Civil union: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Previous edit
VisualWikitext
imported>Wikisam001
imported>Maxeto0910
no sentences
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Legal union similar to marriage}}
{{Short description|Legal union similar to marriage}}
{{Hatnote|See also: [[Domestic partnership]], which is legal recognition of relationships without the wider rights or benefits of civil unions.}}
{{Distinguish|Domestic partnership}}{{Same-sex unions}}
[[File:Men Couple in Istria Croatia.jpg|thumb|Gay couple in Croatia, which allows [[Recognition of same-sex unions in Croatia|civil partnerships]] but not [[same-sex marriage]].]]
[[File:Men Couple in Istria Croatia.jpg|thumb|Gay couple in Croatia, which allows [[Recognition of same-sex unions in Croatia|civil partnerships]] but not [[same-sex marriage]]]]
{{Same-sex unions}}
{{Family law}}{{LGBTQ sidebar}}
{{Family law}}{{LGBTQ sidebar}}
A '''civil union''' (also known as a '''[[Civil partnership in the United Kingdom|civil partnership]]''') is a legally recognized arrangement similar to [[marriage]], primarily created to provide legal recognition for [[Same-sex relationship|same-sex couples]]. Civil unions grant some or all of the rights of marriage, with [[Adoption|child adoption]] being a common exception.
A '''civil union''' (also known as a '''[[Civil partnership in the United Kingdom|civil partnership]]''') is a legally recognized arrangement similar to [[marriage]], primarily intended to provide legal recognition for [[Same-sex relationship|same-sex couples]]. Civil unions grant some or all of the rights of marriage, with [[Adoption|child adoption]] being a common exception.


Civil unions have been established by law in several, mostly [[Developed country|developed]], countries in order to provide legal recognition of relationships formed by same-sex couples and to afford them rights, benefits, tax breaks, and responsibilities. In 1989, [[Same-sex marriage in Denmark|Denmark]] was the first country to legalise civil unions; however, most other developed democracies did not begin establishing them until the 1990s and early 2000s. In [[Same-sex marriage in Brazil|Brazil]], civil unions were first created for opposite-sex couples in 2002, and then expanded to include same-sex couples in 2011. In the majority of countries that established same-sex civil unions, they have since been either supplemented or replaced by [[same-sex marriage]]. Civil unions are viewed by [[LGBT rights]] campaigners as a "first step" towards establishing same-sex marriage, as civil unions are viewed by supporters of LGBT rights as a "[[separate but equal]]" status.
Civil unions have been established by law in several mostly [[Developed country|developed]] countries in order to provide legal recognition of relationships formed by same-sex couples and to afford them rights, benefits, tax breaks, and responsibilities. In 1989, [[Same-sex marriage in Denmark|Denmark]] was the first country to legalise civil unions; however, most other developed democracies did not begin establishing them until the 1990s and early 2000s. In [[Same-sex marriage in Brazil|Brazil]], civil unions were first created for opposite-sex couples in 2002, and then expanded to include same-sex couples in 2011. In the majority of countries that established same-sex civil unions, they have since been either supplemented or replaced by [[same-sex marriage]]. Civil unions are viewed by [[LGBT rights]] campaigners as a "first step" towards establishing same-sex marriage, as civil unions are viewed by supporters of LGBT rights as a "[[separate but equal]]" status.


Many jurisdictions with civil unions recognize foreign unions if those are essentially equivalent to their own; for example, the [[United Kingdom]] lists equivalent unions in the [[Civil Partnership Act 2004#Schedule 20|Civil Partnership Act 2004 Schedule 20]]. The marriages of same-sex couples performed abroad may be recognized as civil unions in jurisdictions that only have the latter.
Many jurisdictions with civil unions recognize foreign unions if those are essentially equivalent to their own; for example, the [[United Kingdom]] lists equivalent unions in the [[Civil Partnership Act 2004#Schedule 20|Civil Partnership Act 2004 Schedule 20]]. The marriages of same-sex couples performed abroad may be recognized as civil unions in jurisdictions that only have the latter.
Line 12: Line 11:


==Overview and terminology==
==Overview and terminology==
[[File:New York City Proposition 8 Protest outside LDS temple 20.jpg|thumb|The notion of civil unions is rejected by some, such as this protester at a large demonstration in New York City against [[California Proposition 8 (2008)|California Proposition 8]].<ref name=Towleroad>[http://www.towleroad.com/2008/11/we-did-it.html NYC Protest and Civil Rights March Opposing Proposition 8], [[Andy Towle]], Towelroad.com, November 13, 2008; accessed November 14, 2008.</ref>]]
[[File:New York City Proposition 8 Protest outside LDS temple 20.jpg|thumb|The notion of civil unions is rejected by some, such as this protester at a large demonstration in New York City against [[California Proposition 8 (2008)|California Proposition 8]].<ref name=Towleroad>[http://www.towleroad.com/2008/11/we-did-it.html NYC Protest and Civil Rights March Opposing Proposition 8] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090213224331/http://www.towleroad.com/2008/11/we-did-it.html |date=2009-02-13 }}, [[Andy Towle]], Towelroad.com, November 13, 2008; accessed November 14, 2008.</ref>]]
The terms used to designate civil unions are not standardised and vary widely from country to country.  Government-sanctioned relationships that may be similar or equivalent to civil unions include [[Civil partnership in the United Kingdom|civil partnerships]], [[Registered partnership in the Czech Republic|registered partnerships]], [[domestic partnership]]s, [[Domestic partnership in Tasmania|significant relationships]], [[Reciprocal beneficiary relationships in Hawaii|reciprocal beneficiary relationships]], [[common-law marriage]], [[Adult interdependent relationship in Alberta|adult interdependent relationships]], [[Recognition of same-sex unions in Germany|life partnerships]], [[Recognition of same-sex unions in Andorra|stable unions]], [[civil solidarity pact]]s, and so on. The exact level of rights, benefits, obligations, and responsibilities also varies, depending on the laws of a particular country. Some jurisdictions allow same-sex couples to adopt, while others forbid them to do so, or allow adoption only in specified circumstances.
The terms used to designate civil unions are not standardised and vary widely from country to country.  Government-sanctioned relationships that may be similar or equivalent to civil unions include [[Civil partnership in the United Kingdom|civil partnerships]], [[Registered partnership in the Czech Republic|registered partnerships]], [[domestic partnership]]s, [[Domestic partnership in Tasmania|significant relationships]], [[Reciprocal beneficiary relationships in Hawaii|reciprocal beneficiary relationships]], [[common-law marriage]], [[Adult interdependent relationship in Alberta|adult interdependent relationships]], [[Recognition of same-sex unions in Germany|life partnerships]], [[Recognition of same-sex unions in Andorra|stable unions]], [[civil solidarity pact]]s, and so on. The exact level of rights, benefits, obligations, and responsibilities also varies, depending on the laws of a particular country. Some jurisdictions allow same-sex couples to adopt, while others forbid them to do so, or allow adoption only in specified circumstances.


In the [[United States]], the term ''civil union'' was introduced in the state of [[Same-sex marriage in Vermont|Vermont]] in 2000 to connote a status equivalent to marriage for same-sex couples; it was chosen by the state's legislators in preference to phrases such as  "domestic partner relationship" or "civil accord".<ref>{{cite news |last1=Halloran |first1=Liz |title=How Vermont's 'Civil' War Fueled The Gay Marriage Movement |url=https://www.npr.org/2013/03/27/174651233/how-vermonts-civil-war-fueled-the-gay-marriage-movement |access-date=July 6, 2021 |work=NPR |agency=National Public Radio |date=March 23, 2013 |language=en}}</ref>
In the [[United States]], the term ''civil union'' was introduced in the state of [[Same-sex marriage in Vermont|Vermont]] in 2000 to connote a status equivalent to marriage for same-sex couples; it was chosen by the state's legislators in preference to phrases such as  "domestic partner relationship" or "civil accord".<ref>{{cite news |last1=Halloran |first1=Liz |title=How Vermont's 'Civil' War Fueled The Gay Marriage Movement |url=https://www.npr.org/2013/03/27/174651233/how-vermonts-civil-war-fueled-the-gay-marriage-movement |access-date=July 6, 2021 |work=NPR |agency=National Public Radio |date=March 23, 2013 |language=en |archive-date=July 9, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210709183546/https://www.npr.org/2013/03/27/174651233/how-vermonts-civil-war-fueled-the-gay-marriage-movement |url-status=live }}</ref>


''[[Domestic partnership]]'', offered by some states, counties, cities, and employers since as early as 1985,<ref name='buddy062907'>{{cite web|url=http://www.buddybuddy.com/d-p-gov.html |title=Governments Offering Benefits |access-date=2007-07-31 |date=2007-06-29 |publisher=Partners Task Force for Gay & Lesbian Couples }}</ref> has generally connoted a lesser status with fewer benefits.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer/Relationship_Recognition_Update_-_09_03_08.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081203035743/http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer/Relationship_Recognition_Update_-_09_03_08.pdf|url-status=dead|title=Marriage, Domestic Partnerships, and Civil Unions: An Overview of Relationship Recognition for Same-Sex Couples in the United States|archive-date=December 3, 2008}}</ref>  However, the legislatures of the [[West Coast of the United States|West Coast]] states of [[Domestic partnership in California|California]], [[Domestic partnership in Oregon|Oregon]] and [[Domestic partnership in Washington (state)|Washington]] have preferred the term ''domestic partnership'' for enactments similar or equivalent to civil union laws in [[East Coast of the United States|East Coast]] states.
''[[Domestic partnership]]'', offered by some states, counties, cities, and employers since as early as 1985,<ref name='buddy062907'>{{cite web |url=http://www.buddybuddy.com/d-p-gov.html |title=Governments Offering Benefits |access-date=2007-07-31 |date=2007-06-29 |publisher=Partners Task Force for Gay & Lesbian Couples |archive-date=2007-08-07 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070807213457/http://www.buddybuddy.com/d-p-gov.html |url-status=live }}</ref> has generally connoted a lesser status with fewer benefits.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer/Relationship_Recognition_Update_-_09_03_08.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081203035743/http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer/Relationship_Recognition_Update_-_09_03_08.pdf|url-status=dead|title=Marriage, Domestic Partnerships, and Civil Unions: An Overview of Relationship Recognition for Same-Sex Couples in the United States|archive-date=December 3, 2008}}</ref>  However, the legislatures of the [[West Coast of the United States|West Coast]] states of [[Domestic partnership in California|California]], [[Domestic partnership in Oregon|Oregon]] and [[Domestic partnership in Washington (state)|Washington]] have preferred the term ''domestic partnership'' for enactments similar or equivalent to civil union laws in [[East Coast of the United States|East Coast]] states.


Civil unions are not seen as a replacement for marriage by many in the LGBT community. "[[Marriage]] in the United States is a civil union; but a civil union, as it has come to be called, is not marriage", said [[Evan Wolfson]] of [[Freedom to Marry]].<ref>[[n:Interview with gay marriage movement founder Evan Wolfson|Interview with Evan Wolfson]], David Shankbone, September 30, 2007</ref>  "It is a proposed hypothetical legal mechanism, since it doesn't exist in most places, to give some of the protections but also withhold something precious from gay people. There's no good reason to do that."  However, some opponents of same-sex marriage claim that civil unions rob marriage of its unique status; Randy Thomasson, executive director of the [[Campaign for California Families]], calls civil unions "homosexual marriage by another name" and contends that civil unions provide same-sex couples "all the rights of marriage available under state law".<ref name="bushirks">{{cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna6338458|title=Bush's gay union stance irks conservatives|website=[[NBC News]]|date=26 October 2004}}</ref>  The California Supreme Court, in the [[In Re Marriage Cases]] decision, noted nine differences<ref name="irmf24"/> in state law.
Civil unions are not seen as a replacement for marriage by many in the LGBT community. "[[Marriage]] in the United States is a civil union; a civil union, as it has come to be called, is not marriage", said [[Evan Wolfson]] of [[Freedom to Marry]].<ref>[[n:Interview with gay marriage movement founder Evan Wolfson|Interview with Evan Wolfson]], David Shankbone, September 30, 2007</ref>  "It is a proposed hypothetical legal mechanism, since it doesn't exist in most places, to give some of the protections but also withhold something precious from gay people. There's no good reason to do that."  However, some opponents of same-sex marriage claim that civil unions rob marriage of its unique status; Randy Thomasson, executive director of the [[Campaign for California Families]], calls civil unions "homosexual marriage by another name" and contends that civil unions provide same-sex couples "all the rights of marriage available under state law".<ref name="bushirks">{{cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna6338458|title=Bush's gay union stance irks conservatives|website=[[NBC News]]|date=26 October 2004}}</ref>  The California Supreme Court, in the [[In Re Marriage Cases]] decision, noted nine differences<ref name="irmf24"/> in state law.


Civil unions are commonly criticised as being '[[separate but equal]]'; critics such as former [[New Zealand]] MP and feminist [[Marilyn Waring]] note that same-sex couples remain excluded from the right to marry and are forced to use a separate institution.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0410/S00234.htm|title=Civil Unions "Anathema" to Marilyn Waring|date=October 23, 2004|work=Scoop|access-date= June 12, 2010}}</ref> Supporters of same-sex marriage contend that treating same-sex couples differently from other couples under the law allows for inferior treatment and that if civil unions were the same as marriage there would be no reason for two separate laws. A New Jersey commission which reviewed the state's civil union law reported that the law "invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children".<ref name="hammond2009">{{Cite news|url=http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/04/21/2009-04-21_why_civil_unions_arent_enough_in_gay_marriage_debate_separate_but_equal_wont_cut.html|title=Marriage is more perfect union: In gay marriage debate, separate but equal won't cut it|last=Hammond|first=Bill|work=Ny Daily News|date=April 20, 2009|access-date=June 12, 2010|location=New York|archive-date=September 25, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110925080454/http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/04/21/2009-04-21_why_civil_unions_arent_enough_in_gay_marriage_debate_separate_but_equal_wont_cut.html|url-status=dead}}</ref> Some have suggested that creating civil unions which are open to opposite-sex couples would avoid the accusations of apartheid.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/26950.html |title=The Case for Federal Civil Unions |last=Swayne |first=Steven |work=Independent Gay Forum |date=February 28, 2004 |access-date=June 12, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100613050003/http://indegayforum.org/news/show/26950.html |archive-date=June 13, 2010 }}</ref>
Civil unions are commonly criticised as being '[[separate but equal]]'; critics such as former [[New Zealand]] MP and feminist [[Marilyn Waring]] note that same-sex couples remain excluded from the right to marry and are forced to use a separate institution.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0410/S00234.htm|title=Civil Unions "Anathema" to Marilyn Waring|date=October 23, 2004|work=Scoop|access-date=June 12, 2010|archive-date=January 12, 2013|archive-url=https://archive.today/20130112045746/http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0410/S00234.htm|url-status=live}}</ref> Supporters of same-sex marriage contend that treating same-sex couples differently from other couples under the law allows for inferior treatment and that if civil unions were the same as marriage there would be no reason for two separate laws. A New Jersey commission which reviewed the state's civil union law reported that the law "invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children".<ref name="hammond2009">{{Cite news|url=http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/04/21/2009-04-21_why_civil_unions_arent_enough_in_gay_marriage_debate_separate_but_equal_wont_cut.html|title=Marriage is more perfect union: In gay marriage debate, separate but equal won't cut it|last=Hammond|first=Bill|work=Ny Daily News|date=April 20, 2009|access-date=June 12, 2010|location=New York|archive-date=September 25, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110925080454/http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/04/21/2009-04-21_why_civil_unions_arent_enough_in_gay_marriage_debate_separate_but_equal_wont_cut.html|url-status=dead}}</ref> Some have suggested that creating civil unions which are open to opposite-sex couples would avoid the accusations of apartheid.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/26950.html |title=The Case for Federal Civil Unions |last=Swayne |first=Steven |work=Independent Gay Forum |date=February 28, 2004 |access-date=June 12, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100613050003/http://indegayforum.org/news/show/26950.html |archive-date=June 13, 2010 }}</ref>


Proponents of civil unions say that they provide practical equality for same-sex couples and solve the problems over areas such as hospital visitation rights and transfer of property caused by lack of legal recognition.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=27532 |title=Obama: Sermon on the Mount supports gay civil unions |work=Baptist Press |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110425083108/http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=27532 |archive-date=2011-04-25 }}</ref> Proponents also say that creating civil unions is a more pragmatic way to ensure that same-sex couples have legal rights as it avoids the more controversial issues surrounding marriage and the claim that the term has a religious source.
Proponents of civil unions say that they provide practical equality for same-sex couples and solve the problems over areas such as hospital visitation rights and transfer of property caused by lack of legal recognition.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=27532 |title=Obama: Sermon on the Mount supports gay civil unions |work=Baptist Press |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110425083108/http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=27532 |archive-date=2011-04-25 }}</ref> Proponents also say that creating civil unions is a more pragmatic way to ensure that same-sex couples have legal rights as it avoids the more controversial issues surrounding marriage and the claim that the term has a religious source.


Many supporters of same-sex marriage state that the word 'marriage' matters and that the term 'civil union' (and its equivalents) do not convey the emotional meaning or bring the respect that comes with marriage.<ref name="hammond2009"/><ref>{{Cite magazine|url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040216-588877,00.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050306023600/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040216-588877,00.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=March 6, 2005|title=Why The M Word Matters To Me|last=Sullivan|first=Andrew|date=February 8, 2004|access-date=June 12, 2010 | magazine=Time}}</ref> Former US Solicitor General and attorney in the ''[[Perry v. Schwarzenegger]]'' case [[Theodore Olsen]] said that recognizing same-sex couples under the term 'domestic partnership' stigmatizes gay people's relationships, treating them as if they were "something akin to a commercial venture, not a loving union".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/news/text-of-ted-olsons-opening-statement-in-prop-8-trial-as-prepared/|title=Text of Ted Olson's Opening Statement in Prop. 8 Trial – As Prepared|work=Equal Rights Foundation|access-date=June 12, 2010|date=January 11, 2010}}</ref> Many also contend that the fact that civil unions are often not understood can cause difficulty for same-sex couples in emergency situations.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/04/why_the_word_marriage_matters.html|title=Why the word "marriage" matters|work=Oregon Live|last=Kitch|first=Mary|date=April 21, 2009|access-date=June 12, 2010}}</ref>
Many supporters of same-sex marriage state that the word 'marriage' matters and that the term 'civil union' (and its equivalents) do not convey the emotional meaning or bring the respect that comes with marriage.<ref name="hammond2009"/><ref>{{Cite magazine|url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040216-588877,00.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050306023600/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040216-588877,00.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=March 6, 2005|title=Why The M Word Matters To Me|last=Sullivan|first=Andrew|date=February 8, 2004|access-date=June 12, 2010 | magazine=Time}}</ref> Former US Solicitor General and attorney in the ''[[Perry v. Schwarzenegger]]'' case [[Theodore Olsen]] said that recognizing same-sex couples under the term 'domestic partnership' stigmatizes gay people's relationships, treating them as if they were "something akin to a commercial venture, not a loving union".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/news/text-of-ted-olsons-opening-statement-in-prop-8-trial-as-prepared/|title=Text of Ted Olson's Opening Statement in Prop. 8 Trial – As Prepared|work=Equal Rights Foundation|access-date=June 12, 2010|date=January 11, 2010|archive-date=May 30, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100530234235/http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/news/text-of-ted-olsons-opening-statement-in-prop-8-trial-as-prepared/|url-status=live}}</ref> Many also contend that the fact that civil unions are often not understood can cause difficulty for same-sex couples in emergency situations.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/04/why_the_word_marriage_matters.html|title=Why the word "marriage" matters|work=Oregon Live|last=Kitch|first=Mary|date=April 21, 2009|access-date=June 12, 2010|archive-date=December 8, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171208003202/http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/04/why_the_word_marriage_matters.html|url-status=live}}</ref>


