

• Agree re: 'contentious', 'until resolved' & esp. 'setting an example', that is. --Ed Poor 09:07, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I was only referring to the one paragraph, but OK. Tsumetai 09:08, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Let us parley

Okay...instead of the edit war-ette, let us hash it out here. I don't have an ax to grind here so you can count me as a neutral "referee" (bribes and plasticaccepted). Cracker_talk 09:23, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Marriage as a right

• "Some argue that giving equal rights to gays has the actual result of destroying the sanctity of marriage and justifying homosexuality (which they claim Bible condemns as sin)."

This is complex. It entails the idea that (1) marriage is a right and (2) homosexuals should have 'equal rights'. It involves the idea that (3) the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality as sin is 'merely a claim' rather than 'objective truth'.

Maybe we should lay all cards on the table. --Ed Poor 09:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

The Bible's stance on homosexuality isn't a very clear one. Yes, the Old Testament considers it an abomination, but the old testament also says quite a few other things are abominations or illegal that we consider okay today. Moreover, the old testament is somewhat irrelevant to Christianity as only the New Testament really matters. ColinR^talk 09:33, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

You are wrong here, see the passage from the book of Romans, that i quoted below. --CPAdmin1 10:33, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

The passage from Romans indicates that homosexuality MIGHT be a consequence of idolatry and THAT a God goven consequence. Cracker_talk

lol, now we must add the view that (4) 'only the New Testament really matters' to the list. How tall will this house of cards become? --Ed Poor 09:35, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not saying "only it matters," but clearly many of the Old Testament laws were deemed unnecessary; I mean, you don't keep kosher do you? And who's to say which laws can be dropped and which must be kept? (obviously I can see the need to keep the 10 commandments, as they even help live a Christ-like life) ColinR^talk 09:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Colin: you're not old enough to remember but years ago many states had what were called "blue laws" that made it illegal for business to be conducted on Sunday, (you could OPEN your place if business, that was okay, but you couldn't make any transactions). The effect was that people would do all of their shopping on Saturday. You couldn't get GASOLINE on Sunday! 1 out of ten stations were open. Nevermind "homosexuals" they didn't even get close to being mentioned when you could talk about "Sabbath breakers" all day. Cracker_talk 09:47, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh, but I am old enough to remember said blue laws, and to an extent some blue laws are still in place where I live. ColinR^talk 09:50, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh yeah, I failed to recall you live in the "land that time forgot". Cracker_talk

Hahaha, yeah, that's rural Tennessee. :-P ColinR^talk 09:52, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Personally i don't beleive that anything from the old testament is nulified unless it is nulified explicitly in the new testament, e.g. the eating of unclean animals-- I love bacon :) -- The new testament does seem pretty hostile to homosexuality. --BenjaminS 09:44, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

So no polyester/cotton blend shirts for you, eh? Cracker_talk 09:48, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Who says so?

Some argue that giving equal rights to gays has the actual result of destroying the sanctity of marriage and justifying homosexuality (which they claim Bible condemns as sin).

• The reference (to Leviticus) would certainly support a statement that "Jewish religious law condemns the practice of male homosexual acts." And, yes, a suitable New Testament reference would broaden this. I don't remember the passage in Romans offhand.

• • Romans 1:24-28

Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their heart to impurity, so that thier bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do these things which are not proper,

so yes, the bible is clear on this. --CPAdmin1 10:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't want to get into a game of "dueling Scriptures" but if a passage starts out with a "therefore" it ought to include what the "therefore" is there for. Hence:

Romans Chapter 1: 21-23(RSV). ²¹: for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.²²Claiming to be wise, they became fools,²³and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.

This would indicate, that the sin of homosexuality is begotten from the parent sin of idolatry.

So the Bible is "clear" about idolatry being bad, (look what it's gets you!), but not all homosexuals are idolaters, are they? Cracker_talk

• The reference certainly does not state that giving equal legal rights to male couples has any affect on the spiritual condition of couples bound by the Christian sacrament of holy matrimony.

• The reference does not support the statement that "some argue" this. Probably some do, but it is important to have a good reference here, because without it the reader can't tell why "some" would say this, or what their argument for such a position is.