==List of jurisdictions recognizing same-sex unions but not same-sex marriage==
==List of jurisdictions recognizing same-sex unions but not same-sex marriage==
Line 48: Line 47:
==List of jurisdictions recognizing same-sex unions==
==List of jurisdictions recognizing same-sex unions==
{{Main|Same-sex union legislation}}
{{Main|Same-sex union legislation}}
[[File:World civil union for same-sex couples.svg|thumb|left|800px|
[[File:World civil union for same-sex couples.svg|thumb|left|800px|
{{legend|#3F48CC|Civil unions for same-sex couples.}}
{{legend|#3F48CC|Civil unions for same-sex couples}}
{{Legend striped|#3F48CC|#DDDDDD|Civil unions in some counties.|up=yes}}
{{Legend striped|#3F48CC|#DDDDDD|Civil unions in some counties|up=yes}}
{{legend|#DDDDDD|Civil unions not performed.}}]]
{{legend|#DDDDDD|Civil unions not performed}}]]
{{clear}}
{{clear}}
The following is a list of countries and other jurisdictions which have established civil unions for same-sex couples or opposite-sex couples, categorized by continent, with the year in which the law establishing civil unions in the listed country or other jurisdiction came into effect in brackets:
The following is a list of countries and other jurisdictions which have established civil unions for same-sex couples or opposite-sex couples, categorized by continent, with the year in which the law establishing civil unions in the listed country or other jurisdiction came into effect in brackets:
Line 63: Line 63:
* {{Country|United States}}:
* {{Country|United States}}:
** {{Country|Hawaii}} (''reciprocal beneficiary relationship'' since 1997, ''civil union'' since 2012)
** {{Country|Hawaii}} (''reciprocal beneficiary relationship'' since 1997, ''civil union'' since 2012)
** {{Country|New York City}} (1998, ''domestic partnership'')<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.columbia.edu/cu/gables/dpinfo_nyc/espa_pressrelease_1998-07-08.html|title=NYC Passes Domestic Partnership Law}}</ref>
** {{Country|New York City}} (1998, ''domestic partnership'')<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.columbia.edu/cu/gables/dpinfo_nyc/espa_pressrelease_1998-07-08.html|title=NYC Passes Domestic Partnership Law|access-date=2013-06-14|archive-date=2022-04-08|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220408014212/http://www.columbia.edu/cu/gables/dpinfo_nyc/espa_pressrelease_1998-07-08.html|url-status=live}}</ref>
** {{Country|California}} (1999; ''domestic partnership'')<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_26_bill_19991010_chaptered.html |title=AB 26 Assembly Bill - CHAPTERED|last=Migden}}</ref>
** {{Country|California}} (1999; ''domestic partnership'')<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_26_bill_19991010_chaptered.html|title=AB 26 Assembly Bill - CHAPTERED|last=Migden|access-date=2013-06-14|archive-date=2023-04-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230404204113/http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_26_bill_19991010_chaptered.html|url-status=live}}</ref>
** {{Country|District of Columbia}} (2002, ''domestic partnership'')<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.glaa.org/archive/2001/dpfactsheet103001.shtml|title=HRC Talking Points on DC Domestic Partnership Program}}</ref>
** {{Country|District of Columbia}} (2002, ''domestic partnership'')<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.glaa.org/archive/2001/dpfactsheet103001.shtml|title=HRC Talking Points on DC Domestic Partnership Program|access-date=2013-06-14|archive-date=2011-07-16|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110716113648/http://www.glaa.org/archive/2001/dpfactsheet103001.shtml|url-status=live}}</ref>
** {{Country|Maine}} (2004; ''domestic partnership'')<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mainelegislature.org/ros/LOM/lom121st/15pub651-700/pub651-700-32.htm|title=Public Laws of 2003 as Passed at 2nd Special Sess. of 121st Legislature}}</ref>
** {{Country|Maine}} (2004; ''domestic partnership'')<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mainelegislature.org/ros/LOM/lom121st/15pub651-700/pub651-700-32.htm|title=Public Laws of 2003 as Passed at 2nd Special Sess. of 121st Legislature|access-date=2013-06-14|archive-date=2023-04-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230404204112/http://www.mainelegislature.org/ros/LOM/lom121st/15pub651-700/pub651-700-32.htm|url-status=live}}</ref>
** {{Country|New Jersey}} (''domestic partnership'' since 2004, ''civil union'' since 2006)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dvanarelli.com/article-new-jersey-domestic-partnership-act.html|title=New Jersey Domestic Partnership Act|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081120042722/http://www.dvanarelli.com/article-new-jersey-domestic-partnership-act.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=November 20, 2008}}</ref>
** {{Country|New Jersey}} (''domestic partnership'' since 2004, ''civil union'' since 2006)<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.dvanarelli.com/article-new-jersey-domestic-partnership-act.html |title=New Jersey Domestic Partnership Act |last=Vanarelli |first=Donald D |website=Law Office of Donald D Vanarelli |access-date=October 17, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081120042722/http://www.dvanarelli.com/article-new-jersey-domestic-partnership-act.html |archive-date=November 20, 2008}}</ref>
** {{Country|Washington}} (2007; ''domestic partnership'')<ref>{{cite web |url=http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5336&year=2007 |title=Washington State Legislature }}</ref>
** {{Country|Washington}} (2007; ''domestic partnership'')<ref>{{cite web |url=http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5336&year=2007 |title=Washington State Legislature |access-date=2013-06-14 |archive-date=2011-07-21 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721073318/http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5336&year=2007 |url-status=live }}</ref>
** {{Country|Maryland}} (2008; ''domestic partnership'')
** {{Country|Maryland}} (2008; ''domestic partnership'')
** {{Country|Oregon}} (2008; ''domestic partnership'')
** {{Country|Oregon}} (2008; ''domestic partnership'')
** {{Country|Colorado}} (''designated beneficiary agreement'' since 2009, ''civil union'' since 2013)<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2009a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/7B41525D3772D99987257547006300AE?open&file=1260_enr.pdf|title=HOUSE BILL 09-1260}}</ref>
** {{Country|Colorado}} (''designated beneficiary agreement'' since 2009, ''civil union'' since 2013)<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2009a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/7B41525D3772D99987257547006300AE?open&file=1260_enr.pdf|title=HOUSE BILL 09-1260|access-date=2013-06-14|archive-date=2022-04-03|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220403154632/http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2009a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/7B41525D3772D99987257547006300AE?open&file=1260_enr.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>
** {{Country|Nevada}} (2009; ''domestic partnership'')<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.aclunv.org/category/issue/lgbt/domestic-partnership-guide|title=Domestic Partnerships in Nevada|date=5 March 2010|access-date=14 June 2013|archive-date=11 August 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160811141058/http://www.aclunv.org/category/issue/lgbt/domestic-partnership-guide|url-status=dead}}</ref>
** {{Country|Nevada}} (2009; ''domestic partnership'')<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.aclunv.org/category/issue/lgbt/domestic-partnership-guide|title=Domestic Partnerships in Nevada|date=5 March 2010|access-date=14 June 2013|archive-date=11 August 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160811141058/http://www.aclunv.org/category/issue/lgbt/domestic-partnership-guide|url-status=dead}}</ref>
** {{Country|Illinois}} (2011; ''civil union'')
** {{Country|Illinois}} (2011; ''civil union'')
** Several counties{{citation needed|date=July 2017}}{{ambiguous|date=July 2017}}
* {{Country|France}} ({{langx|fr|pacte civil de solidarité|links=no}})
* {{Country|France}} ({{langx|fr|pacte civil de solidarité|links=no}})
** {{Country|French Guiana}} (1999)
** {{Country|French Guiana}} (1999)
Line 83: Line 82:
** {{Country|Saint-Pierre and Miquelon}} (1999)
** {{Country|Saint-Pierre and Miquelon}} (1999)
* {{Country|Canada}}:
* {{Country|Canada}}:
** {{Country|Nova Scotia}} (2001; ''domestic partnership'')<ref>{{cite web|url=http://nslegislature.ca/legc/bills/58th_1st/3rd_read/b075.htm|title=Law Reform (2000) Act|date=27 November 2017}}</ref>
** {{Country|Nova Scotia}} (2001; ''domestic partnership'')<ref>{{cite web|url=http://nslegislature.ca/legc/bills/58th_1st/3rd_read/b075.htm|title=Law Reform (2000) Act|date=27 November 2017|access-date=14 June 2013|archive-date=2 May 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190502181916/https://nslegislature.ca/legc/bills/58th_1st/3rd_read/b075.htm|url-status=live}}</ref>
** {{Country|Quebec}} (2002; ''civil union''  / {{lang|fr|union civile}})<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/english/publications/generale/union-civ-a.htm |title=Civil Unions |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150627081218/http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/english/publications/generale/union-civ-a.htm |archive-date=2015-06-27 }}</ref>
** {{Country|Quebec}} (2002; ''civil union''  / {{lang|fr|union civile}})<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/english/publications/generale/union-civ-a.htm |title=Civil Unions |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150627081218/http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/english/publications/generale/union-civ-a.htm |archive-date=2015-06-27 }}</ref>
** {{Country|Alberta}} (2003; ''adult interdependent relationship'')<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/sa-2002-c-a-4.5/latest/sa-2002-c-a-4.5.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151017044950/http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/sa-2002-c-a-4.5/latest/sa-2002-c-a-4.5.html|url-status=dead|title=Adult Interdependent Relationships Act, SA 2002|archive-date=October 17, 2015}}</ref>
** {{Country|Alberta}} (2003; ''adult interdependent relationship'')<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/sa-2002-c-a-4.5/latest/sa-2002-c-a-4.5.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151017044950/http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/sa-2002-c-a-4.5/latest/sa-2002-c-a-4.5.html|url-status=dead|title=Adult Interdependent Relationships Act, SA 2002|archive-date=October 17, 2015}}</ref>
** {{Country|Manitoba}} (2004; ''registered common-law relationship'')<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/family/englishbooklet/chapter3.html#5#5|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930171016/http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/family/englishbooklet/chapter3.html#5|url-status=dead|archive-date=30 September 2007|title=Province of Manitoba - Manitoba Justice - Family Law - Family Law in Manitoba|date=30 September 2007}}</ref>
** {{Country|Manitoba}} (2004; ''registered common-law relationship'')<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/family/englishbooklet/chapter3.html#5#5|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930171016/http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/family/englishbooklet/chapter3.html#5|url-status=dead|archive-date=30 September 2007|title=Province of Manitoba - Manitoba Justice - Family Law - Family Law in Manitoba|date=30 September 2007}}</ref>
* {{Country|Mexico}}:
* {{Country|Mexico}}:
** {{Country|Coahuila}} (2007; {{langx|es|pacto civil de solidaridad|links=no}})<ref>{{cite web|url=http://mg.co.za/article/2007-01-13-mexican-state-approves-gay-civil-unions|title=Mexican state approves gay civil unions|author=Staff Reporter|date=13 January 2007}}</ref>
** {{Country|Coahuila}} (2007; {{langx|es|pacto civil de solidaridad|links=no}})<ref>{{cite web |url=http://mg.co.za/article/2007-01-13-mexican-state-approves-gay-civil-unions |title=Mexican state approves gay civil unions |date=13 January 2007 |access-date=October 16, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230406040905/https://mg.co.za/article/2007-01-13-mexican-state-approves-gay-civil-unions/ |archive-date=April 6, 2023}}</ref>
** {{flagicon|Mexican Federal District}} [[Mexico City]] (2007, {{lang|es|sociedad de convivencia}})
** {{flagicon|Mexican Federal District}} [[Mexico City]] (2007, {{lang|es|sociedad de convivencia}})
** {{Country|Campeche}} (2013; {{lang|es|sociedad civil de convivencia}})<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sdpnoticias.com/gay/2013/12/23/legalizan-bodas-gays-en-campeche |title=Legalizan bodas gays en Campeche |date=23 December 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140222202643/http://www.sdpnoticias.com/gay/2013/12/23/legalizan-bodas-gays-en-campeche |archive-date=22 February 2014 }}</ref>
** {{Country|Campeche}} (2013; {{lang|es|sociedad civil de convivencia}})<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sdpnoticias.com/gay/2013/12/23/legalizan-bodas-gays-en-campeche |title=Legalizan bodas gays en Campeche |date=23 December 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140222202643/http://www.sdpnoticias.com/gay/2013/12/23/legalizan-bodas-gays-en-campeche |archive-date=22 February 2014 }}</ref>
Line 96: Line 95:
** {{Country|Sinaloa}} (2021; {{lang|es|concubinato}})
** {{Country|Sinaloa}} (2021; {{lang|es|concubinato}})
* {{Country|Uruguay}} (2008; {{langx|es|unión concubinaria|links=no}})<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www0.parlamento.gub.uy/leyes/AccesoTextoLey.asp?Ley=18246 |title=Ley Nş 18.246 UNIÓN CONCUBINARIA |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100702194538/http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/leyes/AccesoTextoLey.asp?Ley=18246 |archive-date=2010-07-02 }}</ref>
* {{Country|Uruguay}} (2008; {{langx|es|unión concubinaria|links=no}})<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www0.parlamento.gub.uy/leyes/AccesoTextoLey.asp?Ley=18246 |title=Ley Nş 18.246 UNIÓN CONCUBINARIA |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100702194538/http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/leyes/AccesoTextoLey.asp?Ley=18246 |archive-date=2010-07-02 }}</ref>
* {{Country|Ecuador}} (2008; {{langx|es|unión de hecho|links=no}})<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/28/AR2008092802644.html |title=Voters in Ecuador Approve Constitution |first1=Joshua |last1=Partlow |first2=Stephan |last2=Küffner |date=29 September 2008 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] }}</ref>
* {{Country|Ecuador}} (2008; {{langx|es|unión de hecho|links=no}})<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/28/AR2008092802644.html |title=Voters in Ecuador Approve Constitution |first1=Joshua |last1=Partlow |first2=Stephan |last2=Küffner |date=29 September 2008 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |archive-date=16 November 2018 |access-date=25 August 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181116002701/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/28/AR2008092802644.html |url-status=live }}</ref>
* {{Country|Colombia}} (2009; {{langx|es|unión marital de hecho|links=no}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://english.corteconstitucional.gov.co/sentences/C-029-2009.pdf|title=Decision C-029 of 2009}}</ref>
* {{Country|Colombia}} (2009; {{langx|es|unión marital de hecho|links=no}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://english.corteconstitucional.gov.co/sentences/C-029-2009.pdf|title=Decision C-029 of 2009|access-date=2013-06-14|archive-date=2012-05-05|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120505223323/http://english.corteconstitucional.gov.co/sentences/C-029-2009.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>
* {{Country|Brazil}} (2011, opposite sex since 2003; {{langx|pt|união estável}})<ref>{{cite web |url=http://jurist.org/paperchase/2011/05/brazil-supreme-court-recognizes-same-sex-civil-unions.php |title=Brazil supreme court recognizes same-sex civil unions |work=Jurist |date=6 May 2011 }}</ref>
* {{Country|Brazil}} (2011, opposite sex since 2003; {{langx|pt|união estável}})<ref>{{cite web |url=http://jurist.org/paperchase/2011/05/brazil-supreme-court-recognizes-same-sex-civil-unions.php |title=Brazil supreme court recognizes same-sex civil unions |work=Jurist |date=6 May 2011 |access-date=14 June 2013 |archive-date=11 August 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170811055454/http://www.jurist.org/paperchase/2011/05/brazil-supreme-court-recognizes-same-sex-civil-unions.php |url-status=live }}</ref>
* [[File:Flag of the Netherlands.svg|22px]] [[Kingdom of the Netherlands|Netherlands]]: ({{langx|nl|geregistreerd partnerschap}})
* [[File:Flag of the Netherlands.svg|22px]] [[Kingdom of the Netherlands|Netherlands]]: ({{langx|nl|geregistreerd partnerschap}})
** {{Country|Caribbean Netherlands}} (2012)
** {{Country|Caribbean Netherlands}} (2012)
** {{Country|Aruba}} (2021; {{langx|pap|union civil}}; {{langx|nl|geregistreerd partnerschap}})<ref>{{cite web|url=http://nos.nl/artikel/2130962-aruba-staat-partnerregistratie-homo-s-toe.html|title=Aruba staat partnerregistratie homo's toe|date=9 September 2016 }}</ref>
** {{Country|Aruba}} (2021; {{langx|pap|union civil}}; {{langx|nl|geregistreerd partnerschap}})<ref>{{cite web|url=http://nos.nl/artikel/2130962-aruba-staat-partnerregistratie-homo-s-toe.html|title=Aruba staat partnerregistratie homo's toe|date=9 September 2016|access-date=2 January 2017|archive-date=5 April 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230405193210/https://nos.nl/artikel/2130962-aruba-staat-partnerregistratie-homo-s-toe.html|url-status=live}}</ref>