Something like this can certainly go in the article, but not as a weaseled "some argue" that does not give any traceable link to who makes this argument and what their argument would be. Dpbsmith 09:42, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd rather not see this sentence or anything similar to it even in the article, but I felt this was the best version to convey the particular sentiment. ColinR^talk 09:47, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

• Oh, I'd rather not see it in the article myself, but that's a different issue... Dpbsmith 09:49, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Dpbsmith that we should avoid weasel-worded statemints. Traceable links are useful and often essential.

I agree with Colin that we must not lie! Uncited facts can be a problem, but anything that's true should be pretty easy to find a citation for.

(Unsigned comments by User:Ed Poor)

What needs to be shown is that this is a) a reasonably widely-held position, and b) what the stated basis of that position is. Should it go in the article just because BenjaminS and his brother hold this position? Or is it a formal position taken in a paper published by some organization like (say) Focus on the Family? Or is there a Gallup poll showing that the majority of Americans hold this position? It matters. And, frankly, as should be clear, I think this sort of material should go in the article after it's supported, not before. Dpbsmith 11:41, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

In general, it is opposed by social conservatives, and most of the support for it is from liberals. vs Poll data

In general, it is opposed by social conservatives, and most of the support for it is from liberals.

Poll data can be found at [1]

	Legal	Illegal	Amend Constitution	Leave to the States
All	41%	55	38	58
Men	38	59	39	58
Women	45	51	38	59
18-29	55	42	32	67
65+	21	75	44	50
Democrats	50	46	35	61
Independents	47	50	38	60
Republicans	24	72	43	52
Liberal	69	27	28	67
Moderate	44	52	30	68
Conservative	20	77	55	42
Evangelical	17	81	58	38
Non-evangelical	42	55	30	67
No religion	66	26	19	78
East	48	46	36	63
Midwest	40	56	42	53
South	35	63	42	55
West	49	48	30	66
Married	35	61	41	55
Not Married	49	48	36	62

Outside of the Liberal and Republicans, Conservative and Evangelical sections, support is fairly much split down the middle (do realize the large overlap between the Republicans, Conservative and Evangelical sections). I find the original claim faulty - most of the support is not from the liberals (though they support it the most). --Mtur 16:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Not an oxymoron, etc.

I changed:

Same-sex marriage is an oxymoronic phrase that depicts two people of the same sex attempting to gain the same legal status afforded to men and women.

to

A same-sex marriage is a legal relationship between two people of the same sex that has the same legal status as a marriage between a man and a woman. Some regard the phrase as self-contradictory because they do not regard it as a true marriage.

It's not an oxymoron, because it's not a figure of speech made for rhetorical emphasis. In recent years a form of humor has arisen which consists of describing a phrase as an "oxymoron," causing the hearer to do a double-take as he gets the comic interpretation, e.g. "Government organization--that's an oxymoron." But this is not yet accepted as a real meaning for the word, although in a few years it may be. "Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron" could be a joke, but it is not a proper statement either of a fact or of an opinion.

Seconding, "attempting to gain the same legal status" is inaccurate, because same-sex marriage is a reality in several countries and one state of the United States, and these couples do have the same legal status as married couples of the opposite sex. (And couples joined in civil unions in states that have them have the same legal status as married couples of the opposite sex.)

To suggest that, from a legal point of view, same-sex marriages do not yet exist is to deny a plain reality. Dpbsmith 22:16, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

The word "marriage" means a man & woman. There is no other meaning to the word. RobS 22:19, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Rob, please stop the business of stating flatly that what RobS thinks a word ought to mean is what the word means. It's a special case of stating that whatever RobS believes must be true.

"Marriage" is often short for Christian marriage, which takes place in a church, is officiated by a clergyman, is ordained by God, and is between a man and a woman; but there is another meaning to the word. it can also refer to the civil contract, which grants certain legal rights and is officiated by some kind of state official--most clergyman are also state officials--and is governed by state law.

The marriages between same-sex couples that take place in Massachusetts are "marriages."

The changes you made are a presentation of your personal opinion, and are not appropriate when stated as fact.

As for the word "oxymoron," I've substituted "ludicrous self-contradiction."

P. S. I would like to see some examples that show that the use of "same-sex marriage" within quotation marks is a widespread, standard usage by conservatives. Dpbsmith 06:06, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

And yet millions of people feel otherwise. Czolgolz 22:56, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Among those millions are the editors of the American Heritage Dictionary:

1a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. b. The state of being married; wedlock. c. A common-law marriage. d. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage. 2. A wedding. 3. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose). 4. Games The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.[2]

and those of Merriam-Webster:

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross[3]

Believe me, I check the dictionary about a dozen times for every time I actually quote it, and I wish other contributors would do the same. Whenever I'm not really sure what the nuances or range of meaning of a word are, I check. There are many words whose meanings I think I know that, it turns out, I don't really know. Dpbsmith 06:11, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I consider the "oxymoron" PoV to be discredited.

This is the second time its been stated, dictionaries do not give definitions. RobS 13:37, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

• "'Same-sex marriage' is an oxymoron" is an incorrect use of the word oxymoron.
• "'Same-sex marriage' is a ludicrous self-contradiction" is correct usage, but inaccurate.
• "Some conservatives consider 'same-sex marriage' to be a ludicrous self-contradiction" is accurate, but should be sourced.
• "Because the editors of Conservapedia consider 'same-sex marriage' to be a ludicrous self-contradiction, the term will be used in quotation marks throughout this article" is something that could be worth discussion. I'd accept this if a) it really is the Conservapedia consensus opinion and b) the article identifies it as such. Dpbsmith 14:07, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Usage by conservative sources

Of the first hundred Google search of the National Review, ninety-eight of them simply use the term without quotation marks. This includes a 2005 editorial. One anti-Kerry article uses the phrase same-sex marriage without quotation marks numerous times, but uses same-sex "marriage" twice, I'm not quite sure why. one other uses the phrase Massachusetts same-sex "marriage". Dpbsmith 12:55, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Focus on the Family consistently uses Same-sex 'marriage' and same-sex "marriage". Dpbsmith 12:57, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Eagle Forum uses same-sex marriage, no quotation marks, 99 times, and same-sex "marriage" in Massachusetts once. Dpbsmith 12:59, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Christian Coalition: 99 usages without quotation marks, one with. Dpbsmith 13:02, 15 May 2007 (EDT) Dpbsmith 13:19, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

How come when I click on these Google results I get these,

• 2812 results from NRO for <marraige"> [4]
• Dr. Dobson specifically refers to "same-sex marraige" and "gay marriage" in an article entitled, Marriage on the Ropes, where the word marriage occurs 90+ times. [5]
• CC first result: California's Supreme Court Overturns San Francisco "Homosexual Marriages" [6] and that sirte consistently uses <"marriage"> in this context [7]

Also, the appears to be no uniform way these searches are configured to get results that are already in quotes. RobS 13:45, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I was exploring, Rob.

If you want to remove the second paragraph I just added to the article, on the grounds that you don't like my methodology, go ahead.

Is your point is that the phrase should be "gay marriage" rather than "same-sex marriage," i.e. that the phrase "same-sex" was chosen to play down the word "gay?" I wasn't even looking at that. I can't speak for others, but I personally would have no objection to moving "same-sex marriage" to "gay marriage" and revising the language accordingly. Dpbsmith 13:56, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

SSM as an attack on the institution of marriage

Any legal inroads to redefining marriage from one boy and one girl can only lead to the destruction of marriage as a godly institution. Holy matrimony, which also allows the non-religious to partake, is given by God. Legal perversions, such as bigamy, polygamy (for which they are raking Mitt Romney over the coals) and forced "arranged" marriages (where the girl has no choice, a kind of legalized rape), will destroy marriage if permitted.