* {{Country|Argentina}}: (2015; {{langx|es|unión convivencial
* {{Country|Argentina}}: (2015; {{langx|es|unión convivencial
Line 109: Line 108:
** City of [[File:Bandera de la Provincia de Córdoba.svg|25px|border]] [[Villa Carlos Paz]] (2007; {{lang|es|unión civil}})<ref>{{cite web|url=http://edant.clarin.com/diario/2007/11/23/um/m-01547228.htm|title=Córdoba: aprueban la unión civil entre homosexuales en Villa Carlos Paz|access-date=2013-06-14|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131003180409/http://edant.clarin.com/diario/2007/11/23/um/m-01547228.htm|archive-date=2013-10-03|url-status=dead}}</ref>
** City of [[File:Bandera de la Provincia de Córdoba.svg|25px|border]] [[Villa Carlos Paz]] (2007; {{lang|es|unión civil}})<ref>{{cite web|url=http://edant.clarin.com/diario/2007/11/23/um/m-01547228.htm|title=Córdoba: aprueban la unión civil entre homosexuales en Villa Carlos Paz|access-date=2013-06-14|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131003180409/http://edant.clarin.com/diario/2007/11/23/um/m-01547228.htm|archive-date=2013-10-03|url-status=dead}}</ref>
** City of [[File:Bandera de la Ciudad de Río Cuarto.svg|25px|border]] [[Río Cuarto, Córdoba|Río Cuarto]] (2009; {{lang|es|unión civil}})<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://archivo.lavoz.com.ar/09/05/07/Rio-Cuarto-aprueban-union-civil-parejas-gays.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130927175710/http://archivo.lavoz.com.ar/09/05/07/Rio-Cuarto-aprueban-union-civil-parejas-gays.html|url-status=dead|title=LAVOZ.com.ar &#124; Río Cuarto: aprueban la unión civil de parejas gays|archive-date=September 27, 2013|website=archivo.lavoz.com.ar}}</ref>
** City of [[File:Bandera de la Ciudad de Río Cuarto.svg|25px|border]] [[Río Cuarto, Córdoba|Río Cuarto]] (2009; {{lang|es|unión civil}})<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://archivo.lavoz.com.ar/09/05/07/Rio-Cuarto-aprueban-union-civil-parejas-gays.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130927175710/http://archivo.lavoz.com.ar/09/05/07/Rio-Cuarto-aprueban-union-civil-parejas-gays.html|url-status=dead|title=LAVOZ.com.ar &#124; Río Cuarto: aprueban la unión civil de parejas gays|archive-date=September 27, 2013|website=archivo.lavoz.com.ar}}</ref>
* {{Country|Chile}} (2015; {{langx|es|acuerdo de unión civil|links=no}})<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idNorma=1075210|title=LEY-20830 21-ABR-2015 MINISTERIO SECRETARIA GENERAL DE GOBIERNO - Ley Chile - Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional}}</ref>
* {{Country|Chile}} (2015; {{langx|es|acuerdo de unión civil|links=no}})<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idNorma=1075210|title=LEY-20830 21-ABR-2015 MINISTERIO SECRETARIA GENERAL DE GOBIERNO - Ley Chile - Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional|access-date=2015-09-01|archive-date=2016-01-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160104161110/http://www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idNorma=1075210|url-status=live}}</ref>
* [[File:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|22px]] [[United Kingdom]]:
* [[File:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|22px]] [[United Kingdom]]:
** {{Country|Falkland Islands}} (2017; ''civil partnership'')<ref>{{cite web |title=Marriage Ordinance 1996 |url=https://www.legislation.gov.fk/view/html/inforce/2018-06-04/fiord-1996-10#pt.iva |website=Falkland Islands Legislation |access-date=4 June 2018}}</ref>
** {{Country|Falkland Islands}} (2017; ''civil partnership'')<ref>{{cite web |title=Marriage Ordinance 1996 |url=https://www.legislation.gov.fk/view/html/inforce/2018-06-04/fiord-1996-10#pt.iva |website=Falkland Islands Legislation |access-date=4 June 2018 |archive-date=2021-09-23 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210923181018/https://www.legislation.gov.fk/view/html/inforce/2018-06-04/fiord-1996-10#pt.iva |url-status=live }}</ref>
** {{Country|Bermuda}} (2018; ''domestic partnership'')<ref>{{cite web |title=Domestic Partnership Act 2018 |url=http://www.bermudalaws.bm/laws/Annual%20Laws/2018/Acts/Domestic%20Partnership%20Act%202018.pdf |website=bermudalaws.bm |access-date=1 March 2018 |archive-date=9 July 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180709153712/http://www.bermudalaws.bm/laws/Annual%20Laws/2018/Acts/Domestic%20Partnership%20Act%202018.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref>
** {{Country|Bermuda}} (2018; ''domestic partnership'')<ref>{{cite web |title=Domestic Partnership Act 2018 |url=http://www.bermudalaws.bm/laws/Annual%20Laws/2018/Acts/Domestic%20Partnership%20Act%202018.pdf |publisher=Bermuda |access-date=October 17, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180709153712/http://www.bermudalaws.bm/laws/Annual%20Laws/2018/Acts/Domestic%20Partnership%20Act%202018.pdf |archive-date=9 July 2018}}</ref>
** {{Country|Cayman Islands}} (2020; ''civil partnership'')<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.ciregistry.ky/civil-partnerships/|title=Civil Partnerships}}</ref>
** {{Country|Cayman Islands}} (2020; ''civil partnership'')<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.ciregistry.ky/civil-partnerships/ |title=Civil Partnerships |website=Cayman Islands General Registry |access-date=October 17, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250805034940/https://www.ciregistry.ky/civil-partnerships/ |archive-date=August 5, 2025}}</ref>
* {{Country|Bolivia}} (free unions starting in 2020, nationwide since 2023; {{langx|es|unión libre}})
* {{Country|Bolivia}} (free unions starting in 2020, nationwide since 2023; {{langx|es|unión libre}})
{{Div col end}}
{{Div col end}}
Line 154: Line 153:
=== Europe ===
=== Europe ===
{{Div col|colwidth=33em}}
{{Div col|colwidth=33em}}
* {{Country|Netherlands}} (1998; {{langx|nl|geregistreerd partnerschap}})<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/trouwen-samenlevingscontract-en-geregistreerd-partnerschap |title=Trouwen, samenlevingscontract en geregistreerd partnerschap - Onderwerp - Rijksoverheid.nl |date=23 March 2018 }}</ref>
* {{Country|Netherlands}} (1998; {{langx|nl|geregistreerd partnerschap}})<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/trouwen-samenlevingscontract-en-geregistreerd-partnerschap |title=Trouwen, samenlevingscontract en geregistreerd partnerschap - Onderwerp - Rijksoverheid.nl |date=23 March 2018 |access-date=14 June 2013 |archive-date=20 May 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230520133011/https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/trouwen-samenlevingscontract-en-geregistreerd-partnerschap |url-status=live }}</ref>
* {{Country|Spain}}:
* {{Country|Spain}}:
** {{Country|Catalonia}} (1998; {{langx|ca|parella estable}}, {{langx|es|pareja estable}}, {{langx|oc|coble estable}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www20.gencat.cat/docs/governacio/Funcio%20Publica/Documents/Normativa/Arxius/lle10-98.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120413182830/http://www20.gencat.cat/docs/governacio/Funcio%20Publica/Documents/Normativa/Arxius/lle10-98.pdf|url-status=dead|title=LLEI 10/1998, de 15 de juliol, d'unions estables de parella (DOGC núm. 2687, de 23.07.1998)|archive-date=April 13, 2012}}</ref>
** {{Country|Catalonia}} (1998; {{langx|ca|parella estable}}, {{langx|es|pareja estable}}, {{langx|oc|coble estable}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www20.gencat.cat/docs/governacio/Funcio%20Publica/Documents/Normativa/Arxius/lle10-98.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120413182830/http://www20.gencat.cat/docs/governacio/Funcio%20Publica/Documents/Normativa/Arxius/lle10-98.pdf|url-status=dead|title=LLEI 10/1998, de 15 de juliol, d'unions estables de parella (DOGC núm. 2687, de 23.07.1998)|archive-date=April 13, 2012}}</ref>
** {{Country|Aragon}} (1999; {{langx|es|pareja estable}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/CCAA/ar-l6-1999.html|title=Ley 6/1999, de 26 de marzo, relativa a Parejas estables no casadas (Vigente hasta el 23 de Abril de 2011).|website=Noticias Jurídicas}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/CCAA/ar-dleg1-2011.l2t6.html|title=Decreto Legislativo 1/2011, de 22 de marzo, del Gobierno de Aragón, por el que se aprueba, con el título de "Código del Derecho Foral de Aragón", el Texto Refundido de las Leyes civiles aragonesas. TÍTULO VI. De las parejas estables no casadas|website=Noticias Jurídicas}}</ref>
** {{Country|Aragon}} (1999; {{langx|es|pareja estable}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/CCAA/ar-l6-1999.html|title=Ley 6/1999, de 26 de marzo, relativa a Parejas estables no casadas (Vigente hasta el 23 de Abril de 2011).|website=Noticias Jurídicas|access-date=2019-02-19|archive-date=2019-02-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190219184220/http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/CCAA/ar-l6-1999.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/CCAA/ar-dleg1-2011.l2t6.html|title=Decreto Legislativo 1/2011, de 22 de marzo, del Gobierno de Aragón, por el que se aprueba, con el título de "Código del Derecho Foral de Aragón", el Texto Refundido de las Leyes civiles aragonesas. TÍTULO VI. De las parejas estables no casadas|website=Noticias Jurídicas|access-date=2015-05-10|archive-date=2022-10-30|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221030171738/https://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/CCAA/ar-dleg1-2011.l2t6.html|url-status=live}}</ref>
** {{Country|Castile-La Mancha}} (2000; {{lang|es|pareja de hecho}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/CCAA/cm-d124-2000.html|title=Decreto 124/2000, de 11 de julio, por el que se regula la creación y el régimen de funcionamiento del Registro de parejas de hecho de la comunidad autónoma de Castilla-La Mancha|website=Noticias Jurídicas}}</ref>
** {{Country|Castile-La Mancha}} (2000; {{lang|es|pareja de hecho}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/CCAA/cm-d124-2000.html|title=Decreto 124/2000, de 11 de julio, por el que se regula la creación y el régimen de funcionamiento del Registro de parejas de hecho de la comunidad autónoma de Castilla-La Mancha|website=Noticias Jurídicas|access-date=2015-05-10|archive-date=2022-12-06|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221206111629/https://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/CCAA/cm-d124-2000.html|url-status=live}}</ref>
** {{Country|Navarra}} (2000; {{langx|es|pareja estable}}, {{langx|eu|bikote egonkorra}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.lexnavarra.navarra.es/detalle.asp?r=1278|title=Lexnavarra|website=www.lexnavarra.navarra.es}}</ref>
** {{Country|Navarra}} (2000; {{langx|es|pareja estable}}, {{langx|eu|bikote egonkorra}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.lexnavarra.navarra.es/detalle.asp?r=1278|title=Lexnavarra|website=www.lexnavarra.navarra.es|access-date=2013-06-14|archive-date=2023-06-05|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230605232424/http://www.lexnavarra.navarra.es/detalle.asp?r=1278|url-status=live}}</ref>
** {{Country|Valencia}} (2001; {{langx|es|unión de hecho}}, [[Valencian language|Valencian]]: ''unió de fet'')<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2012/11/07/pdfs/BOE-A-2012-13776.pdf|title=Ley 5/2012, de 15 de octubre, de Uniones de Hecho Formalizadas de la Comunitat Valenciana}}</ref>
** {{Country|Valencia}} (2001; {{langx|es|unión de hecho}}, [[Valencian language|Valencian]]: ''unió de fet'')<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2012/11/07/pdfs/BOE-A-2012-13776.pdf|title=Ley 5/2012, de 15 de octubre, de Uniones de Hecho Formalizadas de la Comunitat Valenciana|access-date=2013-06-14|archive-date=2022-10-30|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221030171737/https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2012/11/07/pdfs/BOE-A-2012-13776.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>
** {{Country|Balearic Islands}} (2002; {{langx|ca|parella estable}}, {{langx|es|pareja estable}})<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/CCAA/ib-l18-2001.html|title=Ley 18/2001, de 19 de diciembre, de parejas estables.|website=Noticias Jurídicas}}</ref>
** {{Country|Balearic Islands}} (2002; {{langx|ca|parella estable}}, {{langx|es|pareja estable}})<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/CCAA/ib-l18-2001.html|title=Ley 18/2001, de 19 de diciembre, de parejas estables.|website=Noticias Jurídicas|archive-date=2022-10-30|access-date=2015-05-10|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221030171740/https://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/CCAA/ib-l18-2001.html|url-status=live}}</ref>
** {{Country|Andalusia}} (2002; {{lang|es|pareja de hecho}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2003/01/13/pdfs/A01358-01361.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120816122757/http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2003/01/13/pdfs/A01358-01361.pdf|url-status=dead|title=LEY 5/2002, de 16 de diciembre, de Parejas de Hecho|archive-date=August 16, 2012}}</ref>
** {{Country|Andalusia}} (2002; {{lang|es|pareja de hecho}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2003/01/13/pdfs/A01358-01361.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120816122757/http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2003/01/13/pdfs/A01358-01361.pdf|url-status=dead|title=LEY 5/2002, de 16 de diciembre, de Parejas de Hecho|archive-date=August 16, 2012}}</ref>
** {{Country|Asturias}} (2002; {{langx|es|pareja estable}}, {{langx|ast|pareya estable}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2002/07/02/pdfs/A23974-23975.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304100424/http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2002/07/02/pdfs/A23974-23975.pdf|url-status=dead|title=LEY 4/2002, de 23 de mayo, de Parejas Estables|archive-date=March 4, 2016}}</ref>
** {{Country|Asturias}} (2002; {{langx|es|pareja estable}}, {{langx|ast|pareya estable}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2002/07/02/pdfs/A23974-23975.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304100424/http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2002/07/02/pdfs/A23974-23975.pdf|url-status=dead|title=LEY 4/2002, de 23 de mayo, de Parejas Estables|archive-date=March 4, 2016}}</ref>
** {{Country|Madrid}} (2002; {{lang|es|unión de hecho}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.madrid.org/wleg_pub/secure/normativas/contenidoNormativa.jsf?opcion=VerHtml&nmnorma=480&cdestado=P|title=Comunidad de Madrid - madrid.org|website=www.madrid.org|access-date=2020-10-01|archive-date=2020-12-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201207121549/http://www.madrid.org/wleg_pub/secure/normativas/contenidoNormativa.jsf?opcion=VerHtml&nmnorma=480&cdestado=P|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.madrid.org/wleg_pub/secure/normativas/contenidoNormativa.jsf?opcion=VerHtml&nmnorma=3095&cdestado=P|title=Comunidad de Madrid - madrid.org|website=www.madrid.org|access-date=2020-10-01|archive-date=2021-03-08|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308135836/http://www.madrid.org/wleg_pub/secure/normativas/contenidoNormativa.jsf?opcion=VerHtml&nmnorma=3095&cdestado=P|url-status=dead}}</ref>
** {{Country|Madrid}} (2002; {{lang|es|unión de hecho}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.madrid.org/wleg_pub/secure/normativas/contenidoNormativa.jsf?opcion=VerHtml&nmnorma=480&cdestado=P|title=Comunidad de Madrid - madrid.org|website=www.madrid.org|access-date=2020-10-01|archive-date=2020-12-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201207121549/http://www.madrid.org/wleg_pub/secure/normativas/contenidoNormativa.jsf?opcion=VerHtml&nmnorma=480&cdestado=P|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.madrid.org/wleg_pub/secure/normativas/contenidoNormativa.jsf?opcion=VerHtml&nmnorma=3095&cdestado=P|title=Comunidad de Madrid - madrid.org|website=www.madrid.org|access-date=2020-10-01|archive-date=2021-03-08|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308135836/http://www.madrid.org/wleg_pub/secure/normativas/contenidoNormativa.jsf?opcion=VerHtml&nmnorma=3095&cdestado=P|url-status=dead}}</ref>
** {{Country|Castile and León}} (2002; {{lang|es|unión de hecho}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.jcyl.es/web/jcyl/binarios/509/669/Decreto%20117%202002.pdf?blobheader=application%2Fpdf%3Bcharset%3DUTF-8&blobheadername1=Cache-Control&blobheadername2=Expires&blobheadername3=Site&blobheadervalue1=no-store%2Cno-cache%2Cmust-revalidate&blobheadervalue2=0&blobheadervalue3=JCYL_Familia&blobnocache=true|title=DECRETO 117/2002, de 24 de octubre, por el que se crea el Registro de Uniones de Hecho en Castilla y León y se regula su funcionamiento}}</ref>
** {{Country|Castile and León}} (2002; {{lang|es|unión de hecho}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.jcyl.es/web/jcyl/binarios/509/669/Decreto%20117%202002.pdf?blobheader=application%2Fpdf%3Bcharset%3DUTF-8&blobheadername1=Cache-Control&blobheadername2=Expires&blobheadername3=Site&blobheadervalue1=no-store%2Cno-cache%2Cmust-revalidate&blobheadervalue2=0&blobheadervalue3=JCYL_Familia&blobnocache=true|title=DECRETO 117/2002, de 24 de octubre, por el que se crea el Registro de Uniones de Hecho en Castilla y León y se regula su funcionamiento|access-date=2015-05-10|archive-date=2019-05-02|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190502050958/http://www.jcyl.es/web/jcyl/binarios/509/669/Decreto|url-status=live}}</ref>
** {{Country|Extremadura}} (2003; {{lang|es|pareja de hecho}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/CCAA/ex-l5-2003.html|title=Ley 5/2003, de 20 de marzo, de Parejas de Hecho de la Comunidad Autónoma de Extremadura.|website=Noticias Jurídicas}}</ref>
** {{Country|Extremadura}} (2003; {{lang|es|pareja de hecho}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/CCAA/ex-l5-2003.html|title=Ley 5/2003, de 20 de marzo, de Parejas de Hecho de la Comunidad Autónoma de Extremadura.|website=Noticias Jurídicas|access-date=2013-06-14|archive-date=2022-10-30|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221030171741/https://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/CCAA/ex-l5-2003.html|url-status=live}}</ref>
** {{Country|Basque Country}} (2003; {{langx|eu|izatezko bikote}}, {{langx|es|pareja de hecho}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/CCAA/pv-l2-2003.html|title=Ley 2/2003, de 7 de mayo, reguladora de las parejas de hecho|website=Noticias Jurídicas}}</ref>
** {{Country|Basque Country}} (2003; {{langx|eu|izatezko bikote}}, {{langx|es|pareja de hecho}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/CCAA/pv-l2-2003.html|title=Ley 2/2003, de 7 de mayo, reguladora de las parejas de hecho|website=Noticias Jurídicas|access-date=2013-06-14|archive-date=2022-10-30|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221030171737/https://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/CCAA/pv-l2-2003.html|url-status=live}}</ref>
** {{Country|Cantabria}} (2005; {{langx|es|pareja de hecho}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.lexureditorial.com/boe/0506/09402.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121118154119/http://www.lexureditorial.com/boe/0506/09402.htm|url-status=dead|title=Ley de la C.A. de Cantabria 1/2005, de 16 de mayo, de parejas de hecho de la Comunidad Autónoma de Cantabria|archive-date=November 18, 2012}}</ref>
** {{Country|Cantabria}} (2005; {{langx|es|pareja de hecho}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.lexureditorial.com/boe/0506/09402.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121118154119/http://www.lexureditorial.com/boe/0506/09402.htm|url-status=dead|title=Ley de la C.A. de Cantabria 1/2005, de 16 de mayo, de parejas de hecho de la Comunidad Autónoma de Cantabria|archive-date=November 18, 2012}}</ref>
** {{Country|Galicia}} (2008; {{langx|gl|parella de feito}}, {{langx|es|pareja de hecho}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/CCAA/ga-l10-2007.html|title=Ley 10/2007, de 28 de junio, de reforma de la disposición adicional tercera de la Ley 2/2006, de 14 de junio, de derecho civil de Galicia.|website=Noticias Jurídicas}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/CCAA/ga-d248-2007.t2.html|title=Decreto 248/2007, de 20 de diciembre, por el que se crea y se regula el Registro de Parejas de Hecho de Galicia. TÍTULO II. Organización y funcionamiento del Registro de Parejas de Hecho de Galicia.|website=Noticias Jurídicas}}</ref>
** {{Country|Galicia}} (2008; {{langx|gl|parella de feito}}, {{langx|es|pareja de hecho}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/CCAA/ga-l10-2007.html|title=Ley 10/2007, de 28 de junio, de reforma de la disposición adicional tercera de la Ley 2/2006, de 14 de junio, de derecho civil de Galicia.|website=Noticias Jurídicas|access-date=2015-05-10|archive-date=2022-10-30|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221030171733/https://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/CCAA/ga-l10-2007.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/CCAA/ga-d248-2007.t2.html|title=Decreto 248/2007, de 20 de diciembre, por el que se crea y se regula el Registro de Parejas de Hecho de Galicia. TÍTULO II. Organización y funcionamiento del Registro de Parejas de Hecho de Galicia.|website=Noticias Jurídicas|access-date=2015-05-10|archive-date=2022-10-30|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221030171734/https://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/CCAA/ga-d248-2007.t2.html|url-status=live}}</ref>
** {{flagicon|La Rioja (Spain)}} [[La Rioja]] (2010; {{lang|es|pareja de hecho}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ias1.larioja.org//cex/sistemas/GenericoServlet?servlet=cex.sistemas.dyn.portal.ImgServletSis&code=oumCvWIgBUF6lChv9ZDgP/hXhSM/FmcHwwLX+LzxTQvApHyqPVxRsoD+HW0E2YV6LEXZYSr1AOE3|title=Pagina Error|website=ias1.larioja.org|access-date=2019-02-19|archive-date=2020-06-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200628142511/https://ias1.larioja.org//cex/sistemas/GenericoServlet?servlet=cex.sistemas.dyn.portal.ImgServletSis&code=oumCvWIgBUF6lChv9ZDgP/hXhSM/FmcHwwLX+LzxTQvApHyqPVxRsoD+HW0E2YV6LEXZYSr1AOE3|url-status=dead}}</ref>
** {{flagicon|La Rioja (Spain)}} [[La Rioja]] (2010; {{lang|es|pareja de hecho}})<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://spainresidency.com/blogs/civil-partnership-or-matrimony-in-spain/ |title=Civil partnership or matrimony in Spain |website=Spain Residency |access-date=October 17, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240226185142/https://spainresidency.com/blogs/civil-partnership-or-matrimony-in-spain/ |archive-date=February 26, 2024}}</ref>
** {{Country|Murcia}} (2018; {{lang|es|pareja de hecho}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2018-10759|title=BOE.es - Documento BOE-A-2018-10759|website=www.boe.es|pages=76345–76350 }}</ref>
** {{Country|Murcia}} (2018; {{lang|es|pareja de hecho}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2018-10759|title=BOE.es - Documento BOE-A-2018-10759|website=www.boe.es|pages=76345–76350|access-date=2019-02-06|archive-date=2018-08-25|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180825212613/https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2018-10759|url-status=live}}</ref>
* {{Country|France}} (1999; {{Langx|fr|pacte civil de solidarité}})<ref name="France">{{cite web |url=http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do?idSectionTA=LEGISCTA000006136536&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070721 |title=Chapitre Ier : Du pacte civil de solidarité |work=[[Legifrance]] |language=fr |access-date=21 August 2019}}</ref>
* {{Country|France}} (1999; {{Langx|fr|pacte civil de solidarité}})<ref name="France">{{cite web |url=http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do?idSectionTA=LEGISCTA000006136536&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070721 |title=Chapitre Ier : Du pacte civil de solidarité |work=[[Legifrance]] |language=fr |access-date=21 August 2019 |archive-date=1 August 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200801002503/https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do?idSectionTA=LEGISCTA000006136536&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070721 |url-status=live }}</ref>
* {{Country|Belgium}} (2000; {{langx|nl|wettelijke samenwoning}}, {{langx|fr|cohabitation légale|links=no}}, {{langx|de|gesetzliches Zusammenwohnen}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.uccle.be/fr/services-communaux/etat-civil/cohabitation-legale|archive-url=https://archive.today/20130616011702/http://www.uccle.be/fr/services-communaux/etat-civil/cohabitation-legale|archive-date=2013-06-16|url-status=dead|title=Cohabitation légale — Uccle Ukkel|access-date=2013-06-14}}</ref>
* {{Country|Belgium}} (2000; {{langx|nl|wettelijke samenwoning}}, {{langx|fr|cohabitation légale|links=no}}, {{langx|de|gesetzliches Zusammenwohnen}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.uccle.be/fr/services-communaux/etat-civil/cohabitation-legale|archive-url=https://archive.today/20130616011702/http://www.uccle.be/fr/services-communaux/etat-civil/cohabitation-legale|archive-date=2013-06-16|url-status=dead|title=Cohabitation légale — Uccle Ukkel|access-date=2013-06-14}}</ref>
* {{Country|Portugal}} (2001; {{langx|pt|união de facto}})<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.pgdlisboa.pt/leis/lei_mostra_articulado.php?nid=901&tabela=leis|title=Lei n.º 7/2001, de 11 de Maio. Protecção das uniões de facto}}</ref> opposite-sex since 1999.
* {{Country|Portugal}} (2001; {{langx|pt|união de facto}})<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.pgdlisboa.pt/leis/lei_mostra_articulado.php?nid=901&tabela=leis|title=Lei n.º 7/2001, de 11 de Maio. Protecção das uniões de facto}}</ref> opposite-sex since 1999.
* {{Country|Luxembourg}} (2004; {{langx|fr|partenariat|links=no}}, [[Luxembourgish language|Luxembourgish]] and {{langx|de|Partnerschaft|links=no}})<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.guichet.public.lu/citoyens/fr/famille/vie-maritale/partenariat-pacs/declaration-partenariat/|title=Déclarer un partenariat (PACS) - Citoyens // Luxembourg}}</ref>
* {{Country|Luxembourg}} (2004; {{langx|fr|partenariat|links=no}}, [[Luxembourgish language|Luxembourgish]] and {{langx|de|Partnerschaft|links=no}})<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.guichet.public.lu/citoyens/fr/famille/vie-maritale/partenariat-pacs/declaration-partenariat/|title=Déclarer un partenariat (PACS) - Citoyens // Luxembourg|access-date=2013-06-14|archive-date=2017-12-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171223211841/http://www.guichet.public.lu/citoyens/fr/famille/vie-maritale/partenariat-pacs/declaration-partenariat/|url-status=live}}</ref>
* {{Country|Andorra}} (2005; {{langx|ca|unió estable de parella}})<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.registrecivil.ad/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=105&Itemid=597 |title=Expedient previ al registre d'unions estables de parella |publisher=Registrecivil.ad |access-date=2014-04-05}}</ref>
* {{Country|Andorra}} (2005; {{langx|ca|unió estable de parella}})<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.registrecivil.ad/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=105&Itemid=597 |title=Expedient previ al registre d'unions estables de parella |publisher=Registrecivil.ad |access-date=2014-04-05 |archive-date=2014-01-16 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140116194140/http://www.registrecivil.ad/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=105&Itemid=597 |url-status=live }}</ref>
* {{Country|United Kingdom}} (2005; ''civil partnership'', {{langx|cy|partneriaeth sifil}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/33/contents/data.htm|title=Civil Partnership Act 2004|website=www.legislation.gov.uk}}</ref>
* {{Country|United Kingdom}} (2005; ''civil partnership'', {{langx|cy|partneriaeth sifil}})<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/33/contents/data.htm |title=Civil Partnership Act 2004 |website=UK Legislation |access-date=October 17, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150905205257/http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/33/contents/data.htm |archive-date=September 5, 2015}}</ref>
** {{Country|Isle of Man}} (2011; ''civil partnership'')<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.legislation.gov.im/cms/images/LEGISLATION/PRINCIPAL/2011/2011-0002/CivilPartnershipAct2011_1.pdf|title=CIVIL PARTNERSHIP ACT 2011|access-date=2013-06-14|archive-date=2016-03-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304101027/http://www.legislation.gov.im/cms/images/LEGISLATION/PRINCIPAL/2011/2011-0002/CivilPartnershipAct2011_1.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>
** {{Country|Isle of Man}} (2011; ''civil partnership'')<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.legislation.gov.im/cms/images/LEGISLATION/PRINCIPAL/2011/2011-0002/CivilPartnershipAct2011_1.pdf|title=CIVIL PARTNERSHIP ACT 2011|access-date=2013-06-14|archive-date=2016-03-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304101027/http://www.legislation.gov.im/cms/images/LEGISLATION/PRINCIPAL/2011/2011-0002/CivilPartnershipAct2011_1.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>
** {{Country|Jersey}} (2012; ''civil partnership'')<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.jerseylaw.je/Law/display.aspx?url=lawsinforce\htm\LawFiles12%2fL-04-2012.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150906190642/http://www.jerseylaw.je/Law/display.aspx?url=lawsinforce%5Chtm%5CLawFiles%5C2012%2FL-04-2012.htm |url-status=dead|title=Civil Partnership (Jersey) Law 2012|archive-date=September 6, 2015}}</ref>
** {{Country|Jersey}} (2012; ''civil partnership'')<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.jerseylaw.je/Law/display.aspx?url=lawsinforce\htm\LawFiles12%2fL-04-2012.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150906190642/http://www.jerseylaw.je/Law/display.aspx?url=lawsinforce%5Chtm%5CLawFiles%5C2012%2FL-04-2012.htm |url-status=dead|title=Civil Partnership (Jersey) Law 2012|archive-date=September 6, 2015}}</ref>
** {{Country|Gibraltar}} (2014; ''civil partnership'')<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.gibraltarlaws.gov.gi/articles/2014-10o.pdf|title=CIVIL PARTNERSHIP ACT 2014|access-date=2014-04-01|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140407091751/http://www.gibraltarlaws.gov.gi/articles/2014-10o.pdf|archive-date=2014-04-07|url-status=dead}}</ref>
** {{Country|Gibraltar}} (2014; ''civil partnership'')<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.gibraltarlaws.gov.gi/articles/2014-10o.pdf|title=CIVIL PARTNERSHIP ACT 2014|access-date=2014-04-01|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140407091751/http://www.gibraltarlaws.gov.gi/articles/2014-10o.pdf|archive-date=2014-04-07|url-status=dead}}</ref>
* {{Country|Czechia}} (2006; {{langx|cs|registrované partnerství}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.mvcr.cz/clanek/registrovane-partnerstvi.aspx|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140116204551/http://www.mvcr.cz/clanek/registrovane-partnerstvi.aspx|url-status=dead|title=Uzavření registrovaného partnerství|archive-date=January 16, 2014}}</ref>
* {{Country|Czech Republic}} (2006; {{langx|cs|registrované partnerství}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.mvcr.cz/clanek/registrovane-partnerstvi.aspx|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140116204551/http://www.mvcr.cz/clanek/registrovane-partnerstvi.aspx|url-status=dead|title=Uzavření registrovaného partnerství|archive-date=January 16, 2014}}</ref>
* {{Country|Hungary}} (2009; {{langx|hu|bejegyzett élettársi kapcsolat}})<ref>{{cite web|url=http://net.jogtar.hu/jr/gen/hjegy_doc.cgi?docid=A0900029.TV|title=2009. évi XXIX. törvény - a bejegyzett élettársi kapcsolatról, az ezzel összefüggő, valamint az élettársi viszony igazolásának megkönnyítéséhez szükséges egyes törvények módosításáról|first=Wolters Kluwer|last=Kft.}}</ref>
* {{Country|Hungary}} (2009; {{langx|hu|bejegyzett élettársi kapcsolat}})<ref>{{cite web|url=http://net.jogtar.hu/jr/gen/hjegy_doc.cgi?docid=A0900029.TV|title=2009. évi XXIX. törvény - a bejegyzett élettársi kapcsolatról, az ezzel összefüggő, valamint az élettársi viszony igazolásának megkönnyítéséhez szükséges egyes törvények módosításáról|first=Wolters Kluwer|last=Kft.|access-date=2013-06-14|archive-date=2015-12-22|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151222130206/http://net.jogtar.hu/jr/gen/hjegy_doc.cgi?docid=A0900029.TV|url-status=live}}</ref>
* {{Country|Austria}} (2010; {{langx|de|eingetragene Partnerschaft|links=no}})<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXIV/I/I_00485/index.shtml|title=485 d.B. (XXIV. GP) - Eingetragene Partnerschaft-Gesetz - EPG}}</ref>
* {{Country|Austria}} (2010; {{langx|de|eingetragene Partnerschaft|links=no}})<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXIV/I/I_00485/index.shtml|title=485 d.B. (XXIV. GP) - Eingetragene Partnerschaft-Gesetz - EPG|access-date=2013-06-14|archive-date=2022-12-06|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221206111619/https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXIV/I/I_00485/index.shtml|url-status=live}}</ref>
* {{Country|Liechtenstein}} (2011; {{langx|de|eingetragene Partnerschaft|links=no}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.llv.li/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131113165205/http://www.llv.li/llv-apa-aufenthaltsbewilligung-lebenspartner-2|url-status=dead|title=LLV|archive-date=November 13, 2013|website=www.llv.li}}</ref>
* {{Country|Liechtenstein}} (2011; {{langx|de|eingetragene Partnerschaft|links=no}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.llv.li/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131113165205/http://www.llv.li/llv-apa-aufenthaltsbewilligung-lebenspartner-2|url-status=dead|title=LLV|archive-date=November 13, 2013|website=www.llv.li}}</ref>
* {{Country|Malta}} (2014; ''civil union'', {{langx|mt|unjoni ċivili}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://legislation.mt/eli/act/2014/9/eng/pdf|title=View Document|website=legislation.mt}}</ref>
* {{Country|Malta}} (2014; ''civil union'', {{langx|mt|unjoni ċivili}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://legislation.mt/eli/act/2014/9/eng/pdf|title=View Document|website=legislation.mt|access-date=2020-10-01|archive-date=2018-10-01|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181001160734/http://www.justiceservices.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.aspx?app=lp&itemid=26024&l=1|url-status=live}}</ref>
* {{Country|Croatia}} (2014; {{langx|hr|životno partnerstvo}})<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.jutarnji.hr/usvojen-zakon-o-zivotnom-partnerstvu--prva-istospolna-vjencanja-sredinom-kolovoza-/1206537/|title=POVIJESNA ODLUKA U SABORU Istospolni će parovi od rujna imatiista prava kao i bračni partneri|access-date=2014-07-15|archive-date=2016-03-03|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303220721/http://www.jutarnji.hr/usvojen-zakon-o-zivotnom-partnerstvu--prva-istospolna-vjencanja-sredinom-kolovoza-/1206537/|url-status=dead}}</ref>
* {{Country|Croatia}} (2014; {{langx|hr|životno partnerstvo}})<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.jutarnji.hr/usvojen-zakon-o-zivotnom-partnerstvu--prva-istospolna-vjencanja-sredinom-kolovoza-/1206537/|title=POVIJESNA ODLUKA U SABORU Istospolni će parovi od rujna imatiista prava kao i bračni partneri|access-date=2014-07-15|archive-date=2016-03-03|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303220721/http://www.jutarnji.hr/usvojen-zakon-o-zivotnom-partnerstvu--prva-istospolna-vjencanja-sredinom-kolovoza-/1206537/|url-status=dead}}</ref>
* {{Country|Cyprus}} (2015; {{langx|el|πολιτική συμβίωση}}, {{langx|tr|sivil birlikte yaşama}})
* {{Country|Cyprus}} (2015; {{langx|el|πολιτική συμβίωση}}, {{langx|tr|sivil birlikte yaşama}})
* {{Country|Greece}} (2015; {{langx|el|σύμφωνο συμβίωσης|links=no}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.dsanet.gr/Epikairothta/Nomothesia/n3719_08.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151013032607/http://www.dsanet.gr/Epikairothta/Nomothesia/n3719_08.htm|url-status=dead|title=ΕΦΗΜΕΡΙΔΑ ΤΗΣ ΚΥΒΕΡΝΗΣΕΩΣ|archive-date=October 13, 2015|website=www.dsanet.gr}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/greece-to-legally-recognize-same-sex-couples-for-the-first-time/#gs.ZIoAi3s|title=Greece to legally recognize same-sex couples for the first time|date=23 December 2015|access-date=23 December 2015|archive-date=23 December 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151223140505/http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/greece-to-legally-recognize-same-sex-couples-for-the-first-time/#gs.ZIoAi3s|url-status=dead}}</ref> opposite-sex since 2008.
* {{Country|Greece}} (2015; {{langx|el|σύμφωνο συμβίωσης|links=no}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.dsanet.gr/Epikairothta/Nomothesia/n3719_08.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151013032607/http://www.dsanet.gr/Epikairothta/Nomothesia/n3719_08.htm|url-status=dead|title=ΕΦΗΜΕΡΙΔΑ ΤΗΣ ΚΥΒΕΡΝΗΣΕΩΣ|archive-date=October 13, 2015|website=www.dsanet.gr}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/greece-to-legally-recognize-same-sex-couples-for-the-first-time/#gs.ZIoAi3s|title=Greece to legally recognize same-sex couples for the first time|date=23 December 2015|access-date=23 December 2015|archive-date=23 December 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151223140505/http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/greece-to-legally-recognize-same-sex-couples-for-the-first-time/#gs.ZIoAi3s|url-status=dead}}</ref> opposite-sex since 2008.
* {{Country|Estonia}} (2016; {{langx|et|kooseluleping}})<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.err.ee/v/main_news/f238f529-5b94-4f66-b7be-ad5d21566cc5 |title=Parliament Passes Cohabitation Act; President Proclaims It |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151130003705/http://news.err.ee/v/main_news/f238f529-5b94-4f66-b7be-ad5d21566cc5 |archive-date=2015-11-30 }}</ref>
* {{Country|Estonia}} (2016; {{langx|et|kooseluleping}})<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.err.ee/v/main_news/f238f529-5b94-4f66-b7be-ad5d21566cc5 |title=Parliament Passes Cohabitation Act; President Proclaims It |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151130003705/http://news.err.ee/v/main_news/f238f529-5b94-4f66-b7be-ad5d21566cc5 |archive-date=2015-11-30 }}</ref>
* {{Country|Italy}} (2016; {{langx|it|unione civile}})<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36269605|title=Italian MPs back same-sex unions in vote for Renzi|work=BBC News |date=11 May 2016 }}</ref>
* {{Country|Italy}} (2016; {{langx|it|unione civile}})<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36269605|title=Italian MPs back same-sex unions in vote for Renzi|work=BBC News|date=11 May 2016|archive-date=28 September 2018|access-date=20 June 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180928024728/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36269605|url-status=live}}</ref>
* {{Country|San Marino}} (2018; {{langx|it|unione civile}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.consigliograndeegenerale.sm/on-line/home/scheda17160637.html|title=LEGGE 20 novembre 2018 n.147 - Regolamentazione delle unioni civili - Consiglio Grande e Generale|website=www.consigliograndeegenerale.sm}}</ref>
* {{Country|San Marino}} (2018; {{langx|it|unione civile}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.consigliograndeegenerale.sm/on-line/home/scheda17160637.html|title=LEGGE 20 novembre 2018 n.147 - Regolamentazione delle unioni civili - Consiglio Grande e Generale|website=www.consigliograndeegenerale.sm|access-date=2020-03-11|archive-date=2019-03-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190327090732/https://www.consigliograndeegenerale.sm/on-line/home/scheda17160637.html|url-status=live}}</ref>
* {{Country|Monaco}} (2020; {{langx|fr|contrat de vie commune|links=no}}, {{langx|lij-MC|contràtto de vìtta comûne}})<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.conseil-national.mc/index.php/textes-et-lois/lois/item/644-n-1481-loi-du-17-decembre-2019-relative-aux-contrats-civils-de-solidarite |title=N° 1481 - Loi du 17 décembre 2019 relative aux contrats civils de solidarité |access-date=2020-03-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200102220950/http://www.conseil-national.mc/index.php/textes-et-lois/lois/item/644-n-1481-loi-du-17-decembre-2019-relative-aux-contrats-civils-de-solidarite |archive-date=2020-01-02 |url-status=dead }}</ref>
* {{Country|Monaco}} (2020; {{langx|fr|contrat de vie commune|links=no}}, {{langx|lij-MC|contràtto de vìtta comûne}})<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.conseil-national.mc/index.php/textes-et-lois/lois/item/644-n-1481-loi-du-17-decembre-2019-relative-aux-contrats-civils-de-solidarite |title=N° 1481 - Loi du 17 décembre 2019 relative aux contrats civils de solidarité |access-date=2020-03-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200102220950/http://www.conseil-national.mc/index.php/textes-et-lois/lois/item/644-n-1481-loi-du-17-decembre-2019-relative-aux-contrats-civils-de-solidarite |archive-date=2020-01-02 |url-status=dead }}</ref>
* {{Country|Montenegro}} (2021; {{langx|cnr|животно партнерство}}, {{lang|cnr-Latn|životno partnerstvo}})<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-montenegro-lgbt-lawmaking-trfn-idUSKBN24271A |title=Montenegro legalises same-sex civil partnerships |first=Rachel |last=Savage |work=[[Reuters]] |date=July 1, 2020 }}</ref>
* {{Country|Montenegro}} (2021; {{langx|cnr|животно партнерство}}, {{lang|cnr-Latn|životno partnerstvo}})<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-montenegro-lgbt-lawmaking-trfn-idUSKBN24271A |title=Montenegro legalises same-sex civil partnerships |first=Rachel |last=Savage |work=[[Reuters]] |date=July 1, 2020 |archive-date=April 27, 2021 |access-date=October 1, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210427201940/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-montenegro-lgbt-lawmaking-trfn-idUSKBN24271A |url-status=live }}</ref>
* {{Country|Latvia}} (2024; {{langx|lv|partnerība}})<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.baltictimes.com/court_recognizes_another_same-sex_couple_as_legitimate_family/ |title=Court recognizes another same-sex couple as legitimate family |work=Baltic Times |date=8 July 2022 }}</ref>
* {{Country|Latvia}} (2024; {{langx|lv|partnerība}})<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.baltictimes.com/court_recognizes_another_same-sex_couple_as_legitimate_family/ |title=Court recognizes another same-sex couple as legitimate family |work=Baltic Times |date=8 July 2022 |access-date=15 August 2022 |archive-date=20 March 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230320192644/https://www.baltictimes.com/court_recognizes_another_same-sex_couple_as_legitimate_family/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
* {{Country|Lithuania}} (2025, through courts only; {{langx|lt|partnerystė}})<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/2539322/absence-of-same-sex-partnerships-in-lithuania-unconstitutional-rules-court/ |title=Absence of same-sex partnerships in Lithuania 'unconstitutional', rules court |work=LRT |date=17 April 2025 }}</ref>
* {{Country|Lithuania}} (2025, through courts only; {{langx|lt|partnerystė}})<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/2539322/absence-of-same-sex-partnerships-in-lithuania-unconstitutional-rules-court/ |title=Absence of same-sex partnerships in Lithuania 'unconstitutional', rules court |work=LRT |date=17 April 2025 }}</ref>
{{Div col end}}
{{Div col end}}
Line 201: Line 200:
{{Div col|colwidth=33em}}
{{Div col|colwidth=33em}}
* {{Country|Australia}}:
* {{Country|Australia}}:
** {{Country|Tasmania}} (2004; ''significant relationship'' and ''caring relationship'')<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.thelaw.tas.gov.au/tocview/index.w3p;cond=;doc_id=44++2003+AT@EN+20061223000000;histon=;prompt=;rec=;term= |title=Legislation View Page}}</ref>
** {{Country|Tasmania}} (2004; ''significant relationship'' and ''caring relationship'')<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.thelaw.tas.gov.au/tocview/index.w3p;cond=;doc_id=44++2003+AT@EN+20061223000000;histon=;prompt=;rec=;term= |title=Legislation View Page |access-date=2017-01-08 |archive-date=2016-03-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304200421/http://www.thelaw.tas.gov.au/tocview/index.w3p;cond=;doc_id=44++2003+AT@EN+20061223000000;histon=;prompt=;rec=;term= |url-status=live }}</ref>
** {{Country|South Australia}} (''domestic partnership'' since 2007, ''registered relationship'' since 2017)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2006/12/06/south-australia-gays-get-new-rights/|title=South Australia gays get new rights|date=6 December 2006 }}</ref>
** {{Country|South Australia}} (''domestic partnership'' since 2007, ''registered relationship'' since 2017)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2006/12/06/south-australia-gays-get-new-rights/|title=South Australia gays get new rights|date=6 December 2006|access-date=21 April 2014|archive-date=5 April 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220405035609/https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2006/12/06/south-australia-gays-get-new-rights/|url-status=live}}</ref>
** {{Country|Australian Capital Territory}} (''domestic relationship'' since 1994)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/2008-14/default.asp|title=ACT legislation register - Civil Partnerships Act 2008 (repealed) - main page|first=Australian Capital Territory|last=government}}</ref>
** {{Country|Australian Capital Territory}} (''domestic relationship'' since 1994)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/2008-14/default.asp|title=ACT legislation register - Civil Partnerships Act 2008 (repealed) - main page|first=Australian Capital Territory|last=government|access-date=2013-06-14|archive-date=2019-03-05|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190305073518/https://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/2008-14/default.asp|url-status=live}}</ref>
** {{Country|Victoria}} (2008; ''domestic relationship'')<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubStatbook.nsf/f932b66241ecf1b7ca256e92000e23be/A7417CE604D359DECA25742C0022EC95/$FILE/08-012a.pdf|title=Relationships Act 2008}}</ref>
** {{Country|Victoria}} (2008; ''domestic relationship'')<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubStatbook.nsf/f932b66241ecf1b7ca256e92000e23be/A7417CE604D359DECA25742C0022EC95/$FILE/08-012a.pdf|title=Relationships Act 2008|access-date=2013-06-14|archive-date=2019-03-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190326143720/http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubStatbook.nsf/f932b66241ecf1b7ca256e92000e23be/A7417CE604D359DECA25742C0022EC95/$FILE/08-012a.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>
** {{Country|New South Wales}} (''de facto couple'' since 1999, ''registered relationship'' since 2010)<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fullhtml/inforce/act+19+2010+cd+0+N|title=Relationships Register Act 2010|access-date=2013-06-14|archive-date=2020-07-31|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200731204601/https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fullhtml/inforce/act+19+2010+cd+0+N|url-status=dead}}</ref>
** {{Country|New South Wales}} (''de facto couple'' since 1999, ''registered relationship'' since 2010)<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fullhtml/inforce/act+19+2010+cd+0+N|title=Relationships Register Act 2010|access-date=2013-06-14|archive-date=2020-07-31|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200731204601/https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fullhtml/inforce/act+19+2010+cd+0+N|url-status=dead}}</ref>
** {{Country|Queensland}} (''de facto recognition'' since 1999, ''civil partnership'' since 2012)<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/browse/aspassed|title=Acts as passed - Queensland Legislation - Queensland Government|website=www.legislation.qld.gov.au}}</ref>
** {{Country|Queensland}} (''de facto recognition'' since 1999, ''civil partnership'' since 2012)<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/browse/aspassed|title=Acts as passed - Queensland Legislation - Queensland Government|website=www.legislation.qld.gov.au|access-date=2019-02-19|archive-date=2017-05-24|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170524222256/https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/ACTS/2002/02AC074.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>
* {{Country|New Zealand}} (2005; ''civil union'', {{langx|mi|hononga ā-ture}})<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0102/latest/DLM323385.html|title=Civil Union Act 2004 No 102 (as at 01 July 2013), Public Act Contents – New Zealand Legislation}}</ref>
* {{Country|New Zealand}} (2005; ''civil union'', {{langx|mi|hononga ā-ture}})<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0102/latest/DLM323385.html|title=Civil Union Act 2004 No 102 (as at 01 July 2013), Public Act Contents – New Zealand Legislation|access-date=14 June 2013|archive-date=8 March 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308021547/https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0102/latest/DLM323385.html|url-status=live}}</ref>
* {{Country|France}} ({{langx|fr|pacte civil de solidarité}})
* {{Country|France}} ({{langx|fr|pacte civil de solidarité}})
** {{Country|New Caledonia}} (2009)<ref name="legifrance">{{cite web|url=http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000020671201&dateTexte=&categorieLien=id|title=LOI n° 2009-594 du 27 mai 2009 pour le développement économique des outre-mer}}</ref>
** {{Country|New Caledonia}} (2009)<ref name="legifrance">{{cite web|url=http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000020671201&dateTexte=&categorieLien=id|title=LOI n° 2009-594 du 27 mai 2009 pour le développement économique des outre-mer|access-date=2013-06-14|archive-date=2022-05-15|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220515010236/https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000020671201&dateTexte=&categorieLien=id|url-status=live}}</ref>
** {{Country|Wallis and Futuna}} (2009)<ref name="legifrance"/>
** {{Country|Wallis and Futuna}} (2009)<ref name="legifrance"/>
{{Div col end}}
{{Div col end}}
Line 216: Line 215:


[[File:World civil union.svg|thumb|right|350px|
[[File:World civil union.svg|thumb|right|350px|
{{legend|#3F48CC|Gender-neutral civil unions.}}
{{legend|#3F48CC|Gender-neutral civil unions}}
{{legend|#77317F|Civil unions for opposite-sex couples only.}}
{{legend|#77317F|Civil unions for opposite-sex couples only}}
{{legend|#22B14C|Civil unions for same-sex couples only.}}
{{legend|#22B14C|Civil unions for same-sex couples only}}
{{legend|#9DECB5|Former civil unions for same-sex couples, replaced by marriage.}}
{{legend|#9DECB5|Former civil unions for same-sex couples, replaced by marriage}}
{{legend|#DDDDDD|Civil unions not performed.}}]]
{{legend|#DDDDDD|Civil unions not performed}}]]


Several countries used to offer civil unions only for same-sex couples. The laws that allowed civil unions were repealed when same-sex marriage was legalized. The following is a list of countries and other jurisdictions that used to offer civil unions for same-sex couples with the years in which they were available in brackets:
Several countries used to offer civil unions only for same-sex couples. The laws that allowed civil unions were repealed when same-sex marriage was legalized. The following is a list of countries and other jurisdictions that used to offer civil unions for same-sex couples with the years in which they were available in brackets:
Line 230: Line 229:
* {{Country|Sweden}} (1995–2009; {{langx|sv|registrerat partnerskap}})
* {{Country|Sweden}} (1995–2009; {{langx|sv|registrerat partnerskap}})
* {{Country|Iceland}} (1996–2010; {{langx|is|staðfesta samvist}})
* {{Country|Iceland}} (1996–2010; {{langx|is|staðfesta samvist}})
* {{Country|Germany}} (2001–2017; {{langx|de|eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaft}})<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/lpartg/BJNR026610001.html |title=LPartG - Gesetz über die Eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaft }}</ref>
* {{Country|Germany}} (2001–2017; {{langx|de|eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaft}})<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/lpartg/BJNR026610001.html |title=LPartG - Gesetz über die Eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaft |access-date=2013-06-14 |archive-date=2021-08-26 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210826152004/http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/lpartg/BJNR026610001.html |url-status=live }}</ref>
* {{Country|Finland}} (2002–2017; {{langx|fi|rekisteröity parisuhde}}, {{langx|sv|registrerat partnerskap}})
* {{Country|Finland}} (2002–2017; {{langx|fi|rekisteröity parisuhde}}, {{langx|sv|registrerat partnerskap}})
* {{Country|Slovenia}} (2006–2016 as {{lang|sl|partnerska skupnost}}; 2016–2022 as {{lang|sl|partnerska zveza}})<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.uradni-list.si/1/content?id=56999|title=Uradni list Republike Slovenije}}</ref>
* {{Country|Slovenia}} (2006–2016 as {{lang|sl|partnerska skupnost}}; 2016–2022 as {{lang|sl|partnerska zveza}})<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.uradni-list.si/1/content?id=56999|title=Uradni list Republike Slovenije|access-date=2013-06-14|archive-date=2016-03-03|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303220209/http://www.uradni-list.si/1/content?id=56999|url-status=live}}</ref>
* {{Country|Switzerland}} (2007–2022; {{langx|de|eingetragene Partnerschaft|links=no}}, {{langx|fr|partenariat enregistré|links=no}}, {{langx|it|unione domestica registrata}}, {{langx|rm|partenadi registrà}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/20022194/201301010000/211.231.pdf|title=Bundesgesetz über die eingetragene Partnerschaft gleichgeschlechtlicher Paare (Partnerschaftsgesetz, PartG)|access-date=2013-06-14|archive-date=2014-02-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140207212010/http://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/20022194/201301010000/211.231.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>
* {{Country|Switzerland}} (2007–2022; {{langx|de|eingetragene Partnerschaft|links=no}}, {{langx|fr|partenariat enregistré|links=no}}, {{langx|it|unione domestica registrata}}, {{langx|rm|partenadi registrà}})<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/20022194/201301010000/211.231.pdf|title=Bundesgesetz über die eingetragene Partnerschaft gleichgeschlechtlicher Paare (Partnerschaftsgesetz, PartG)|access-date=2013-06-14|archive-date=2014-02-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140207212010/http://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/20022194/201301010000/211.231.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>
** {{Country|Geneva}} (2001–2022)
** {{Country|Geneva}} (2001–2022)
Line 258: Line 257:
*** [[File:Flag of Kaohsiung City.svg|22px]] [[Kaohsiung]] (2015–2019)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://shanghaiist.com/2015/05/21/kaohsiung-allows-same-sex-couples-register-partnership.php|title=Kaohsiung allows same-sex couples to register partnership|last=Shanghaiist|date=21 May 2015|access-date=10 December 2015|archive-date=23 May 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150523214514/http://shanghaiist.com/2015/05/21/kaohsiung-allows-same-sex-couples-register-partnership.php|url-status=dead}}</ref>
*** [[File:Flag of Kaohsiung City.svg|22px]] [[Kaohsiung]] (2015–2019)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://shanghaiist.com/2015/05/21/kaohsiung-allows-same-sex-couples-register-partnership.php|title=Kaohsiung allows same-sex couples to register partnership|last=Shanghaiist|date=21 May 2015|access-date=10 December 2015|archive-date=23 May 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150523214514/http://shanghaiist.com/2015/05/21/kaohsiung-allows-same-sex-couples-register-partnership.php|url-status=dead}}</ref>
*** [[File:Flag of Taipei City.svg|22px]] [[Taipei]] (2015–2019)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/taipei-opens-registration-gay-couples180615/|title=Taipei opens registration for gay couples|date=18 June 2015|access-date=10 December 2015|archive-date=18 January 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160118083446/http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/taipei-opens-registration-gay-couples180615/|url-status=dead}}</ref>
*** [[File:Flag of Taipei City.svg|22px]] [[Taipei]] (2015–2019)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/taipei-opens-registration-gay-couples180615/|title=Taipei opens registration for gay couples|date=18 June 2015|access-date=10 December 2015|archive-date=18 January 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160118083446/http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/taipei-opens-registration-gay-couples180615/|url-status=dead}}</ref>
*** [[File:Flag of Taichung City.svg|22px]] [[Taichung]] (2015–2019)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/taiwanese-city-becomes-first-to-record-gay-relationships-as-next-of-kin-in-hospitals/|title=Taiwanese city becomes first to record gay relationships as next-of-kin in hospitals|date=13 October 2015|access-date=10 December 2015|archive-date=16 October 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151016024322/http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/taiwanese-city-becomes-first-to-record-gay-relationships-as-next-of-kin-in-hospitals/|url-status=dead}}</ref>
*** [[File:Flag of Taichung City old.svg|22px]] [[Taichung]] (2015–2019)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/taiwanese-city-becomes-first-to-record-gay-relationships-as-next-of-kin-in-hospitals/|title=Taiwanese city becomes first to record gay relationships as next-of-kin in hospitals|date=13 October 2015|access-date=10 December 2015|archive-date=16 October 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151016024322/http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/taiwanese-city-becomes-first-to-record-gay-relationships-as-next-of-kin-in-hospitals/|url-status=dead}}</ref>
*** [[File:Flag of Tainan City.svg|22px]] [[Tainan]] (2016–2019)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/tainan-to-register-gay-couples/#gs.lHYtSBw|title=Tainan to register gay couples|date=28 January 2016|access-date=29 January 2016|archive-date=28 January 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160128181758/http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/tainan-to-register-gay-couples/#gs.lHYtSBw|url-status=dead}}</ref>
*** [[File:Flag of Tainan City.svg|22px]] [[Tainan]] (2016–2019)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/tainan-to-register-gay-couples/#gs.lHYtSBw|title=Tainan to register gay couples|date=28 January 2016|access-date=29 January 2016|archive-date=28 January 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160128181758/http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/tainan-to-register-gay-couples/#gs.lHYtSBw|url-status=dead}}</ref>
*** [[File:Flag of New Taipei City.svg|22px]] [[New Taipei]] (2016–2019)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/new-taipei-city-to-start-registering-gay-couples-next-week/|title=New Taipei City to start registering gay couples next week|date=29 January 2016|access-date=29 January 2016|archive-date=30 January 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160130085625/http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/new-taipei-city-to-start-registering-gay-couples-next-week/|url-status=dead}}</ref>
*** [[File:Flag of New Taipei City.svg|22px]] [[New Taipei]] (2016–2019)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/new-taipei-city-to-start-registering-gay-couples-next-week/|title=New Taipei City to start registering gay couples next week|date=29 January 2016|access-date=29 January 2016|archive-date=30 January 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160130085625/http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/new-taipei-city-to-start-registering-gay-couples-next-week/|url-status=dead}}</ref>
Line 264: Line 263:
** [[Provincial city (Taiwan)|Provincial cities]] (3/3)
** [[Provincial city (Taiwan)|Provincial cities]] (3/3)
*** [[File:Flag of Chiayi City.svg|22px]] [[Chiayi]] (2016–2019)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/chiayi-to-register-gay-couples/|title=Chiayi to register gay couples|date=25 February 2016|access-date=3 March 2016|archive-date=26 February 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160226124056/http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/chiayi-to-register-gay-couples/|url-status=dead}}</ref>
*** [[File:Flag of Chiayi City.svg|22px]] [[Chiayi]] (2016–2019)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/chiayi-to-register-gay-couples/|title=Chiayi to register gay couples|date=25 February 2016|access-date=3 March 2016|archive-date=26 February 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160226124056/http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/chiayi-to-register-gay-couples/|url-status=dead}}</ref>
*** [[File:Flag of Hsinchu City.svg|22px]] [[Hsinchu]] (2017–2019)<ref name="taipeitimes.com">{{Cite web|url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2017/06/08/2003672142|title=More counties recognize same-sex registrations - Taipei Times|website=www.taipeitimes.com|date=8 June 2017}}</ref>
*** [[File:Flag of Hsinchu City.svg|22px]] [[Hsinchu]] (2017–2019)<ref name="taipeitimes.com">{{Cite web|url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2017/06/08/2003672142|title=More counties recognize same-sex registrations - Taipei Times|website=www.taipeitimes.com|date=8 June 2017|access-date=1 July 2017|archive-date=27 March 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190327090710/http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2017/06/08/2003672142|url-status=live}}</ref>
*** [[File:Flag of Keelung City.svg|22px]] [[Keelung]] (2017–2019)<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://focustaiwan.tw/news/asoc/201707020014.aspx|title=Cross-county same-sex partnership registration to be allowed &#124; Society &#124; FOCUS TAIWAN - CNA ENGLISH NEWS|website=focustaiwan.tw|date=2 July 2017 }}</ref>
*** [[File:Flag of Keelung City.svg|22px]] [[Keelung]] (2017–2019)<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://focustaiwan.tw/news/asoc/201707020014.aspx|title=Cross-county same-sex partnership registration to be allowed &#124; Society &#124; FOCUS TAIWAN - CNA ENGLISH NEWS|website=focustaiwan.tw|date=2 July 2017|access-date=10 July 2017|archive-date=3 April 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190403162351/http://focustaiwan.tw/news/asoc/201707020014.aspx|url-status=live}}</ref>
** [[County (Taiwan)|Counties]] (9/13)
** [[County (Taiwan)|Counties]] (9/13)
*** [[File:Flag of Changhua County.svg|22px]] [[Changhua County]] (2016–2019)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.yibada.com/articles/113256/20160401/taiwanese-same-sex-pairs-move-1-step-closer-to-marriage-legalization-as-8th-region-allows-registration-of-gay-couples.htm|title=Taiwanese Same-Sex Pairs Move 1 Step Closer to Marriage Legalization as 8th Region Allows Registration of Gay Couples|first=Vittorio|last=Hernandez|date=1 April 2016}}</ref>
*** [[File:Flag of Changhua County.svg|22px]] [[Changhua County]] (2016–2019)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.yibada.com/articles/113256/20160401/taiwanese-same-sex-pairs-move-1-step-closer-to-marriage-legalization-as-8th-region-allows-registration-of-gay-couples.htm|title=Taiwanese Same-Sex Pairs Move 1 Step Closer to Marriage Legalization as 8th Region Allows Registration of Gay Couples|first=Vittorio|last=Hernandez|date=1 April 2016|access-date=13 April 2016|archive-date=16 April 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160416185412/http://en.yibada.com/articles/113256/20160401/taiwanese-same-sex-pairs-move-1-step-closer-to-marriage-legalization-as-8th-region-allows-registration-of-gay-couples.htm|url-status=live}}</ref>
*** [[File:Flag of Hsinchu County.svg|22px]] [[Hsinchu County]] (2016–2019)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://queer.watch/2016/04/08/10031|title=酷新聞 - 伴侶註記再下一城 105年4月1日起新竹縣開始受理|date=8 April 2016|access-date=9 May 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160415222232/http://queer.watch/2016/04/08/10031|archive-date=15 April 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref>
*** [[File:Flag of Hsinchu County.svg|22px]] [[Hsinchu County]] (2016–2019)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://queer.watch/2016/04/08/10031|title=酷新聞 - 伴侶註記再下一城 105年4月1日起新竹縣開始受理|date=8 April 2016|access-date=9 May 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160415222232/http://queer.watch/2016/04/08/10031|archive-date=15 April 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref>
*** [[File:Flag of Yilan County.svg|22px]] [[Yilan County, Taiwan|Yilan County]] (2016–2019)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/life/breakingnews/1701581|title=520蔡英文上台後宜蘭第一個改變 開放同性伴侶註記 - 生活 - 自由時報電子報|date=19 May 2016}}</ref>
*** [[File:Flag of Yilan County.svg|22px]] [[Yilan County, Taiwan|Yilan County]] (2016–2019)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/life/breakingnews/1701581|title=520蔡英文上台後宜蘭第一個改變 開放同性伴侶註記 - 生活 - 自由時報電子報|date=19 May 2016|access-date=23 May 2016|archive-date=3 April 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190403174730/https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/life/breakingnews/1701581|url-status=live}}</ref>
*** [[File:Flag of Chiayi County.svg|22px]] [[Chiayi County]] (2016–2019)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://times.hinet.net/news/19460411|title=HiNet|access-date=2016-11-09|archive-date=2016-11-05|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161105224000/http://times.hinet.net/news/19460411|url-status=dead}}</ref>
*** [[File:Flag of Chiayi County.svg|22px]] [[Chiayi County]] (2016–2019)<ref>{{cite web |url=http://times.hinet.net/news/19460411 |title=HiNet |access-date=2016-11-09 |archive-date=2016-11-05 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161105224000/http://times.hinet.net/news/19460411}}</ref>
*** [[File:Flag of Kinmen County.svg|22px]] [[Kinmen|Kinmen County]] (2017–2019)<ref name="taipeitimes.com"/>
*** [[File:Flag of Kinmen County.svg|22px]] [[Kinmen|Kinmen County]] (2017–2019)<ref name="taipeitimes.com"/>
*** [[File:Flag of Lienchiang County.svg|22px]] [[Lienchiang County]] (2017–2019)<ref name="taipeitimes.com"/>
*** [[File:Flag of Lienchiang County.svg|22px]] [[Lienchiang County]] (2017–2019)<ref name="taipeitimes.com"/>
Line 328: Line 327:
* [[City of Sydney]], [[New South Wales]]{{Snd}}Registered relationships since 2004<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.gaylawnet.com/ezine/partners/southsydney.pdf|title=CITY OF SYDNEY RELATIONSHIPS DECLARATION PROGRAM|access-date=5 September 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160305093806/http://gaylawnet.com/ezine/partners/southsydney.pdf|archive-date=5 March 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref>
* [[City of Sydney]], [[New South Wales]]{{Snd}}Registered relationships since 2004<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.gaylawnet.com/ezine/partners/southsydney.pdf|title=CITY OF SYDNEY RELATIONSHIPS DECLARATION PROGRAM|access-date=5 September 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160305093806/http://gaylawnet.com/ezine/partners/southsydney.pdf|archive-date=5 March 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref>
* [[Municipality of Woollahra]], [[New South Wales]]{{Snd}}Registered relationships since 2008<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/national-news/new-south-wales-news/woollahra-to-get-same-sex-register/3177|title=Woollahra to get same-sex register - Star Observer|website=www.starobserver.com.au|access-date=5 September 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170906040601/http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/national-news/new-south-wales-news/woollahra-to-get-same-sex-register/3177|archive-date=6 September 2017|url-status=dead}}</ref>
* [[Municipality of Woollahra]], [[New South Wales]]{{Snd}}Registered relationships since 2008<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/national-news/new-south-wales-news/woollahra-to-get-same-sex-register/3177|title=Woollahra to get same-sex register - Star Observer|website=www.starobserver.com.au|access-date=5 September 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170906040601/http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/national-news/new-south-wales-news/woollahra-to-get-same-sex-register/3177|archive-date=6 September 2017|url-status=dead}}</ref>
* [[City of the Blue Mountains]], [[New South Wales]]{{Snd}}Registered relationships since 2010<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/yourcommunity/relationshipdeclaration |title=Blue Mountains City Council - Relationship Declaration |first=Clear Blue |last=Day |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160201054501/http://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/yourcommunity/relationshipdeclaration |archive-date=2016-02-01 }}</ref>
* [[City of the Blue Mountains]], [[New South Wales]]{{Snd}}Registered relationships since 2010<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/yourcommunity/relationshipdeclaration |website=Blue Mountains City Council |title=Relationship Declaration |access-date=October 16, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160201054501/http://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/yourcommunity/relationshipdeclaration |archive-date=February 1, 2016}}</ref>
* [[City of Vincent]], [[Western Australia]]{{Snd}}Registered relationships since 2012<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.vincent.wa.gov.au/Services/Relationship_Declaration_Register|title=City of Vincent : Relationship Declaration Register|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151115002312/http://www.vincent.wa.gov.au/Services/Relationship_Declaration_Register|archive-date=2015-11-15}}</ref>
* [[City of Vincent]], [[Western Australia]]{{Snd}}Registered relationships since 2012<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.vincent.wa.gov.au/Services/Relationship_Declaration_Register|title=City of Vincent : Relationship Declaration Register|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151115002312/http://www.vincent.wa.gov.au/Services/Relationship_Declaration_Register|archive-date=2015-11-15}}</ref>
* [[Town of Port Hedland]], [[Western Australia]]{{Snd}}Registered relationships since 2015.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.porthedland.wa.gov.au/relationship-declaration-register.aspx|title=Relationship Declaration Register » Town of Port Hedland|access-date=2016-12-21|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161221162707/http://www.porthedland.wa.gov.au/relationship-declaration-register.aspx|archive-date=2016-12-21|url-status=dead}}</ref>
* [[Town of Port Hedland]], [[Western Australia]]{{Snd}}Registered relationships since 2015.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.porthedland.wa.gov.au/relationship-declaration-register.aspx|title=Relationship Declaration Register » Town of Port Hedland|access-date=2016-12-21|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161221162707/http://www.porthedland.wa.gov.au/relationship-declaration-register.aspx|archive-date=2016-12-21|url-status=dead}}</ref>
Line 335: Line 334:
{{Main|Same-sex marriage in Brazil}}
{{Main|Same-sex marriage in Brazil}}
[[File:Civil union map South America detailed.svg|thumb|300px|right|'''Countries performing civil unions in South America'''
[[File:Civil union map South America detailed.svg|thumb|300px|right|'''Countries performing civil unions in South America'''
{{legend|#3F48CC|Gender-neutral civil unions.}}
{{legend|#3F48CC|Gender-neutral civil unions}}
{{legend|#77317fff|Civil unions for opposite-sex couples only.}}
{{legend|#77317fff|Civil unions for opposite-sex couples only}}
{{legend|#ddddddff|Civil unions never performed.}}
{{legend|#ddddddff|Civil unions never performed}}
]]
]]
Cohabitation grants 112 benefits as family entities in Brazil since 2002. It is known as {{lang|pt|união estável}} when both parts are legally authorized to marry, and as {{lang|pt|concubinato}} when at least one party is legally prohibited from doing so.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://jus.com.br/artigos/5663/sucessao-de-companheiros-sob-a-egide-da-lei-n-10-406-2002 |work=Jus Navigandi |title=Sucessão de companheiros sob a égide da Lei nº 10.406/2002 |access-date=21 August 2019 |first=Antônio Carlos |last=Trevisan |date=September 2004 |language=pt}}</ref> Cohabitation grants all rights marriage confers, with the exception of automatic opt-in for one of four systems of property share married couples have access to, and automatic right to inheritance. Potential confusion might arise regarding terminology, given how when Brazilian Portuguese refers to the term {{lang|pt|união civil}}, it tends to be short for {{lang|pt|casamento civil}}, or civil marriage.
Cohabitation grants 112 benefits as family entities in Brazil since 2002. It is known as {{lang|pt|união estável}} when both parts are legally authorized to marry, and as {{lang|pt|concubinato}} when at least one party is legally prohibited from doing so.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://jus.com.br/artigos/5663/sucessao-de-companheiros-sob-a-egide-da-lei-n-10-406-2002 |work=Jus Navigandi |title=Sucessão de companheiros sob a égide da Lei nº 10.406/2002 |access-date=21 August 2019 |first=Antônio Carlos |last=Trevisan |date=September 2004 |language=pt}}</ref> Cohabitation grants all rights marriage confers, with the exception of automatic opt-in for one of four systems of property share married couples have access to, and automatic right to inheritance. Potential confusion might arise regarding terminology, given how when Brazilian Portuguese refers to the term {{lang|pt|união civil}}, it tends to be short for {{lang|pt|casamento civil}}, or civil marriage.
Line 343: Line 342:
Couples that have at least one child registered as a descendant of both parties might also have access to {{lang|pt|união estável}} or {{lang|pt|concubinato}} rights.
Couples that have at least one child registered as a descendant of both parties might also have access to {{lang|pt|união estável}} or {{lang|pt|concubinato}} rights.