This is part of the homosexual agenda. They don't really want to be "married" or "enjoy the benifits of marriage". The civil union already does this, allowing next of kin rights when you're in the hospital, etc. The purpose is to destroy marriage. What we need to be writing about is why and how the gay rights movement is trying to destroy the sanctity of marriage. I guess it has something to do with taking away the ability of pastors (and society at large) to condemn homosexuality. It's related to "hate speech" and hate crime legislation which forbid criticism of homosexuality as sin. --Ed Poor 13:30, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Girls and boys getting married? Should they be referred to as men and women? DrSandstone 13:35, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Ed, I don't think you're really correct on any of the above. I can't see why homosexuals would want to destroy marriage, and frankly, I think that the imputation of this invidious intent on a group of people is simple fear-mongering, or alarmism in the extreme, without proof. Second, "civil unions" do not carry the federal marriage benefits that President Bush fought so hard for (tax breaks et al). Surely that's a benefit that homosexual couples have an interest in acquiring. Third, and most importantly, perhaps, the idea of the "parade of the horribles" - "if you allow this, you allow bigamy" - has really been refuted a thousand times. If you want, I'd be glad to draw you the legal lines between same-sex marriage, and bigamy et al, but I consider them fairly obvious. Please let me know if you would enjoy the clarification.-Speaker 13:42, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Courts are clogged enouogh with divorce and custody cases; with gay adoption, and what by first glance appears high rates of, let's call it, "extra-marital promiscuity" among homosexuals, the oft quoted 50% "divorce rate" appears to be much higher among gays. RobS 13:50, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

The "extra-marital promiscuity" amongst gays might because they can't get married, dude. And administrative convenience is no reason to abridge liberty.-Speaker 14:01, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I still don't understand how SSM will destro the insitution of marriage. Does two guys getting married render your own marriage null? It would be different if gays also wanted to pass a law outlawing heterosexual marriage, but last time I checked there was no such movement. Is there a serious fear that if gay marriage is made legal all the good straight Christians will suddenly catch a gay gene or something? Arguing that it is against your churches moral codes is one thing, but arguing that gays are out to destroy your entire way of life seems a little demagogic to me.Prof0705 13:54, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Just for the record, Ed: Two weekends ago I was lunching with a lawyer—a judge, actually, who presides in a different state than ours. I was muttering something about our will. He said that "Everyone needs a lawyer three times in their life when they draw up a will, when they buy a house, and when they get a divorce." He then went on to say in a jocular way "It's just life. Sooner or later you need to shed a spouse, and when you do," etc. etc. I sort of blinked at that, and said that my wife and I thought at this point that we were married for keeps.

I feel that remarks like that threaten the institution of marriage more than all the civil unions in Vermont. Dpbsmith 14:14, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Paris Hilton & Britney Spears, together or separately, are greater threats to marriage than all of the gay unions possible, past present & future.-Speaker 14:16, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Snipping Wikipedia-sourced long list

I'm removing this for three reasons. First, Wikipedia itself does not accept Wikipedia as a reliable source, and neither should we... quite apart from issues of institutional rivalry. If someone wants to reinsert this, they should find the sources Wikipedia used, or do fresh research, to support the entries in the list.

Second, the topic of the article is same-sex marriage, so probably it should only mention places that allow marriage (under the same name, law, and institutional apparatus--same forms are filed, etc.--as traditional marriage.)

Third, the insertion of such a very, very, long list, including places that have only "registered partnerships" and places that are "considering" same-sex marriage, really looks tendentious to me.

In other words, the list should be limited to a) major countries (no need to mention the Netherlands Antilles) that b) allow same-sex marriage, and c) are accompanied by references. The references are important to allow the reader to verify what the country actually does or does not allow, and ensure that (say) someone doesn't say that "same-sex marriages are allowed in the United States" when they are only allowed in Massachusetts, or anything like that. Dpbsmith 14:05, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Material removed

Same-sex marriages are allowed in Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, South Africa, Monaco, Spain, Cayman Islands, Greenland, Netherland Antilles, Turks and Caicos Islands, Pitcairn Island, French Guiana, Falkland Islands.

Israel approves of same-sex marriages performed abroad, but does not perform them in the country.

Same-sex unions or registered partnerships are allowed in Hungary (from July 2007), Andorra, [[Italy]9 (some regions), Luxembourg, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, France, United Kingdom, Martinique, Guadeloupe, United States (Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, California, Maine, District of Coumbia and Hawaii), Mexico (Mexico City and Coahuila), Australia and Norfolk Island, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Brazil (Rio Grande do Sul), Argentina (Buenos Aires City and Rio Negro Privince).

Same-sex unions are considered in Hong-Kong, Philippines, Taiwan, Austria, Faroe Islands, Gibraltar, Greece, Gernsey, Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey, Lichtenstein, Poland, Bermuda, Costa Rica, New Caledonia, Chile, Colombia, Uruguay.