Same-sex stable cohabitation in Brazil is legally recognized nationwide since May 5, 2011. Brazil's Supreme Court voted 10–0 with one abstention to allow [[same-sex couple]]s the same legal rights as married couples, following pointed recognition of such relationships that dates as far back as 2004. The ruling gave same-sex couples in such relationships the same financial and social rights enjoyed by those in mixed-sex ones.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-13304442 |title=Brazil Supreme Court awards gay couples new rights |date=6 May 2011 |publisher=[[www.bbc.co.uk]] |work=[[BBC News Online]] |access-date=21 August 2019 |agency=[[BBC]]}}</ref>
Same-sex stable cohabitation in Brazil is legally recognized nationwide since May 5, 2011. Brazil's Supreme Court voted 10–0 with one abstention to allow [[same-sex couple]]s the same legal rights as married couples, following pointed recognition of such relationships that dates as far back as 2004. The ruling gave same-sex couples in such relationships the same financial and social rights enjoyed by those in mixed-sex ones.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-13304442 |title=Brazil Supreme Court awards gay couples new rights |date=6 May 2011 |publisher=[[www.bbc.co.uk]] |work=[[BBC News Online]] |access-date=21 August 2019 |agency=[[BBC]] |archive-date=8 September 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190908091731/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-13304442 |url-status=live }}</ref>


A union between two women and one man was reported in August 2012, though its legality was doubted.<ref>{{cite news |title=Three-person civil union sparks controversy in Brazil |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-19402508 |publisher=[[BBC Online]] |work=[[BBC News Online]] |date=28 August 2012 |access-date=21 August 2019 |agency=[[BBC]]}}</ref><!-- "was doubted by [say who]." (if multiple: "was doubted by [example], among others.") -->
A union between two women and one man was reported in August 2012, though its legality was doubted.<ref>{{cite news |title=Three-person civil union sparks controversy in Brazil |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-19402508 |publisher=[[BBC Online]] |work=[[BBC News Online]] |date=28 August 2012 |access-date=21 August 2019 |agency=[[BBC]]}}</ref><!-- "was doubted by [say who]." (if multiple: "was doubted by [example], among others.") -->
Line 350: Line 349:
{{Main|Same-sex marriage in Canada}}
{{Main|Same-sex marriage in Canada}}
[[File:Civil union map North America.svg|thumb|300px|right|'''Jurisdictions performing civil unions in North America'''
[[File:Civil union map North America.svg|thumb|300px|right|'''Jurisdictions performing civil unions in North America'''
{{legend|#3F48CC|Gender-neutral civil unions.}}
{{legend|#3F48CC|Gender-neutral civil unions}}
{{legend|#9DECB5|Former civil unions for same-sex couples, replaced by marriage.}}
{{legend|#9DECB5|Former civil unions for same-sex couples, replaced by marriage}}
{{legend|#DDDDDD|Civil unions never performed.}}
{{legend|#DDDDDD|Civil unions never performed}}
]]
]]
In [[Canada]]:
In [[Canada]]:
Line 371: Line 370:
===Costa Rica===
===Costa Rica===
{{Main|Recognition of same-sex unions in Costa Rica}}
{{Main|Recognition of same-sex unions in Costa Rica}}
The [[Legislative Assembly of Costa Rica]] passed a bill in early July 2013 that "confers social rights and benefits of a civil union, free from discrimination", language inserted by lawmaker [[José María Villalta Florez-Estrada]] of the [[Broad Front (Costa Rica)|Broad Front]] party. After the bill passed, several media outlets reported that conservative lawmakers realized the bill's implications for same-sex unions and urged President [[Laura Chinchilla]], who is set to face Villalta in the 2014 presidential election, to use her [[veto]] power to stop the bill from becoming law. Chinchilla, who has suggested the courts should determine the legality of same-sex unions in Costa Rica, refused and signed the bill into law on 4 July. A gay couple has filed an appeal with the [[Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica]] asking that their union be recognized under the new law.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/costa-rica-legalized-gay-civil-unions-19591091|title=Costa Rica May Have Legalized Gay Civil Unions|date=6 July 2013|access-date=6 July 2013|agency=Associated Press|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130711010246/http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/costa-rica-legalized-gay-civil-unions-19591091|archive-date=11 July 2013|url-status=dead}}</ref> Gay rights activists reacting to the law said it needs to survive a constitutional challenge in court.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2013/07/05/costa-rica-passes-legislation-permitting-gay-civil-unions-by-accident/|title=Costa Rica Passes Legislation Permitting Gay Civil Unions -- By Accident|date=5 July 2013|access-date=6 July 2013|agency=Fox News Latino}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.ticotimes.net/More-news/News-Briefs/Costa-Rican-legislature-accidentally-passes-gay-marriage-legalization_Wednesday-July-03-2013|agency=Tico Times|date=3 July 2013|access-date=6 July 2013|title=Costa Rican legislature accidentally passes gay marriage legalization|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130706152250/http://www.ticotimes.net/More-news/News-Briefs/Costa-Rican-legislature-accidentally-passes-gay-marriage-legalization_Wednesday-July-03-2013|archive-date=6 July 2013|url-status=dead|df=dmy-all}}</ref> Some constitutional lawyers stated that same-sex couples will "still lack legal capacity" to formalize their unions, despite passage of the bill.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/costa-rican-lawyers-claim-%E2%80%98accidental%E2%80%99-bill-does-nothing-same-sex-unions060713|title=Costa Rican lawyers claim 'accidental' bill does nothing for same-sex unions|date=6 July 2013|access-date=6 July 2013|archive-date=20 September 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180920235913/https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/costa-rican-lawyers-claim-%e2%80%98accidental%e2%80%99-bill-does-nothing-same-sex-unions060713/|url-status=dead}}</ref>
The [[Legislative Assembly of Costa Rica]] passed a bill in early July 2013 that "confers social rights and benefits of a civil union, free from discrimination", language inserted by lawmaker [[José María Villalta Florez-Estrada]] of the [[Broad Front (Costa Rica)|Broad Front]] party. After the bill passed, several media outlets reported that conservative lawmakers realized the bill's implications for same-sex unions and urged President [[Laura Chinchilla]], who is set to face Villalta in the 2014 presidential election, to use her [[veto]] power to stop the bill from becoming law. Chinchilla, who has suggested the courts should determine the legality of same-sex unions in Costa Rica, refused and signed the bill into law on 4 July. A gay couple has filed an appeal with the [[Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica]] asking that their union be recognized under the new law.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/costa-rica-legalized-gay-civil-unions-19591091|title=Costa Rica May Have Legalized Gay Civil Unions|date=6 July 2013|access-date=6 July 2013|agency=Associated Press|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130711010246/http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/costa-rica-legalized-gay-civil-unions-19591091|archive-date=11 July 2013|url-status=dead}}</ref> Gay rights activists reacting to the law said it needs to survive a constitutional challenge in court.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2013/07/05/costa-rica-passes-legislation-permitting-gay-civil-unions-by-accident/|title=Costa Rica Passes Legislation Permitting Gay Civil Unions -- By Accident|date=5 July 2013|access-date=6 July 2013|agency=Fox News Latino|archive-date=21 December 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141221144748/http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2013/07/05/costa-rica-passes-legislation-permitting-gay-civil-unions-by-accident/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.ticotimes.net/More-news/News-Briefs/Costa-Rican-legislature-accidentally-passes-gay-marriage-legalization_Wednesday-July-03-2013|agency=Tico Times|date=3 July 2013|access-date=6 July 2013|title=Costa Rican legislature accidentally passes gay marriage legalization|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130706152250/http://www.ticotimes.net/More-news/News-Briefs/Costa-Rican-legislature-accidentally-passes-gay-marriage-legalization_Wednesday-July-03-2013|archive-date=6 July 2013|url-status=dead|df=dmy-all}}</ref> Some constitutional lawyers stated that same-sex couples will "still lack legal capacity" to formalize their unions, despite passage of the bill.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/costa-rican-lawyers-claim-%E2%80%98accidental%E2%80%99-bill-does-nothing-same-sex-unions060713|title=Costa Rican lawyers claim 'accidental' bill does nothing for same-sex unions|date=6 July 2013|access-date=6 July 2013|archive-date=20 September 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180920235913/https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/costa-rican-lawyers-claim-%e2%80%98accidental%e2%80%99-bill-does-nothing-same-sex-unions060713/|url-status=dead}}</ref>


===Ecuador===
===Ecuador===
Line 380: Line 379:
{{Main|Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe}}
{{Main|Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe}}
[[File:Civil union map Europe detailed.svg|thumb|300px|right|'''Countries performing civil unions in Europe'''
[[File:Civil union map Europe detailed.svg|thumb|300px|right|'''Countries performing civil unions in Europe'''
{{legend|#3F48CC|Gender-neutral civil unions.}}
{{legend|#3F48CC|Gender-neutral civil unions}}
{{legend|#22B14C|Civil unions for same-sex couples only.}}
{{legend|#22B14C|Civil unions for same-sex couples only}}
{{legend|#9DECB5|Former civil unions for same-sex couples, replaced by marriage.}}
{{legend|#9DECB5|Former civil unions for same-sex couples, replaced by marriage}}
{{legend|#DDDDDD|Civil unions never performed.}}
{{legend|#DDDDDD|Civil unions never performed}}
]]
]]
In Europe:
In Europe:
Line 431: Line 430:
====Austria====
====Austria====
{{Main|Recognition of same-sex unions in Austria}}
{{Main|Recognition of same-sex unions in Austria}}
In 2018, Minister of Justice Josef Moser announced that both marriage and registered partnership would be open to homosexuals and heterosexuals. This occurred because Helga Ratzenböck and Martin Seydl have been appealing for years{{Clarify timeframe|date=April 2021}} in court for a registered civil partnership in Austria. At the [[European Court of Human Rights]] in Strasbourg they attempted to sue Austria for discrimination against their sexuality,{{When|date=April 2021}} because they were a heterosexual couple and were excluded from the benefits of registered partnership, but this failed.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Verpartnern für alle: 'Uns fällt ein Stein vom Herzen'|url=https://www.nachrichten.at/oberoesterreich/Verpartnern-fuer-alle-Uns-faellt-ein-Stein-vom-Herzen;art4,2995874|access-date=2021-04-27|website=nachrichten.at|language=de}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Verfassungsgerichtshof entscheidet|url=https://www.derstandard.at/story/1285200270647/ep-fuer-heterosexuelle-verfassungsgerichtshof-entscheidet|access-date=2021-04-27|website=DER STANDARD|language=de-AT}}</ref> Only when the Constitutional Court of Austria opened up marriage to homosexuals in December 2018 registered partnerships also become possible for heterosexuals. After 35 years of living together, the two entered into a registered partnership in 2019.<ref>{{Cite web|title="Verpartnert": Für dieses Paar ging ein Traum in Erfüllung|url=https://www.nachrichten.at/oberoesterreich/verpartnert-fuer-dieses-paar-ging-ein-traum-in-erfuellung;art4,3139255|access-date=2024-06-20|website=nachrichten.at|language=de-AT}}</ref>
In 2018, Minister of Justice Josef Moser announced that both marriage and registered partnership would be open to homosexuals and heterosexuals. This occurred because Helga Ratzenböck and Martin Seydl have been appealing for years{{Clarify timeframe|date=April 2021}} in court for a registered civil partnership in Austria. At the [[European Court of Human Rights]] in Strasbourg they attempted to sue Austria for discrimination against their sexuality,{{When|date=April 2021}} because they were a heterosexual couple and were excluded from the benefits of registered partnership, but this failed.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Verpartnern für alle: 'Uns fällt ein Stein vom Herzen'|url=https://www.nachrichten.at/oberoesterreich/Verpartnern-fuer-alle-Uns-faellt-ein-Stein-vom-Herzen;art4,2995874|access-date=2021-04-27|website=nachrichten.at|language=de}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Verfassungsgerichtshof entscheidet|url=https://www.derstandard.at/story/1285200270647/ep-fuer-heterosexuelle-verfassungsgerichtshof-entscheidet|access-date=2021-04-27|website=DER STANDARD|language=de-AT|archive-date=2021-04-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210427055235/https://www.derstandard.at/story/1285200270647/ep-fuer-heterosexuelle-verfassungsgerichtshof-entscheidet|url-status=live}}</ref> Only when the Constitutional Court of Austria opened up marriage to homosexuals in December 2018 registered partnerships also become possible for heterosexuals. After 35 years of living together, the two entered into a registered partnership in 2019.<ref>{{Cite web|title="Verpartnert": Für dieses Paar ging ein Traum in Erfüllung|url=https://www.nachrichten.at/oberoesterreich/verpartnert-fuer-dieses-paar-ging-ein-traum-in-erfuellung;art4,3139255|access-date=2024-06-20|website=nachrichten.at|language=de-AT}}</ref>


====Croatia====
====Croatia====
Line 458: Line 457:
The [[France|French]] law providing benefits to same-sex couples also applies to opposite-sex couples who choose this form of partnership over marriage.  Known as the "Pacte civil de solidarité" (PACS), it is more easily dissolved than the divorce process applying to marriage.  Tax benefits accrue immediately (only from 2007 on{{Citation needed|date=April 2021}}), while immigration benefits accrue only after the contract has been in effect for one year. The partners are required to have a common address, making it difficult for foreigners to use this law as a means to a residence permit, and difficult for French citizens to gain the right to live with a foreign partner{{Snd}}especially since the contract does not automatically give immigration rights, as marriage does.<ref>Circulaire n°2007-03 CIV du 5 février 2007</ref>
The [[France|French]] law providing benefits to same-sex couples also applies to opposite-sex couples who choose this form of partnership over marriage.  Known as the "Pacte civil de solidarité" (PACS), it is more easily dissolved than the divorce process applying to marriage.  Tax benefits accrue immediately (only from 2007 on{{Citation needed|date=April 2021}}), while immigration benefits accrue only after the contract has been in effect for one year. The partners are required to have a common address, making it difficult for foreigners to use this law as a means to a residence permit, and difficult for French citizens to gain the right to live with a foreign partner{{Snd}}especially since the contract does not automatically give immigration rights, as marriage does.<ref>Circulaire n°2007-03 CIV du 5 février 2007</ref>


Between 2000 and 2010, the number of marriages decreased while the number of PACS strongly increased. In 2010, there were 3 PACS for every 4 marriages celebrated in France.<ref>{{cite web|title=Bilan démographique 2010|url=http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/document.asp?ref_id=ip1332|publisher=Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques|date=January 2011}}</ref> Especially amongst heterosexual couples PACS is very popular, with 96 out of 100 PACS couples being heterosexual in the year 2019.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Eine Ehe zum kleinen Preis|url=http://www.arte.tv/de/articles/eine-ehe-zum-kleinen-preis-1|access-date=2021-04-27|website=ARTE|language=de}}</ref>
Between 2000 and 2010, the number of marriages decreased while the number of PACS strongly increased. In 2010, there were 3 PACS for every 4 marriages celebrated in France.<ref>{{cite web|title=Bilan démographique 2010|url=http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/document.asp?ref_id=ip1332|publisher=Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques|date=January 2011|access-date=2012-10-23|archive-date=2018-12-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181219115023/https://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/document.asp?ref_id=ip1332|url-status=live}}</ref> Especially amongst heterosexual couples PACS is very popular, with 96 out of 100 PACS couples being heterosexual in the year 2019.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Eine Ehe zum kleinen Preis|url=http://www.arte.tv/de/articles/eine-ehe-zum-kleinen-preis-1|access-date=2021-04-27|website=ARTE|language=de}}</ref>


[[File:Civil union map Central America and the Caribbean Islands.svg|thumb|300px|right|'''Countries performing civil unions in Central America and the Caribbean Islands'''
[[File:Civil union map Central America and the Caribbean Islands.svg|thumb|300px|right|'''Countries performing civil unions in Central America and the Caribbean Islands'''
{{legend|#3F48CC|Gender-neutral civil unions.}}
{{legend|#3F48CC|Gender-neutral civil unions}}
{{legend|#77317F|Civil unions for opposite-sex couples only.}}
{{legend|#77317F|Civil unions for opposite-sex couples only}}
{{legend|#ddddddff|Civil unions never performed.}}
{{legend|#ddddddff|Civil unions never performed}}
]]
]]


Line 484: Line 483:


====Ireland====
====Ireland====
In 2010, the lower house of the Irish Parliament [[Dáil Éireann]] passed the [[Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010|bill on Civil Partnerships]] unanimously. This bill allows civil partnerships of same-sex couples, and establishes an extensive package of rights, obligations and protections for same-sex couples who register as civil partners.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0701/breaking41.html |newspaper=[[The Irish Times]] |title=Dáil passes Civil Partnership Bill |date=7 July 2010 |access-date=21 August 2019 |first=Michael |last=O'Regan |author-link=Michael O'Regan (journalist) |archive-date=21 October 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121021134701/http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0701/breaking41.html |url-status=dead }}</ref> The bill passed all stages of in both Houses of the Oireachtas,<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0708/breaking59.html |newspaper=[[The Irish Times]] |title=Seanad passes Partnership Bill |date=7 July 2010 |access-date=21 August 2019 |first=Harry |last=McGee |author-link=Harry McGee |archive-date=21 October 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121021135010/http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0708/breaking59.html |url-status=dead }}</ref> and came into effect on 1 January 2011.  The first partnership between two men was registered on 7 February 2011.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/02/20/irelands-first-civil-partnerships-have-taken-place-early-and-in-secret |title=Ireland's first civil partnerships have taken place early and in secret |newspaper=[[Pinknews.co.uk]] |date=20 February 2011 |access-date=5 April 2014}}</ref>
In 2010, the lower house of the Irish Parliament [[Dáil Éireann]] passed the [[Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010|bill on Civil Partnerships]] unanimously. This bill allows civil partnerships of same-sex couples, and establishes an extensive package of rights, obligations and protections for same-sex couples who register as civil partners.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0701/breaking41.html |newspaper=[[The Irish Times]] |title=Dáil passes Civil Partnership Bill |date=7 July 2010 |access-date=21 August 2019 |first=Michael |last=O'Regan |author-link=Michael O'Regan (journalist) |archive-date=21 October 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121021134701/http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0701/breaking41.html |url-status=dead }}</ref> The bill passed all stages of in both Houses of the Oireachtas,<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0708/breaking59.html |newspaper=[[The Irish Times]] |title=Seanad passes Partnership Bill |date=7 July 2010 |access-date=21 August 2019 |first=Harry |last=McGee |author-link=Harry McGee |archive-date=21 October 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121021135010/http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0708/breaking59.html |url-status=dead }}</ref> and came into effect on 1 January 2011.  The first partnership between two men was registered on 7 February 2011.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/02/20/irelands-first-civil-partnerships-have-taken-place-early-and-in-secret |title=Ireland's first civil partnerships have taken place early and in secret |newspaper=[[Pinknews.co.uk]] |date=20 February 2011 |access-date=5 April 2014 |archive-date=15 August 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180815050205/https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/02/20/irelands-first-civil-partnerships-have-taken-place-early-and-in-secret/ |url-status=live }}</ref>


Same-sex marriage has been [[Same-sex marriage in the Republic of Ireland|legal in Ireland]] since 2015 following a [[Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland|referendum]].<ref name="rte-703205-referendum-byelection">{{cite web |date=23 May 2015 |title=Ireland says Yes to same-sex marriage |url=http://www.rte.ie/news/vote2015/2015/0523/703205-referendum-byelection/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150523224354/http://www.rte.ie/news/vote2015/2015/0523/703205-referendum-byelection/ |archive-date=23 May 2015 |access-date=23 May 2015 |publisher=RTÉ News}}</ref>
Same-sex marriage has been [[Same-sex marriage in the Republic of Ireland|legal in Ireland]] since 2015 following a [[Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland|referendum]].<ref name="rte-703205-referendum-byelection">{{cite web |date=23 May 2015 |title=Ireland says Yes to same-sex marriage |url=http://www.rte.ie/news/vote2015/2015/0523/703205-referendum-byelection/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150523224354/http://www.rte.ie/news/vote2015/2015/0523/703205-referendum-byelection/ |archive-date=23 May 2015 |access-date=23 May 2015 |publisher=RTÉ News}}</ref>


====Italy====
====Italy====
{{Main|Recognition of same-sex unions in Italy}}Legal recognition of same-sex civil unions in [[Italy]] began in 2016.[[Italy|I]]<ref name="buzzfeed">{{cite web |date=25 February 2016 |title=Italian Senate Adopts Civil Union Bill |url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/italian-senate-adopts-civil-union-bill |access-date=13 May 2016 |work=[[BuzzFeed]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |date=11 May 2016 |title=Civil unions become law |url=http://www.ansa.it/english/news/2016/05/11/civil-unions-become-law_19e92919-e154-446b-9ec7-f712319fa41b.html |access-date=11 May 2016 |publisher=[[Agenzia Nazionale Stampa Associata|ANSA]]}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite news |date=11 May 2016 |title=Italian MPs back same-sex unions in vote for Renzi - BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36269605 |access-date=12 May 2016 |work=BBC News |language=en-GB}}</ref><ref name="ansa">{{cite web |date=20 May 2016 |title=Mattarella signs civil-unions law |url=http://www.ansa.it/english/news/politics/2016/05/20/mattarella-signs-civil-unions-law-2_a0d181c1-1ed6-42d8-873c-a810ba59497c.html |access-date=21 May 2016 |work=ANSA}}</ref>
{{Main|Recognition of same-sex unions in Italy}}Legal recognition of same-sex civil unions in [[Italy]] began in 2016.[[Italy|I]]<ref name="buzzfeed">{{cite web |date=25 February 2016 |title=Italian Senate Adopts Civil Union Bill |url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/italian-senate-adopts-civil-union-bill |access-date=13 May 2016 |work=[[BuzzFeed]] |archive-date=12 June 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180612143406/https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/italian-senate-adopts-civil-union-bill |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |date=11 May 2016 |title=Civil unions become law |url=http://www.ansa.it/english/news/2016/05/11/civil-unions-become-law_19e92919-e154-446b-9ec7-f712319fa41b.html |access-date=11 May 2016 |publisher=[[Agenzia Nazionale Stampa Associata|ANSA]] |archive-date=16 November 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181116044827/http://www.ansa.it/english/news/2016/05/11/civil-unions-become-law_19e92919-e154-446b-9ec7-f712319fa41b.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite news |date=11 May 2016 |title=Italian MPs back same-sex unions in vote for Renzi - BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36269605 |access-date=12 May 2016 |work=BBC News |language=en-GB |archive-date=28 September 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180928024728/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36269605 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="ansa">{{cite web |date=20 May 2016 |title=Mattarella signs civil-unions law |url=http://www.ansa.it/english/news/politics/2016/05/20/mattarella-signs-civil-unions-law-2_a0d181c1-1ed6-42d8-873c-a810ba59497c.html |access-date=21 May 2016 |work=ANSA |archive-date=27 March 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190327101358/http://www.ansa.it/english/news/politics/2016/05/20/mattarella-signs-civil-unions-law-2_a0d181c1-1ed6-42d8-873c-a810ba59497c.html |url-status=live }}</ref>


====Liechtenstein====
====Liechtenstein====
Line 498: Line 497:


====Montenegro====
====Montenegro====
{{Main|Recognition of same-sex unions in Montenegro}}Civil unions in [[Montenegro]] began in 2020.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kajosevic |first=Samir |date=2021-07-26 |title=Montenegro Makes History With First Same-Sex Marriage |url=https://balkaninsight.com/2021/07/26/montenegro-makes-history-with-first-same-sex-marriage/ |access-date=2025-03-01 |website=Balkan Insight |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2021-09-10 |title=The first same-sex marriage in Montenegro |url=https://www.rolplatform.org/the-first-same-sex-marriage-in-montenegro/ |access-date=2025-03-01 |website=Rule of Law Platform |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Kajosevic |first=Samir |date=2020-07-02 |title=Montenegro Parliament Narrowly Votes to Legalize Same-sex Unions |url=https://balkaninsight.com/2020/07/02/montenegro-parliament-narrowly-votes-to-legalize-same-sex-unions/ |access-date=2025-03-01 |website=Balkan Insight |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Montenegro: New Law Establishing Registration of Same-Sex Partnerships Enters into Force |url=https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2020-08-05/montenegro-new-law-establishing-registration-of-same-sex-partnerships-enters-into-force/ |access-date=2025-03-01 |website=Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20540 USA}}</ref>
{{Main|Recognition of same-sex unions in Montenegro}}Civil unions in [[Montenegro]] began in 2020.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kajosevic |first=Samir |date=2021-07-26 |title=Montenegro Makes History With First Same-Sex Marriage |url=https://balkaninsight.com/2021/07/26/montenegro-makes-history-with-first-same-sex-marriage/ |access-date=2025-03-01 |website=Balkan Insight |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2021-09-10 |title=The first same-sex marriage in Montenegro |url=https://www.rolplatform.org/the-first-same-sex-marriage-in-montenegro/ |access-date=2025-03-01 |website=Rule of Law Platform |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Kajosevic |first=Samir |date=2020-07-02 |title=Montenegro Parliament Narrowly Votes to Legalize Same-sex Unions |url=https://balkaninsight.com/2020/07/02/montenegro-parliament-narrowly-votes-to-legalize-same-sex-unions/ |access-date=2025-03-01 |website=Balkan Insight |language=en-US |archive-date=2020-07-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200712000636/https://balkaninsight.com/2020/07/02/montenegro-parliament-narrowly-votes-to-legalize-same-sex-unions/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Montenegro: New Law Establishing Registration of Same-Sex Partnerships Enters into Force |url=https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2020-08-05/montenegro-new-law-establishing-registration-of-same-sex-partnerships-enters-into-force/ |access-date=2025-03-01 |website=Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20540 USA}}</ref>


====Netherlands====
====Netherlands====
Line 510: Line 509:
In 2008, when asked about same-sex civil unions, [[First Cabinet of Donald Tusk]] spokeswoman Agnieszka Liszka answered: "[[Cabinet of Poland|Council of Ministers]] did not and would not take care of that matter."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://queer.pl/news/190654/tusk-nie-chce-rozmawiac|title=Tusk nie chce rozmawiać|last=Queermedia.pl}}</ref>
In 2008, when asked about same-sex civil unions, [[First Cabinet of Donald Tusk]] spokeswoman Agnieszka Liszka answered: "[[Cabinet of Poland|Council of Ministers]] did not and would not take care of that matter."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://queer.pl/news/190654/tusk-nie-chce-rozmawiac|title=Tusk nie chce rozmawiać|last=Queermedia.pl}}</ref>


On January 25, 2013, Sejm voted upon three separate bills regarding same-sex civil unions in Poland: by the centre-left [[Democratic Left Alliance (Poland)|Democratic Left Alliance]], liberal [[Palikot's Movement]] and centre-right [[Civic Platform]]. The first bill had 283 against, 137 for, 30 abstaining. The second had 276 against, 150 for, 23 abstaining. The third had 228 against, 211 for, 10 abstaining. All three were rejected, mainly with the votes of centre-right, right-wing and conservative parties: [[Polish People's Party]], [[Law and Justice]] and [[United Poland]]. A majority of deputies from the ruling centre-right [[Civic Platform]] also voted against the first two bills.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rp.pl/artykul/16,973895-Sejm-przeciwko-zwiazkom-partnerskim.html?p=1|title=Sejm przeciwko związkom partnerskim - Polityka - rp.pl|access-date=2013-01-25|archive-date=2014-04-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140407080541/http://www.rp.pl/artykul/16,973895-Sejm-przeciwko-zwiazkom-partnerskim.html?p=1|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|url=http://orka.sejm.gov.pl/kronika.nsf/0/07F6202077378DFCC1257B1F00508EA9/%24File/kronika031_7.pdf |title=KRONIKA SEJMOWA |journal=Kronika Sejmowakancelaria |access-date=2014-04-05}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://wyborcza.pl/1,75478,12186312,Zwiazki_partnerskie_wracaja_na_polke__Sejm_robi_unik.html|title=Wyborcza.pl}}</ref> The [[Roman Catholicism in Poland|Roman Catholic Church]] in Poland, [[Polish Orthodox Church]] and [[Islam in Poland|Polish Muslims]] opposed all three bills.
On January 25, 2013, Sejm voted upon three separate bills regarding same-sex civil unions in Poland: by the centre-left [[Democratic Left Alliance (Poland)|Democratic Left Alliance]], liberal [[Palikot's Movement]] and centre-right [[Civic Platform]]. The first bill had 283 against, 137 for, 30 abstaining. The second had 276 against, 150 for, 23 abstaining. The third had 228 against, 211 for, 10 abstaining. All three were rejected, mainly with the votes of centre-right, right-wing and conservative parties: [[Polish People's Party]], [[Law and Justice]] and [[United Poland]]. A majority of deputies from the ruling centre-right [[Civic Platform]] also voted against the first two bills.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rp.pl/artykul/16,973895-Sejm-przeciwko-zwiazkom-partnerskim.html?p=1|title=Sejm przeciwko związkom partnerskim - Polityka - rp.pl|access-date=2013-01-25|archive-date=2014-04-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140407080541/http://www.rp.pl/artykul/16,973895-Sejm-przeciwko-zwiazkom-partnerskim.html?p=1|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |url=http://orka.sejm.gov.pl/kronika.nsf/0/07F6202077378DFCC1257B1F00508EA9/%24File/kronika031_7.pdf |title=KRONIKA SEJMOWA |journal=Kronika Sejmowakancelaria |access-date=2014-04-05 |archive-date=2014-01-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140114141318/http://orka.sejm.gov.pl/kronika.nsf/0/07F6202077378DFCC1257B1F00508EA9/%24File/kronika031_7.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://wyborcza.pl/1,75478,12186312,Zwiazki_partnerskie_wracaja_na_polke__Sejm_robi_unik.html|title=Wyborcza.pl|access-date=2013-01-25|archive-date=2012-07-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120728135027/http://wyborcza.pl/1,75478,12186312,Zwiazki_partnerskie_wracaja_na_polke__Sejm_robi_unik.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The [[Roman Catholicism in Poland|Roman Catholic Church]] in Poland, [[Polish Orthodox Church]] and [[Islam in Poland|Polish Muslims]] opposed all three bills.


In March 2013, Prime Minister Donald Tusk officially stated that a new project of civil unions bill would be presented to the parliament "in two months time" (in May 2013), but {{As of|2014|April|lc=y}}{{Update inline|date=April 2021}} no such initiatives took place.
In March 2013, Prime Minister Donald Tusk officially stated that a new project of civil unions bill would be presented to the parliament "in two months time" (in May 2013), but {{As of|2014|April|lc=y}}{{Update inline|date=April 2021}} no such initiatives took place.


In a 2013 opinion poll conducted by [[Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej|CBOS]], 68% of Poles were against gays and lesbians publicly showing their way of life, 65% of Poles were against same-sex [[civil unions]], 72% were against same-sex marriage and 88% were against adoption by same-sex couples.<ref name="CBOS Civil union">{{cite web | url=http://cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2013/K_024_13.PDF | title=Stosunek do praw gejów i lesbijek oraz związków partnerskich | publisher=Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej | date=February 2013 | access-date=30 June 2014 | author=Feliksiak, Michał | language=pl}}</ref>
In a 2013 opinion poll conducted by [[Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej|CBOS]], 68% of Poles were against gays and lesbians publicly showing their way of life, 65% of Poles were against same-sex [[civil unions]], 72% were against same-sex marriage and 88% were against adoption by same-sex couples.<ref name="CBOS Civil union">{{cite web | url=http://cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2013/K_024_13.PDF | title=Stosunek do praw gejów i lesbijek oraz związków partnerskich | publisher=Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej | date=February 2013 | access-date=30 June 2014 | author=Feliksiak, Michał | language=pl | archive-date=3 December 2013 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131203012144/http://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2013/K_024_13.PDF | url-status=live }}</ref>


In December 2014, the Sejm refused to deal with a civil partnership bill proposed by [[Your Movement]], with 235 MPs voting against debating the bill, and 185 MPs voting for.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.tvn24.pl/wiadomosci-z-kraju,3/sejm-nie-zajal-sie-ustawa-ws-zwiazkow-partnerskich-wiekszosc-poslow-przeciw,499563.html |title=Związki partnerskie do szuflady. Sejm nie zajął się projektem |publisher=tvn24.pl |language=pl}}</ref>
In December 2014, the Sejm refused to deal with a civil partnership bill proposed by [[Your Movement]], with 235 MPs voting against debating the bill, and 185 MPs voting for.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.tvn24.pl/wiadomosci-z-kraju,3/sejm-nie-zajal-sie-ustawa-ws-zwiazkow-partnerskich-wiekszosc-poslow-przeciw,499563.html |title=Związki partnerskie do szuflady. Sejm nie zajął się projektem |publisher=tvn24.pl |language=pl |archive-date=2019-04-16 |access-date=2015-06-15 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190416050616/https://www.tvn24.pl/wiadomosci-z-kraju,3/sejm-nie-zajal-sie-ustawa-ws-zwiazkow-partnerskich-wiekszosc-poslow-przeciw,499563.html |url-status=live }}</ref>


In May 2015, the Sejm again refused to deal with the topic, with 215 MPs voting against and only 146 for. The Prime Minister, [[Ewa Kopacz]], said that civil partnerships are an issue for the next parliament to deal with.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.polityka.pl/tygodnikpolityka/kraj/1620801,1,zwiazki-partnerskie--nie-w-tej-kadencji.read |title=Związki partnerskie - nie w tej kadencji |date=26 May 2015 |access-date=28 May 2015 |publisher=polityka.pl |language=pl}}</ref>
In May 2015, the Sejm again refused to deal with the topic, with 215 MPs voting against and only 146 for. The Prime Minister, [[Ewa Kopacz]], said that civil partnerships are an issue for the next parliament to deal with.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.polityka.pl/tygodnikpolityka/kraj/1620801,1,zwiazki-partnerskie--nie-w-tej-kadencji.read |title=Związki partnerskie - nie w tej kadencji |date=26 May 2015 |access-date=28 May 2015 |publisher=polityka.pl |language=pl |archive-date=3 May 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190503002011/https://www.polityka.pl/tygodnikpolityka/kraj/1620801,1,zwiazki-partnerskie--nie-w-tej-kadencji.read |url-status=live }}</ref>


====San Marino====
====San Marino====
Line 537: Line 536:
On January 27, 2004, the [[Canton of Neuchâtel]] voted for a law on the cantonal level, the Partenariat enregistré (the Cantonal Registered Partnership). It grants [[cohabitation|unmarried couples]], whether same-sex or opposite-sex, the same rights as married couple for cantonal matters such as responsibilities and protections, benefits in taxation, social security, or health insurance premiums.
On January 27, 2004, the [[Canton of Neuchâtel]] voted for a law on the cantonal level, the Partenariat enregistré (the Cantonal Registered Partnership). It grants [[cohabitation|unmarried couples]], whether same-sex or opposite-sex, the same rights as married couple for cantonal matters such as responsibilities and protections, benefits in taxation, social security, or health insurance premiums.


On June 5, 2005, voters extended this right to the whole of Switzerland through a federal referendum. This was the first time that the civil union laws were affirmed in a nationwide referendum in any country. The Federal Domestic Partnership Law, reserved for same-sex couples, came into force on January 1, 2007. It grants the same rights as marriage, but full joint adoption rights, facilitated naturalization and medically assisted procreation are explicitly forbidden for same-sex domestic partners.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.admin.ch/opc/fr/classified-compilation/20022194/index.html#a28|title=RS 211.231 Loi fédérale du 18 juin 2004 sur le partenariat enregistré entre personnes du même sexe (Loi sur le partenariat, LPart)|website=www.admin.ch}}</ref>
On June 5, 2005, voters extended this right to the whole of Switzerland through a federal referendum. This was the first time that the civil union laws were affirmed in a nationwide referendum in any country. The Federal Domestic Partnership Law, reserved for same-sex couples, came into force on January 1, 2007. It grants the same rights as marriage, but full joint adoption rights, facilitated naturalization and medically assisted procreation are explicitly forbidden for same-sex domestic partners.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.admin.ch/opc/fr/classified-compilation/20022194/index.html#a28|title=RS 211.231 Loi fédérale du 18 juin 2004 sur le partenariat enregistré entre personnes du même sexe (Loi sur le partenariat, LPart)|website=www.admin.ch|access-date=2020-10-01|archive-date=2012-10-10|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121010192747/http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/211_231/a27.html#a28|url-status=live}}</ref>


In 2017, the Federal Councilor [[Simonetta Sommaruga]] addressed the issue that civil union is not open yet for heterosexual couples, in collaboration with experts at the University of Bern. In Geneva and Neuchâtel a type of civil union called cantonal PACS is available to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.<ref name=":1" /> The cantonal PACS effects are limited to cantonal law. The cantonal PACS, however, has no impact on civil status and inheritance, which are regulated by federal law.<ref name=":1">[https://www.bj.admin.ch/bj/de/home/aktuell/news/2017/ref_2017-06-222.html "Ein PACS für die Schweiz?": Tagung zu neuen Rechtsformen für Paarbeziehungen]{{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190323020010/https://www.bj.admin.ch/bj/de/home/aktuell/news/2017/ref_2017-06-222.html|wayback=|text=|archiv-bot=|date=March 23, 2019}}</ref>
In 2017, the Federal Councilor [[Simonetta Sommaruga]] addressed the issue that civil union is not open yet for heterosexual couples, in collaboration with experts at the University of Bern. In Geneva and Neuchâtel a type of civil union called cantonal PACS is available to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.<ref name=":1" /> The cantonal PACS effects are limited to cantonal law. The cantonal PACS, however, has no impact on civil status and inheritance, which are regulated by federal law.<ref name=":1">[https://www.bj.admin.ch/bj/de/home/aktuell/news/2017/ref_2017-06-222.html "Ein PACS für die Schweiz?": Tagung zu neuen Rechtsformen für Paarbeziehungen]{{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190323020010/https://www.bj.admin.ch/bj/de/home/aktuell/news/2017/ref_2017-06-222.html|wayback=|text=|archiv-bot=|date=March 23, 2019}}</ref>
Line 545: Line 544:
====United Kingdom====
====United Kingdom====
{{Main|Civil partnership in the United Kingdom}}
{{Main|Civil partnership in the United Kingdom}}
In 2003, the [[United Kingdom|British]] government announced plans to introduce civil partnerships which would allow same-sex couples the rights and responsibilities resulting from marriage. The [[Civil Partnership Act 2004|Civil Partnership Bill]] was introduced into the [[House of Lords]] on 30 March 2004. After considering amendments made by the [[House of Commons of the United Kingdom|House of Commons]], it was passed by the House of Lords, its final legislative step, on 17 November 2004, and received [[royal assent]] on 18 November. The Act came into force on 5 December 2005, and same-sex, but not opposite-sex, couples were able to form the civil partnerships from 19 December 2005 in [[Northern Ireland]], 20 December 2005 in [[Scotland]] and 21 December 2005 in [[England]] and [[Wales]].<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4493094.stm|title=BBC NEWS - UK - 'Gay weddings' become law in UK|date=5 December 2005}}</ref> Separate provisions were included in the first Finance Act 2005 to allow regulations to be made to amend tax laws to give the same tax advantages and disadvantages to couples in civil partnerships as apply to married couples. At that time, the [[Church of England]], the [[State religion|state church]] in England, permitted clergy to enter into same-sex civil partnerships.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/04/church-of-england-gay-bishops|title=Church of England rules gay men in civil partnerships can become bishops|last=Walker|first=Peter|date=2013-01-04|newspaper=The Guardian|language=en-GB|issn=0261-3077|access-date=2016-09-16}}</ref>
In 2003, the [[United Kingdom|British]] government announced plans to introduce civil partnerships which would allow same-sex couples the rights and responsibilities resulting from marriage. The [[Civil Partnership Act 2004|Civil Partnership Bill]] was introduced into the [[House of Lords]] on 30 March 2004. After considering amendments made by the [[House of Commons of the United Kingdom|House of Commons]], it was passed by the House of Lords, its final legislative step, on 17 November 2004, and received [[royal assent]] on 18 November. The Act came into force on 5 December 2005, and same-sex, but not opposite-sex, couples were able to form the civil partnerships from 19 December 2005 in [[Northern Ireland]], 20 December 2005 in [[Scotland]] and 21 December 2005 in [[England]] and [[Wales]].<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4493094.stm|title=BBC NEWS - UK - 'Gay weddings' become law in UK|date=5 December 2005|archive-date=10 December 2005|access-date=5 December 2005|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051210144750/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4493094.stm|url-status=live}}</ref> Separate provisions were included in the first Finance Act 2005 to allow regulations to be made to amend tax laws to give the same tax advantages and disadvantages to couples in civil partnerships as apply to married couples. At that time, the [[Church of England]], the [[State religion|state church]] in England, permitted clergy to enter into same-sex civil partnerships.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/04/church-of-england-gay-bishops|title=Church of England rules gay men in civil partnerships can become bishops|last=Walker|first=Peter|date=2013-01-04|newspaper=The Guardian|language=en-GB|issn=0261-3077|access-date=2016-09-16|archive-date=2016-09-25|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160925012956/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/04/church-of-england-gay-bishops|url-status=live}}</ref>


Aside from the manner in which couples register and the non-use of the word "marriage", civil partnerships grant most of the same legal rights as marriage and generally operate under the same constrictions (one difference being that marriage requires dissolution by divorce while a civil union does not). It is not legal to be in both a civil partnership and a marriage at the same time. Nevertheless, some of those in favour of legal same-sex marriage object that civil partnerships do not grant full equality.
Aside from the manner in which couples register and the non-use of the word "marriage", civil partnerships grant most of the same legal rights as marriage and generally operate under the same constrictions (one difference being that marriage requires dissolution by divorce while a civil union does not). It is not legal to be in both a civil partnership and a marriage at the same time. Nevertheless, some of those in favour of legal same-sex marriage object that civil partnerships do not grant full equality.
Line 558: Line 557:
{{Main|Same-sex marriage in Mexico|Same-sex marriage in Mexico City}}
{{Main|Same-sex marriage in Mexico|Same-sex marriage in Mexico City}}
[[File:Civil union map Mexico.svg|thumb|300px|right|'''States performing civil unions in Mexico'''
[[File:Civil union map Mexico.svg|thumb|300px|right|'''States performing civil unions in Mexico'''
{{legend|#3F48CC|Gender-neutral civil unions.}}
{{legend|#3F48CC|Gender-neutral civil unions}}
{{legend|#9DECB5|Former civil unions for same-sex couples, replaced by marriage.}}
{{legend|#9DECB5|Former civil unions for same-sex couples, replaced by marriage}}
{{legend|#DDDDDD|Civil unions never performed.}}
{{legend|#DDDDDD|Civil unions never performed}}
]]
]]
On 9 November 2006, [[Mexico City]]'s [[unicameral]] [[Legislative Assembly of the Federal District|Legislative Assembly]] passed and approved (43–17) a bill legalizing [[Recognition of same-sex unions in Mexico|same-sex civil unions]], under the name ''Ley de Sociedades de Convivencia'' (Law for Co-existence Partnerships), which became effective on 16 March 2007.<ref>{{cite web|author=Erich Adolfo Moncada Cota |title=Mexico City Approves Same Sex Unions |date=November 19, 2006 |url=http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=329768&rel_no=1 |access-date=9 December 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091120061120/http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=329768&rel_no=1 |archive-date=20 November 2009 }}</ref> The law gives [[property]] and [[inheritance]] rights to same-sex couples. On 11 January 2007, the northern state of [[Coahuila]], which borders Texas, passed a similar bill (20–13), under the name ''Pacto Civil de Solidaridad'' (Civil Pact of Solidarity).<ref name="PCS"/> Unlike Mexico City's law, once same-sex couples have registered in Coahuila, the state protects their rights no matter where they live in the country.<ref name="PCS">{{cite web | author=S. Lynne Walker | publisher=Mail & Guardian Online | title=New law propels gay rights in Mexico | date=5 March 2007 | url=http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070305/news_1n5gaylaw.html | access-date=15 December 2009 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110719114446/http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070305/news_1n5gaylaw.html | archive-date=19 July 2011 | url-status=dead }}</ref> Twenty days after the law had passed,{{When|date=April 2021}} the country's first same-sex civil union took place in [[Saltillo, Coahuila]].<ref>{{cite web| agency=Associated Press | publisher=Gay.com UK & Ireland | title=Mexico's first civil union | date=1 February 2007 | url=http://uk.gay.com/headlines/10984 | access-date=15 December 2009 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070530011312/http://uk.gay.com/headlines/10984 |archive-date = 30 May 2007}}</ref> Civil unions have been proposed in at least six states since 2006.<ref name="Christine Delsol">{{cite news| author=Christine Delsol | newspaper=San Francisco Gate | title=Mexico's top destinations for gay vacations | date=26 November 2008 | url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/11/26/mexicomix112608.DTL&type=printable | access-date=15 December 2009}}</ref>
On 9 November 2006, [[Mexico City]]'s [[unicameral]] [[Legislative Assembly of the Federal District|Legislative Assembly]] passed and approved (43–17) a bill legalizing [[Recognition of same-sex unions in Mexico|same-sex civil unions]], under the name ''Ley de Sociedades de Convivencia'' (Law for Co-existence Partnerships), which became effective on 16 March 2007.<ref>{{cite web|author=Erich Adolfo Moncada Cota |title=Mexico City Approves Same Sex Unions |date=November 19, 2006 |url=http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=329768&rel_no=1 |access-date=9 December 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091120061120/http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=329768&rel_no=1 |archive-date=20 November 2009 }}</ref> The law gives [[property]] and [[inheritance]] rights to same-sex couples. On 11 January 2007, the northern state of [[Coahuila]], which borders Texas, passed a similar bill (20–13), under the name ''Pacto Civil de Solidaridad'' (Civil Pact of Solidarity).<ref name="PCS"/> Unlike Mexico City's law, once same-sex couples have registered in Coahuila, the state protects their rights no matter where they live in the country.<ref name="PCS">{{cite web | author=S. Lynne Walker | publisher=Mail & Guardian Online | title=New law propels gay rights in Mexico | date=5 March 2007 | url=http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070305/news_1n5gaylaw.html | access-date=15 December 2009 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110719114446/http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070305/news_1n5gaylaw.html | archive-date=19 July 2011 | url-status=dead }}</ref> Twenty days after the law had passed,{{When|date=April 2021}} the country's first same-sex civil union took place in [[Saltillo, Coahuila]].<ref>{{cite web| agency=Associated Press | publisher=Gay.com UK & Ireland | title=Mexico's first civil union | date=1 February 2007 | url=http://uk.gay.com/headlines/10984 | access-date=15 December 2009 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070530011312/http://uk.gay.com/headlines/10984 |archive-date = 30 May 2007}}</ref> Civil unions have been proposed in at least six states since 2006.<ref name="Christine Delsol">{{cite news | author=Christine Delsol | newspaper=San Francisco Gate | title=Mexico's top destinations for gay vacations | date=26 November 2008 | url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/11/26/mexicomix112608.DTL&type=printable | access-date=15 December 2009 | archive-date=15 March 2012 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120315230253/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fg%2Fa%2F2008%2F11%2F26%2Fmexicomix112608.DTL&type=printable | url-status=live }}</ref>


In [[Colima]], [[Governor of Colima|governor]] [[Mario Anguiano Moreno]] has agreed to discuss the legalization of civil unions and adoption by same-sex couples.<ref>{{cite web|author=El Universal |publisher=Yahoo! México |title=Acepta gobernador de Colima debatir sobre sociedades en convivencia |date=23 December 2009 |url=http://mx.news.yahoo.com/s/23122009/90/n-mexico-acepta-gobernador-colima-debatir-sociedades.html |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120711171026/http://mx.news.yahoo.com/s/23122009/90/n-mexico-acepta-gobernador-colima-debatir-sociedades.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=11 July 2012 |access-date=26 December 2009 |language=es }}</ref>{{When|date=April 2021}} In [[Jalisco]], local congress approved on 31 October 2013 the Free Coexistence Act, which allows the performance of civil unions in the state.<ref name=cnnjal>{{cite web|url=http://mexico.cnn.com/nacional/2013/11/01/jalisco-cuna-de-charros-y-tequila-da-primer-paso-hacia-el-matrimonio-gay|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131103092855/http://mexico.cnn.com/nacional/2013/11/01/jalisco-cuna-de-charros-y-tequila-da-primer-paso-hacia-el-matrimonio-gay|url-status=dead|archive-date=3 November 2013|title=Jalisco, cuna de charros y tequila, da primer paso hacia el matrimonio gay|language=es|publisher=CNN México|date=1 November 2013|access-date=2 November 2013}}</ref>
In [[Colima]], [[Governor of Colima|governor]] [[Mario Anguiano Moreno]] has agreed to discuss the legalization of civil unions and adoption by same-sex couples.<ref>{{cite web|author=El Universal |publisher=Yahoo! México |title=Acepta gobernador de Colima debatir sobre sociedades en convivencia |date=23 December 2009 |url=http://mx.news.yahoo.com/s/23122009/90/n-mexico-acepta-gobernador-colima-debatir-sociedades.html |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120711171026/http://mx.news.yahoo.com/s/23122009/90/n-mexico-acepta-gobernador-colima-debatir-sociedades.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=11 July 2012 |access-date=26 December 2009 |language=es }}</ref>{{When|date=April 2021}} In [[Jalisco]], local congress approved on 31 October 2013 the Free Coexistence Act, which allows the performance of civil unions in the state.<ref name=cnnjal>{{cite web|url=http://mexico.cnn.com/nacional/2013/11/01/jalisco-cuna-de-charros-y-tequila-da-primer-paso-hacia-el-matrimonio-gay|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131103092855/http://mexico.cnn.com/nacional/2013/11/01/jalisco-cuna-de-charros-y-tequila-da-primer-paso-hacia-el-matrimonio-gay|url-status=dead|archive-date=3 November 2013|title=Jalisco, cuna de charros y tequila, da primer paso hacia el matrimonio gay|language=es|publisher=CNN México|date=1 November 2013|access-date=2 November 2013}}</ref>
Line 569: Line 568:
{{Main|Civil union in New Zealand}}
{{Main|Civil union in New Zealand}}
[[File:Civil union map Oceania.svg|thumb|300px|right|'''Countries performing civil unions in Oceania'''
[[File:Civil union map Oceania.svg|thumb|300px|right|'''Countries performing civil unions in Oceania'''
{{legend|#3F48CC|Gender-neutral civil unions.}}
{{legend|#3F48CC|Gender-neutral civil unions}}
{{legend|#DDDDDD|Civil unions never performed.}}
{{legend|#DDDDDD|Civil unions never performed}}
]]
]]
On 9 December 2004 the [[New Zealand]] [[Parliament of New Zealand|Parliament]] passed the Civil Union Bill, establishing civil unions for same-sex and opposite-sex couples.<ref name="NZ_Herald_9002456">{{cite news |date=9 December 2004 |title=Civil Unions Bill passed |url=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=9002456 |accessdate= |work=[[The New Zealand Herald]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Seuffert, Nan --- "Sexual Citizenship and the Civil Union Act 2004" [2006] VUWLawRw 13; (2006) 37(2) Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 281 |url=https://www.nzlii.org/nz/journals/VUWLawRw/2006/13.html |access-date=2025-04-26 |website=www.nzlii.org}}</ref> The debate over Civil Unions was highly divisive in New Zealand, inspiring great public emotion both for and against the passing. A companion bill, the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill was passed shortly thereafter to remove discriminatory provisions on the basis of relationship status from a range of statutes and regulations. As a result of these bills, all couples in New Zealand, whether married, in a civil union, or in a de facto partnership, now generally enjoy the same rights and undertake the same obligations. These rights extend to immigration, next-of-kin status, social welfare, matrimonial property and other areas.
On 9 December 2004 the [[New Zealand]] [[Parliament of New Zealand|Parliament]] passed the Civil Union Bill, establishing civil unions for same-sex and opposite-sex couples.<ref name="NZ_Herald_9002456">{{cite news |date=9 December 2004 |title=Civil Unions Bill passed |url=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=9002456 |accessdate= |work=[[The New Zealand Herald]] |archive-date=19 November 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181119053130/http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=9002456 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Seuffert, Nan --- "Sexual Citizenship and the Civil Union Act 2004" [2006] VUWLawRw 13; (2006) 37(2) Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 281 |url=https://www.nzlii.org/nz/journals/VUWLawRw/2006/13.html |access-date=2025-04-26 |website=www.nzlii.org}}</ref> The debate over Civil Unions was highly divisive in New Zealand, inspiring great public emotion both for and against the passing. A companion bill, the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill was passed shortly thereafter to remove discriminatory provisions on the basis of relationship status from a range of statutes and regulations. As a result of these bills, all couples in New Zealand, whether married, in a civil union, or in a de facto partnership, now generally enjoy the same rights and undertake the same obligations. These rights extend to immigration, next-of-kin status, social welfare, matrimonial property and other areas.


The [[Civil Union Act 2004]] came into effect on 26 April 2005 with the first unions able to occur from Friday 29 April 2005.
The [[Civil Union Act 2004]] came into effect on 26 April 2005 with the first unions able to occur from Friday 29 April 2005.
Line 579: Line 578:
{{Main|Civil partnership in South Africa}}
{{Main|Civil partnership in South Africa}}
[[File:Civil union map Africa.svg|thumb|300px|right|'''Countries performing civil unions in Africa'''
[[File:Civil union map Africa.svg|thumb|300px|right|'''Countries performing civil unions in Africa'''
{{legend|#3F48CC|Gender-neutral civil unions.}}
{{legend|#3F48CC|Gender-neutral civil unions}}
{{legend|#DDDDDD|Civil unions never performed.}}
{{legend|#DDDDDD|Civil unions never performed}}
]]
]]
In [[South Africa]], a "civil union" is either a marriage or a civil partnership, although the term "civil union" is commonly used when "civil partnership" is meant. Same-sex and opposite-sex couples may register their unions either as [[Same-sex marriage in South Africa|marriages]] or as civil partnerships. This was achieved through the [[Civil Union Act, 2006]].<ref>{{cite news |date=30 November 2006 |title=SA same-sex marriage law signed |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6159991.stm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061212010224/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6159991.stm |archive-date=December 12, 2006 |accessdate= |newspaper=BBC News}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Civil Union Act 2006 |url=https://www.saflii.org/za/legis/consol_act/cua2006139/ |access-date=2025-04-26 |website=www.saflii.org}}</ref> In laws where "marriage" is mentioned, its definition now retroactively includes civil partnerships.
In [[South Africa]], a "civil union" is either a marriage or a civil partnership, although the term "civil union" is commonly used when "civil partnership" is meant. Same-sex and opposite-sex couples may register their unions either as [[Same-sex marriage in South Africa|marriages]] or as civil partnerships. This was achieved through the [[Civil Union Act, 2006]].<ref>{{cite news |date=30 November 2006 |title=SA same-sex marriage law signed |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6159991.stm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061212010224/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6159991.stm |archive-date=December 12, 2006 |accessdate= |newspaper=BBC News}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Civil Union Act 2006 |url=https://www.saflii.org/za/legis/consol_act/cua2006139/ |access-date=2025-04-26 |website=www.saflii.org}}</ref> In laws where "marriage" is mentioned, its definition now retroactively includes civil partnerships.
Line 592: Line 591:
{{legend|#cccccc|Civil unions not performed}}
{{legend|#cccccc|Civil unions not performed}}
{{legend|#ff0000|Civil unions forbidden}}]]
{{legend|#ff0000|Civil unions forbidden}}]]
The first civil unions in the United States were offered by the state of [[Same-sex marriage in Vermont|Vermont]] in 2000. The [[United States government|federal government]] does not recognize these unions. By the end of 2006, [[Same-sex marriage in Connecticut|Connecticut]] and New Jersey had also enacted civil union laws; [[Same-sex marriage in New Hampshire|New Hampshire]] followed in 2007. Furthermore, California's domestic partnership law had been expanded to the point that it became practically a civil union law as well. The same might be said{{By whom|date=April 2021}} for domestic partnership in the District of Columbia, domestic partnership in Washington, and domestic partnership in Oregon.
The first civil unions in the United States were offered by the state of [[Same-sex marriage in Vermont|Vermont]] in 2000.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.mynbc5.com/article/from-the-archives-vermont-becomes-first-state-to-introduce-civil-unions/30337708 |title=From the archives: Vermont becomes first state to introduce civil unions |date=December 26, 2019 |website=NBC5 |access-date=October 16, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211117165756/https://www.mynbc5.com/article/from-the-archives-vermont-becomes-first-state-to-introduce-civil-unions/30337708 |archive-date=November 17, 2021}}</ref> The [[United States government|federal government]] does not recognize these unions. By the end of 2006, [[Same-sex marriage in Connecticut|Connecticut]]<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/connecticut-becomes-third-state-to-recognize-marriage-equality-for-gay-and |title=Connecticut becomes third state to recognize marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples |date=October 10, 2008 |website=Human Rights Council |access-date=October 16, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210107015511/https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/connecticut-becomes-third-state-to-recognize-marriage-equality-for-gay-and |archive-date=January 7, 2021}}</ref> and New Jersey<ref name="resignation" /> had also enacted civil union laws; [[Same-sex marriage in New Hampshire|New Hampshire]] followed in 2007.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna18319267 |title=N.H. set to approve same-sex civil unions |last=Faiola |first=Anthony |website=NBC News |access-date=October 16, 2025}}</ref> Furthermore, California's domestic partnership law had been expanded to the point that it became practically a civil union law as well. The same might be said{{By whom|date=April 2021}} for domestic partnership in the District of Columbia, domestic partnership in Washington, and domestic partnership in Oregon.


Jurisdictions in the U.S. that offer civil unions or domestic partnerships granting nearly all of the state-recognized rights of marriage to same-sex couples include:
Jurisdictions in the U.S. that offer civil unions or domestic partnerships granting nearly all of the state-recognized rights of marriage to same-sex couples include:
Line 610: Line 609:
* [[Domestic partnership in Maine]] (2004)
* [[Domestic partnership in Maine]] (2004)


Since October 2014, all states that provide for civil unions, domestic partnerships, or similar arrangements between same-sex partners also allow same-sex partners to legally wed.
Since October 2014, all states that provide for civil unions, domestic partnerships, or similar arrangements between same-sex partners also allow same-sex partners to legally wed.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/supreme-court-clears-the-way-for-marriage-equality-three-times |title=Supreme Court clears the way for marriage equality THREE times |last=Peters |first=Stephen |date=October 17, 2014 |website=Human Rights Campaign |access-date=October 16, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220816091506/https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/supreme-court-clears-the-way-for-marriage-equality-three-times |archive-date=August 16, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/07/us/denying-review-justices-clear-way-for-gay-marriage-in-5-states.html |title=Supreme Court delivers tacit win to gay marriage |last=Liptak |first=Adam |date=October 6, 2014 |website=The New York Times |access-date=October 16, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141115001556/https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/07/us/denying-review-justices-clear-way-for-gay-marriage-in-5-states.html |archive-date=November 15, 2014}}</ref>


==== Arizona ====
==== Arizona ====
{{Main|Same-sex marriage in Arizona}}
{{Main|Same-sex marriage in Arizona}}
In 2013, [[Bisbee, Arizona|Bisbee]] became the first city in Arizona to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/bisbee-civil-unions_n_3004088.html|title=Bisbee Becomes Arizona's First City To Allow Same-Sex Civil Unions|last=Gaynor|first=Tim|date=2013-04-03|work=Huffington Post|access-date=2017-05-31|language=en-US}}</ref> After its passage, the state's Attorney General, [[Tom Horne]], threatened to challenge the law in court, arguing that it violated the state's constitution.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/central-phoenix/arizona-attorney-general-tom-horne-to-sue-to-block-civil-unions-in-bisbee|title=Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne to sue to block civil unions in Bisbee|agency=Associated Press|date=2013-04-03|work=KNXV|access-date=2017-05-31|language=en-US}}{{Dead link|date=August 2019 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> However, the Attorney General agreed to withdraw the challenge after Bisbee amended the law, and the civil union ordinance was approved.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/30/gay-civil-unions-bisbee/2123887/|title=Ariz. attorney general, Bisbee OK civil-union changes|work=USA TODAY|access-date=2017-05-31|language=en}}</ref>
In 2013, [[Bisbee, Arizona|Bisbee]] became the first city in Arizona to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/bisbee-civil-unions_n_3004088.html|title=Bisbee Becomes Arizona's First City To Allow Same-Sex Civil Unions|last=Gaynor|first=Tim|date=2013-04-03|work=Huffington Post|access-date=2017-05-31|language=en-US|archive-date=2013-04-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130407001239/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/bisbee-civil-unions_n_3004088.html?|url-status=live}}</ref> After its passage, the state's Attorney General, [[Tom Horne]], threatened to challenge the law in court, arguing that it violated the state's constitution.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://tucson.com/news/arizona-ag-tom-horne-to-sue-to-block-civil-unions-in-bisbee/article_eb348bd2-9c88-11e2-9029-0019bb2963f4.html |title=Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne to sue to block civil unions in Bisbee |agency=Associated Press |date=April 3, 2013 |work=Tucson |access-date=October 16, 2025 |language=en-US |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251017000102/https://tucson.com/news/arizona-ag-tom-horne-to-sue-to-block-civil-unions-in-bisbee/article_eb348bd2-9c88-11e2-9029-0019bb2963f4.html |archive-date=October 17, 2025}}</ref> However, the Attorney General agreed to withdraw the challenge after Bisbee amended the law, and the civil union ordinance was approved.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/30/gay-civil-unions-bisbee/2123887/|title=Ariz. attorney general, Bisbee OK civil-union changes|work=USA TODAY|access-date=2017-05-31|language=en|archive-date=2019-11-13|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191113050438/https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/30/gay-civil-unions-bisbee/2123887/|url-status=live}}</ref>


Following Bisbee, also in 2013, [[Tucson, Arizona|Tucson]] became the second municipality to legalize civil unions.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/aj-walkley/civil-unions-in-tucson_b_3586513.html|title=Civil Unions in Tucson|last=Walkley|first=A. J.|date=2013-07-19|website=Huffington Post|language=en-US|access-date=2017-05-31}}</ref> [[Jerome, Arizona|Jerome]] followed in the same year.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.ontopmag.com/article/16292/Jerome_Arizona_Approves_Civil_Unions_For_Gay_Couples|title=Jerome, Arizona Approves Civil Unions For Gay Couples|work=On Top Magazine|access-date=2017-05-31|language=en}}</ref> Also in 2013, [[Clarkdale, Arizona|Clarkdale]] and [[Cottonwood, Arizona|Cottonwood]] were the next cities in the Verde Valley to pass civil unions.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.verdenews.com/news/2013/nov/13/civil-unions-pass-unanimously-in-clarkdale/|title=Civil unions pass unanimously in Clarkdale|work=verdenews.com|access-date=2017-05-31|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2013/12/cottonwood-latest-ariz-city-to-approve-same-sex-civil-unions/|title=Cottonwood latest Ariz. city to approve same-sex civil unions|last=[ap]|first=FELICIA FONSECA|date=2013-12-18|work=LGBTQ Nation|access-date=2017-05-31}}</ref> A measure to allow civil unions failed in [[Camp Verde, Arizona|Camp Verde]] by a split 3–3 vote in the city council making it the only city in the Verde Valley to not have passed the bill.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.journalaz.com/news/camp-verde/2232-camp-verde-rejects-civil-unions.html|title=Camp Verde rejects civil unions - JournalAZ.com - Verde Valley News, Jobs, Classifieds|last=Lineberger|first=Mark|website=www.journalaz.com|language=en-gb|access-date=2017-05-31|archive-date=2017-10-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171019024118/http://www.journalaz.com/news/camp-verde/2232-camp-verde-rejects-civil-unions.html|url-status=dead}}</ref>
Following Bisbee, also in 2013, [[Tucson, Arizona|Tucson]] became the second municipality to legalize civil unions.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/aj-walkley/civil-unions-in-tucson_b_3586513.html|title=Civil Unions in Tucson|last=Walkley|first=A. J.|date=2013-07-19|website=Huffington Post|language=en-US|access-date=2017-05-31|archive-date=2016-04-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160426110351/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aj-walkley/civil-unions-in-tucson_b_3586513.html|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Jerome, Arizona|Jerome]] followed in the same year.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.ontopmag.com/article/16292/Jerome_Arizona_Approves_Civil_Unions_For_Gay_Couples|title=Jerome, Arizona Approves Civil Unions For Gay Couples|work=On Top Magazine|access-date=2017-05-31|language=en|archive-date=2017-10-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171019055321/http://www.ontopmag.com/article/16292/Jerome_Arizona_Approves_Civil_Unions_For_Gay_Couples|url-status=live}}</ref> Also in 2013, [[Clarkdale, Arizona|Clarkdale]] and [[Cottonwood, Arizona|Cottonwood]] were the next cities in the Verde Valley to pass civil unions.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.verdenews.com/news/2013/nov/13/civil-unions-pass-unanimously-in-clarkdale/|title=Civil unions pass unanimously in Clarkdale|work=verdenews.com|access-date=2017-05-31|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2013/12/cottonwood-latest-ariz-city-to-approve-same-sex-civil-unions/|title=Cottonwood latest Ariz. city to approve same-sex civil unions|last=[ap]|first=FELICIA FONSECA|date=2013-12-18|work=LGBTQ Nation|access-date=2017-05-31}}</ref> A measure to allow civil unions failed in [[Camp Verde, Arizona|Camp Verde]] by a split 3–3 vote in the city council making it the only city in the Verde Valley to not have passed the bill.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.journalaz.com/news/camp-verde/2232-camp-verde-rejects-civil-unions.html|title=Camp Verde rejects civil unions - JournalAZ.com - Verde Valley News, Jobs, Classifieds|last=Lineberger|first=Mark|website=www.journalaz.com|language=en-gb|access-date=2017-05-31|archive-date=2017-10-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171019024118/http://www.journalaz.com/news/camp-verde/2232-camp-verde-rejects-civil-unions.html|url-status=dead}}</ref>


[[Sedona, Arizona|Sedona]] passed civil unions in September 2013.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2013/09/25/sedona-arizona-approves-local-ordinance-on-same-sex-civil-unions/|title=Sedona approves local ordinance on civil unions – Arizona Capitol Times|agency=Associated Press|website=azcapitoltimes.com|date=25 September 2013|language=en-US|access-date=2017-05-31}}</ref> The city of [[Tempe, Arizona|Tempe]] considered legal advice about a civil union ordinance, but it did not pass a bill.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2013/04/04/tempe-arizona-council-to-hear-legal-advice-on-same-sex-civil-unions/|title=Tempe council to hear legal advice on civil unions – Arizona Capitol Times|agency=Associated Press|website=azcapitoltimes.com|date=4 April 2013|language=en-US|access-date=2017-05-31}}</ref> After the legalization of same-sex marriage in Arizona, civil unions may continue to be registered in the cities that had legalized the ordinances.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.samesexrelationshipguide.com/~/media/files/ssrguide/northamerica/united-states/legal-recognition-of-samesex-relationships--united-states-of-america--arizona.pdf|title=Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships|last=Day|first=Jones|date=August 31, 2015|website=samesexrelationshipguide.com|access-date=May 30, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924234758/http://www.samesexrelationshipguide.com/~/media/files/ssrguide/northamerica/united-states/legal-recognition-of-samesex-relationships--united-states-of-america--arizona.pdf|archive-date=September 24, 2015|url-status=dead}}</ref>
[[Sedona, Arizona|Sedona]] passed civil unions in September 2013.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2013/09/25/sedona-arizona-approves-local-ordinance-on-same-sex-civil-unions/|title=Sedona approves local ordinance on civil unions – Arizona Capitol Times|agency=Associated Press|website=azcapitoltimes.com|date=25 September 2013|language=en-US|access-date=2017-05-31|archive-date=2016-04-30|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160430043441/http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2013/09/25/sedona-arizona-approves-local-ordinance-on-same-sex-civil-unions/|url-status=live}}</ref> The city of [[Tempe, Arizona|Tempe]] considered legal advice about a civil union ordinance, but it did not pass a bill.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2013/04/04/tempe-arizona-council-to-hear-legal-advice-on-same-sex-civil-unions/|title=Tempe council to hear legal advice on civil unions – Arizona Capitol Times|agency=Associated Press|website=azcapitoltimes.com|date=4 April 2013|language=en-US|access-date=2017-05-31|archive-date=2016-07-16|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160716040019/http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2013/04/04/tempe-arizona-council-to-hear-legal-advice-on-same-sex-civil-unions/|url-status=live}}</ref> After the legalization of same-sex marriage in Arizona, civil unions may continue to be registered in the cities that had legalized the ordinances.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.samesexrelationshipguide.com/~/media/files/ssrguide/northamerica/united-states/legal-recognition-of-samesex-relationships--united-states-of-america--arizona.pdf|title=Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships|last=Day|first=Jones|date=August 31, 2015|website=samesexrelationshipguide.com|access-date=May 30, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924234758/http://www.samesexrelationshipguide.com/~/media/files/ssrguide/northamerica/united-states/legal-recognition-of-samesex-relationships--united-states-of-america--arizona.pdf|archive-date=September 24, 2015|url-status=dead}}</ref>


====California====
====California====
{{Main|Domestic partnership in California}}
{{Main|Domestic partnership in California}}
In California, where domestic partnership (DP) has been available to same-sex and certain opposite-sex couples since 2000, a wholesale revision of the law in 2005 made it substantially equivalent to marriage at the state level.  In 2007, the Legislature took a further step when it required same-sex DP couples to file state income taxes jointly.  (Couples must continue to file federal taxes as individuals.)  In the May 2008 ''[[In re Marriage Cases]]'' decision, the state supreme court noted nine [[Domestic partnership in California#Differences from marriage|differences between Domestic Partnerships and same-sex marriage]] in state law, including a cohabitation requirement for domestic partners, access to CalPERS long-term care insurance (but not CalPERS in general), and the lack of an equivalent to California's "confidential marriage" institution.<ref name="irmf24">[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/s147999.pdf In Re Marriage Cases], California Supreme Court Decision, footnote 24, pages 42–44.</ref> The cohabitation requirement was dropped on January 1, 2012, and a "confidential option" for domestic partners became available the same day.
In California, where domestic partnership (DP) has been available to same-sex and certain opposite-sex couples since 2000, a wholesale revision of the law in 2005 made it substantially equivalent to marriage at the state level.  In 2007, the Legislature took a further step when it required same-sex DP couples to file state income taxes jointly.  (Couples must continue to file federal taxes as individuals.)  In the May 2008 ''[[In re Marriage Cases]]'' decision, the state supreme court noted nine [[Domestic partnership in California#Differences from marriage|differences between Domestic Partnerships and same-sex marriage]] in state law, including a cohabitation requirement for domestic partners, access to CalPERS long-term care insurance (but not CalPERS in general), and the lack of an equivalent to California's "confidential marriage" institution.<ref name="irmf24">[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/s147999.pdf In Re Marriage Cases] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110810011136/http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/S147999.PDF |date=2011-08-10 }}, California Supreme Court Decision, footnote 24, pages 42–44.</ref> The cohabitation requirement was dropped on January 1, 2012, and a "confidential option" for domestic partners became available the same day.


====Colorado====
====Colorado====
Line 630: Line 629:
====Connecticut====
====Connecticut====
{{Main|Same-sex marriage in Connecticut}}
{{Main|Same-sex marriage in Connecticut}}
In 2005, the [[Connecticut General Assembly]] passed a bill to adopt civil unions in Connecticut.  Connecticut's civil unions were identical to marriage and provided all of the same rights and responsibilities except for the title. Connecticut was the first state in the U.S. to voluntarily pass a same-sex civil unions law through the legislature without any immediate court intervention.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/01/AR2005100100962.html|title=Connecticut's First Same-Sex Unions Proceed Civilly|first=David A.|last=Fahrenthold|date=2 October 2005|via=washingtonpost.com}}</ref> The law was repealed on October 1, 2010, and replaced with a law making marriage gender-neutral.
In 2005, the [[Connecticut General Assembly]] passed a bill to adopt civil unions in Connecticut.  Connecticut's civil unions were identical to marriage and provided all of the same rights and responsibilities except for the title. Connecticut was the first state in the U.S. to voluntarily pass a same-sex civil unions law through the legislature without any immediate court intervention.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/01/AR2005100100962.html|title=Connecticut's First Same-Sex Unions Proceed Civilly|first=David A.|last=Fahrenthold|date=2 October 2005|via=washingtonpost.com|access-date=25 August 2017|archive-date=4 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304000607/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/01/AR2005100100962.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The law was repealed on October 1, 2010, and replaced with a law making marriage gender-neutral.


====Delaware====
====Delaware====
{{Main|Same-sex marriage in Delaware}}
{{Main|Same-sex marriage in Delaware}}
Delaware Governor [[Jack Markell]] signed a civil union bill on May 12, 2011, that establishes civil unions in the state effective January 1, 2012.<ref>{{cite news|last=Miller|first=Beth|title=Governor signs Delaware civil unions bill|newspaper=[[The News Journal]]|date=May 12, 2011|url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-05-12-delaware-civil-unions_n.htm|access-date=May 12, 2011}}</ref> The law was repealed on July 1, 2014, and replaced with a law making marriage gender-neutral.
Delaware Governor [[Jack Markell]] signed a civil union bill on May 12, 2011, that establishes civil unions in the state effective January 1, 2012.<ref>{{cite news|last=Miller|first=Beth|title=Governor signs Delaware civil unions bill|newspaper=[[The News Journal]]|date=May 12, 2011|url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-05-12-delaware-civil-unions_n.htm|access-date=May 12, 2011|archive-date=May 15, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110515090416/http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-05-12-delaware-civil-unions_n.htm|url-status=live}}</ref> The law was repealed on July 1, 2014, and replaced with a law making marriage gender-neutral.


====District of Columbia====
====District of Columbia====
{{Main|Same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia}}
{{Main|Same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia}}
Same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia was legalized on December 18, 2009.<ref name="CNN-sign">{{cite news |date=December 18, 2009 |title=D.C. mayor signs same-sex marriage bill |url=http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/12/18/d-c-mayor-signs-same-sex-marriage-bill/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111205151815/http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/12/18/d-c-mayor-signs-same-sex-marriage-bill/ |archive-date=December 5, 2011 |access-date=December 18, 2009 |publisher=[[CNN]]}}</ref> Marriage licenses became available on March 3, 2010,<ref name="APGresko">{{cite news |last=Gresko |first=Jessica |date=March 3, 2010 |title=Same-sex marriage becomes legal in DC |url=https://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gftV6RnfBC8iPPWGM0SGQeNLiC6QD9E71J3G0 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://archive.today/20200111201321/https://www.webcitation.org/5nx4LhJxv?url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gftV6RnfBC8iPPWGM0SGQeNLiC6QD9E71J3G0 |archive-date=January 11, 2020 |access-date=March 3, 2010 |agency=[[Associated Press]]}}</ref> and marriages began on March 9, 2010.<ref>{{cite web |last=Kathryn Burke |first=Mary |date=March 8, 2010 |title=First Two Same Sex Couples to Be Married in Washington, D.C.. |url=https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/sex-couples-married-washington-dc/story?id=10042079 |work=ABC News}}</ref> Legislation on domestic partnerships in the District of Columbia was first passed in 1992, implemented in 2002, and expanded over time up to 2009.<ref name="dcdp-hrc">{{cite web |title=D.C. Domestic Partnership Program |url=http://www.glaa.org/archive/2001/dpfactsheet103001.shtml |access-date=May 15, 2008 |publisher=Human Rights Campaign}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Associated Press |author-link=Associated Press |date=July 7, 2009 |title=Washington, D.C., Recognizes Same-Sex Marriages |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/us/08marriage.html |access-date=December 1, 2009 |work=[[New York Times]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Gaynair |first=Gillian |date=July 7, 2009 |title=Gay Marriage Bill Takes Effect in Nation's Capital |url=http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2009/July/Gay-Marriage-Bill-Takes-Effect-in-Nations-Capital/ |access-date=December 1, 2009 |work=Christian Broadcasting Network}}</ref>
Same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia was legalized on December 18, 2009.<ref name="CNN-sign">{{cite news |date=December 18, 2009 |title=D.C. mayor signs same-sex marriage bill |url=http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/12/18/d-c-mayor-signs-same-sex-marriage-bill/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111205151815/http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/12/18/d-c-mayor-signs-same-sex-marriage-bill/ |archive-date=December 5, 2011 |access-date=December 18, 2009 |publisher=[[CNN]]}}</ref> Marriage licenses became available on March 3, 2010,<ref name="APGresko">{{cite news |last=Gresko |first=Jessica |date=March 3, 2010 |title=Same-sex marriage becomes legal in DC |url=https://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gftV6RnfBC8iPPWGM0SGQeNLiC6QD9E71J3G0 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://archive.today/20200111201321/https://www.webcitation.org/5nx4LhJxv?url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gftV6RnfBC8iPPWGM0SGQeNLiC6QD9E71J3G0 |archive-date=January 11, 2020 |access-date=March 3, 2010 |agency=[[Associated Press]]}}</ref> and marriages began on March 9, 2010.<ref>{{cite web |last=Kathryn Burke |first=Mary |date=March 8, 2010 |title=First Two Same Sex Couples to Be Married in Washington, D.C.. |url=https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/sex-couples-married-washington-dc/story?id=10042079 |work=ABC News |access-date=April 1, 2025 |archive-date=May 9, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250509103312/https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/sex-couples-married-washington-dc/story?id=10042079 |url-status=live }}</ref> Legislation on domestic partnerships in the District of Columbia was first passed in 1992, implemented in 2002, and expanded over time up to 2009.<ref name="dcdp-hrc">{{cite web |title=D.C. Domestic Partnership Program |url=http://www.glaa.org/archive/2001/dpfactsheet103001.shtml |access-date=May 15, 2008 |publisher=Human Rights Campaign |archive-date=July 16, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110716113648/http://www.glaa.org/archive/2001/dpfactsheet103001.shtml |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Associated Press |author-link=Associated Press |date=July 7, 2009 |title=Washington, D.C., Recognizes Same-Sex Marriages |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/us/08marriage.html |access-date=December 1, 2009 |work=[[New York Times]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Gaynair |first=Gillian |date=July 7, 2009 |title=Gay Marriage Bill Takes Effect in Nation's Capital |url=http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2009/July/Gay-Marriage-Bill-Takes-Effect-in-Nations-Capital/ |access-date=December 1, 2009 |work=Christian Broadcasting Network}}</ref>


====Hawaii====
====Hawaii====
{{Main|Same-sex marriage in Hawaii}}
{{Main|Same-sex marriage in Hawaii}}
Hawaii legalized civil unions for same-sex and opposite-sex couples on January 1, 2012.<ref>{{cite news |last=Levs |first=Josh |date=January 2, 2012 |title=Two more states allow same-sex civil unions |url=http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/01/us/civil-unions/ |accessdate=August 27, 2013 |newspaper=CNN}}</ref> Same-sex marriage became legal on December 2, 2013.<ref>{{cite web |date=December 2, 2013 |title=Joyous same-sex couples wed in Hawaii as gay marriage becomes legal |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-gaymarriage-hawaii-idUSBRE9B10GA20131202 |work=Reuters |location=Honolulu}}</ref><ref name="advocate.com">{{cite news |date=December 2, 2013 |title=First same-sex couples marry in Hawaii |url=http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2013/12/02/first-same-sex-couples-marry-hawaii |accessdate=December 7, 2013 |work=Advocate.com}}</ref>
Hawaii legalized civil unions for same-sex and opposite-sex couples on January 1, 2012.<ref>{{cite news |last=Levs |first=Josh |date=January 2, 2012 |title=Two more states allow same-sex civil unions |url=http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/01/us/civil-unions/ |accessdate=August 27, 2013 |newspaper=CNN}}</ref> Same-sex marriage became legal on December 2, 2013.<ref>{{cite web |date=December 2, 2013 |title=Joyous same-sex couples wed in Hawaii as gay marriage becomes legal |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-gaymarriage-hawaii-idUSBRE9B10GA20131202 |work=Reuters |location=Honolulu |access-date=March 26, 2025 |archive-date=May 1, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230501104132/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-gaymarriage-hawaii-idUSBRE9B10GA20131202 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="advocate.com">{{cite news |date=December 2, 2013 |title=First same-sex couples marry in Hawaii |url=http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2013/12/02/first-same-sex-couples-marry-hawaii |accessdate=December 7, 2013 |work=Advocate.com |archive-date=December 3, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131203200735/http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2013/12/02/first-same-sex-couples-marry-hawaii |url-status=live }}</ref>


====Illinois====
====Illinois====
Line 658: Line 657:
====New Jersey====
====New Jersey====
{{Main|Same-sex marriage in New Jersey}}
{{Main|Same-sex marriage in New Jersey}}
On October 25, 2006, the [[Supreme Court of New Jersey]] gave [[New Jersey Legislature|New Jersey lawmakers]] 180 days to rewrite the state's marriage laws, either including same-sex couples or creating a new system of [[civil unions]] for them. On December 14 the Legislature passed a bill establishing [[Same-sex marriage in New Jersey|civil unions in New Jersey]], which was signed into law by [[Governor of New Jersey|Governor]] [[Jon Corzine]] on December 21, 2006.  The first civil unions took place on February 19, 2007.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://abc7ny.com/|title=ABC7 Eyewitness News - WABC-TV New York}}</ref>
On October 25, 2006, the [[Supreme Court of New Jersey]] gave [[New Jersey Legislature|New Jersey lawmakers]] 180 days to rewrite the state's marriage laws, either including same-sex couples or creating a new system of [[civil unions]] for them. On December 14 the Legislature passed a bill establishing [[Same-sex marriage in New Jersey|civil unions in New Jersey]], which was signed into law by [[Governor of New Jersey|Governor]] [[Jon Corzine]] on December 21, 2006.  The first civil unions took place on February 19, 2007.<ref name="resignation">{{cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/20/nyregion/20civil.html |title=Eagerness and some resignation as civil union law takes effect |last=Barry |first=Ellen |date=February 20, 2007 |website=The New York Times |access-date=October 16, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150908071903/https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/20/nyregion/20civil.html |archive-date=September 8, 2015}}</ref>


There are differences between civil unions and domestic partnerships.  In 2004, the state of [[New Jersey]] enacted a domestic partnership law, the Domestic Partnership Act, offering certain limited rights and benefits to same-sex and different-sex couples.  In 2006, however, after the [[Supreme Court of New Jersey|state Supreme Court]]'s [[Lewis v. Harris|ruling]] in [[Lewis v. Harris|''Lewis vs. Harris'']] that same-sex couples must be extended all the rights and benefits of marriage, the Legislature passed a civil unions law, the Civil Union Act, effective in 2007, which was an attempt to satisfy the court's ruling.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Department of Health {{!}} Vital Statistics {{!}} Domestic Partnerships |url=https://www.nj.gov/health/vital/registration-vital/domestic-partnerships/ |access-date=2025-04-07 |website=www.nj.gov}}</ref>
There are differences between civil unions and domestic partnerships.  In 2004, the state of [[New Jersey]] enacted a domestic partnership law, the Domestic Partnership Act, offering certain limited rights and benefits to same-sex and different-sex couples.  In 2006, however, after the [[Supreme Court of New Jersey|state Supreme Court]]'s [[Lewis v. Harris|ruling]] in [[Lewis v. Harris|''Lewis vs. Harris'']] that same-sex couples must be extended all the rights and benefits of marriage, the Legislature passed a civil unions law, the Civil Union Act, effective in 2007, which was an attempt to satisfy the court's ruling.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Domestic Partnerships |url=https://www.nj.gov/health/vital/registration-vital/domestic-partnerships/ |access-date=2025-04-07 |website=New Jersey Department of Health |archive-date=2025-04-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250414001058/https://nj.gov/health/vital/registration-vital/domestic-partnerships/ |url-status=live }}</ref>


====Nevada====
====Nevada====
Line 686: Line 685:
Washington offers domestic partnerships which grant nearly all of the state-recognized rights of marriage to same-sex couples. Washington is the first state to have passed a same-sex civil union bill by a popular vote.
Washington offers domestic partnerships which grant nearly all of the state-recognized rights of marriage to same-sex couples. Washington is the first state to have passed a same-sex civil union bill by a popular vote.


Washington legalized same-sex marriage early in 2012, which provided that a couple in a civil union would have two years to convert their civil union to a marriage. The law was upheld by popular [[Washington Referendum 74 (2012)|referendum]] in November 2012.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/06/anti-gay-marriage-measure-qualifies-for-wash-state-ballot/1 |title=Anti-gay-marriage measure qualifies for Wash. state ballot |work=USA Today |date=June 12, 2012 |access-date=August 16, 2012}}</ref>
Washington legalized same-sex marriage early in 2012, which provided that a couple in a civil union would have two years to convert their civil union to a marriage. The law was upheld by popular [[Washington Referendum 74 (2012)|referendum]] in November 2012.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/06/anti-gay-marriage-measure-qualifies-for-wash-state-ballot/1 |title=Anti-gay-marriage measure qualifies for Wash. state ballot |work=USA Today |date=June 12, 2012 |access-date=August 16, 2012 |archive-date=February 24, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210224100010/http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/06/anti-gay-marriage-measure-qualifies-for-wash-state-ballot/1 |url-status=live }}</ref>


=== Uruguay ===
=== Uruguay ===
Line 695: Line 694:
{{Div col|colwidth=18em}}
{{Div col|colwidth=18em}}
* {{Country|Hong Kong}}<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/hong-kong-legislature-debate-same-sex-unions-year250515/|title=Hong Kong legislature to debate same-sex unions this year|date=25 May 2015|access-date=23 April 2016|archive-date=4 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304123453/http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/hong-kong-legislature-debate-same-sex-unions-year250515/|url-status=dead}}</ref>
* {{Country|Hong Kong}}<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/hong-kong-legislature-debate-same-sex-unions-year250515/|title=Hong Kong legislature to debate same-sex unions this year|date=25 May 2015|access-date=23 April 2016|archive-date=4 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304123453/http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/hong-kong-legislature-debate-same-sex-unions-year250515/|url-status=dead}}</ref>
* {{Country|Lithuania}}<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/lithuanian-parliament-committee-%E2%80%98constitution-no-barrier-gay-civil-partnerships%E2%80%99110515/|title=Lithuanian parliament committee: 'constitution no barrier to gay civil partnerships'|date=11 May 2015|access-date=4 March 2016|archive-date=6 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160306065147/http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/lithuanian-parliament-committee-%E2%80%98constitution-no-barrier-gay-civil-partnerships%E2%80%99110515/|url-status=dead}}</ref>
* {{Country|Peru}}<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-16965382|title=Peru gay rights activists push for more rights in law|first=Mattia|last=Cabitza|work=BBC News|date=12 February 2012|archive-date=29 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140429103106/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-16965382}}</ref>
* {{Country|Peru}}<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-16965382|title=Peru gay rights activists push for more rights in law|first=Mattia|last=Cabitza|work=BBC News|date=12 February 2012|archive-date=29 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140429103106/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-16965382}}</ref>
* {{Country|Philippines}}<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/332163/news/nation/bill-protecting-same-sex-couples-property-rights-filed|title=Bill protecting same-sex couples' property rights filed|date=23 October 2013 }}</ref>
* {{Country|Philippines}}<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/332163/news/nation/bill-protecting-same-sex-couples-property-rights-filed|title=Bill protecting same-sex couples' property rights filed|date=23 October 2013 }}</ref>
Line 702: Line 700:


==International standards==
==International standards==
To date, only two countries, Spain and Portugal, have signed onto the [[Convention on the Recognition of Registered Partnerships]], a draft multilateral agreement on the status of civil, unmarried partnerships.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Convention (No.32) on the recognition of registered partnerships – CIEC |url=https://ciec1.org/en/convention/convention-no-32-on-the-recognition-of-registered-partnerships/ |access-date=2025-05-13 |website=ciec1.org}}</ref> The document is inclusive of rights for both same and opposite sex partnerships.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Shúilleabháin |first=Máire Ní |date=January 2019 |title=PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW IMPLICATIONS OF ‘EQUAL CIVIL PARTNERSHIPS’ |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-and-comparative-law-quarterly/article/abs/private-international-law-implications-of-equal-civil-partnerships/B4C6E8EA20407E3E673094738FB0CB1A |journal=International & Comparative Law Quarterly |language=en |volume=68 |issue=1 |pages=161–173 |doi=10.1017/S0020589318000453 |issn=0020-5893|url-access=subscription }}</ref>
To date, only two countries, Spain and Portugal, have signed onto the [[Convention on the Recognition of Registered Partnerships]], a draft multilateral agreement on the status of civil, unmarried partnerships.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Convention (No.32) on the recognition of registered partnerships – CIEC |url=https://ciec1.org/en/convention/convention-no-32-on-the-recognition-of-registered-partnerships/ |access-date=2025-05-13 |website=ciec1.org}}</ref> The document is inclusive of rights for both same and opposite sex partnerships.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Shúilleabháin |first=Máire Ní |date=January 2019 |title=Private International Law Implications of 'Equal Civil Partnerships' |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-and-comparative-law-quarterly/article/abs/private-international-law-implications-of-equal-civil-partnerships/B4C6E8EA20407E3E673094738FB0CB1A |journal=International & Comparative Law Quarterly |language=en |volume=68 |issue=1 |pages=161–173 |doi=10.1017/S0020589318000453 |issn=0020-5893|url-access=subscription }}</ref>


==See also==
==See also==

Latest revision as of 07:42, 6 November 2025

Template:Short description Script error: No such module "Distinguish".Template:Same-sex unions

File:Men Couple in Istria Croatia.jpg
Gay couple in Croatia, which allows civil partnerships but not same-sex marriage

Template:Sidebar with collapsible listsTemplate:Sidebar with collapsible lists A civil union (also known as a civil partnership) is a legally recognized arrangement similar to marriage, primarily intended to provide legal recognition for same-sex couples. Civil unions grant some or all of the rights of marriage, with child adoption being a common exception.

Civil unions have been established by law in several mostly developed countries in order to provide legal recognition of relationships formed by same-sex couples and to afford them rights, benefits, tax breaks, and responsibilities. In 1989, Denmark was the first country to legalise civil unions; however, most other developed democracies did not begin establishing them until the 1990s and early 2000s. In Brazil, civil unions were first created for opposite-sex couples in 2002, and then expanded to include same-sex couples in 2011. In the majority of countries that established same-sex civil unions, they have since been either supplemented or replaced by same-sex marriage. Civil unions are viewed by LGBT rights campaigners as a "first step" towards establishing same-sex marriage, as civil unions are viewed by supporters of LGBT rights as a "separate but equal" status.

Many jurisdictions with civil unions recognize foreign unions if those are essentially equivalent to their own; for example, the United Kingdom lists equivalent unions in the Civil Partnership Act 2004 Schedule 20. The marriages of same-sex couples performed abroad may be recognized as civil unions in jurisdictions that only have the latter. Template:TOC limit

Overview and terminology

File:New York City Proposition 8 Protest outside LDS temple 20.jpg
The notion of civil unions is rejected by some, such as this protester at a large demonstration in New York City against California Proposition 8.[1]

The terms used to designate civil unions are not standardised and vary widely from country to country. Government-sanctioned relationships that may be similar or equivalent to civil unions include civil partnerships, registered partnerships, domestic partnerships, significant relationships, reciprocal beneficiary relationships, common-law marriage, adult interdependent relationships, life partnerships, stable unions, civil solidarity pacts, and so on. The exact level of rights, benefits, obligations, and responsibilities also varies, depending on the laws of a particular country. Some jurisdictions allow same-sex couples to adopt, while others forbid them to do so, or allow adoption only in specified circumstances.

In the United States, the term civil union was introduced in the state of Vermont in 2000 to connote a status equivalent to marriage for same-sex couples; it was chosen by the state's legislators in preference to phrases such as "domestic partner relationship" or "civil accord".[2]

Domestic partnership, offered by some states, counties, cities, and employers since as early as 1985,[3] has generally connoted a lesser status with fewer benefits.[4] However, the legislatures of the West Coast states of California, Oregon and Washington have preferred the term domestic partnership for enactments similar or equivalent to civil union laws in East Coast states.

Civil unions are not seen as a replacement for marriage by many in the LGBT community. "Marriage in the United States is a civil union; a civil union, as it has come to be called, is not marriage", said Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry.[5] "It is a proposed hypothetical legal mechanism, since it doesn't exist in most places, to give some of the protections but also withhold something precious from gay people. There's no good reason to do that." However, some opponents of same-sex marriage claim that civil unions rob marriage of its unique status; Randy Thomasson, executive director of the Campaign for California Families, calls civil unions "homosexual marriage by another name" and contends that civil unions provide same-sex couples "all the rights of marriage available under state law".[6] The California Supreme Court, in the In Re Marriage Cases decision, noted nine differences[7] in state law.

Civil unions are commonly criticised as being 'separate but equal'; critics such as former New Zealand MP and feminist Marilyn Waring note that same-sex couples remain excluded from the right to marry and are forced to use a separate institution.[8] Supporters of same-sex marriage contend that treating same-sex couples differently from other couples under the law allows for inferior treatment and that if civil unions were the same as marriage there would be no reason for two separate laws. A New Jersey commission which reviewed the state's civil union law reported that the law "invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children".[9] Some have suggested that creating civil unions which are open to opposite-sex couples would avoid the accusations of apartheid.[10]

Proponents of civil unions say that they provide practical equality for same-sex couples and solve the problems over areas such as hospital visitation rights and transfer of property caused by lack of legal recognition.[11] Proponents also say that creating civil unions is a more pragmatic way to ensure that same-sex couples have legal rights as it avoids the more controversial issues surrounding marriage and the claim that the term has a religious source.

Many supporters of same-sex marriage state that the word 'marriage' matters and that the term 'civil union' (and its equivalents) do not convey the emotional meaning or bring the respect that comes with marriage.[9][12] Former US Solicitor General and attorney in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case Theodore Olsen said that recognizing same-sex couples under the term 'domestic partnership' stigmatizes gay people's relationships, treating them as if they were "something akin to a commercial venture, not a loving union".[13] Many also contend that the fact that civil unions are often not understood can cause difficulty for same-sex couples in emergency situations.[14]

List of jurisdictions recognizing same-sex unions but not same-sex marriage

As of June 12, 2025, the states that provide civil unions but not marriage for same-sex couples are: Template:Div col

Template:Div col end

In Israel, no national domestic authority performs same-sex marriage, though couples may marry abroad. In addition, same-sex couples may be considered to have a common-law marriage, which affords "most" of the rights of marriage.[15]

List of jurisdictions recognizing same-sex unions

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote".

File:World civil union for same-sex couples.svg
<templatestyles src="Legend/styles.css" />
  Civil unions for same-sex couples
Template:Legend striped <templatestyles src="Legend/styles.css" />
  Civil unions not performed

The following is a list of countries and other jurisdictions which have established civil unions for same-sex couples or opposite-sex couples, categorized by continent, with the year in which the law establishing civil unions in the listed country or other jurisdiction came into effect in brackets:

Africa

Americas

Template:Div col

Template:Div col end

Asia

Europe

Template:Div col

Template:Div col end

Oceania

Template:Div col

Template:Div col end

Countries with former civil unions

File:World civil union.svg
<templatestyles src="Legend/styles.css" />
  Gender-neutral civil unions
<templatestyles src="Legend/styles.css" />
  Civil unions for opposite-sex couples only
<templatestyles src="Legend/styles.css" />
  Civil unions for same-sex couples only
<templatestyles src="Legend/styles.css" />
  Former civil unions for same-sex couples, replaced by marriage
<templatestyles src="Legend/styles.css" />
  Civil unions not performed

Several countries used to offer civil unions only for same-sex couples. The laws that allowed civil unions were repealed when same-sex marriage was legalized. The following is a list of countries and other jurisdictions that used to offer civil unions for same-sex couples with the years in which they were available in brackets:

Europe

Americas

Asia

Oceania

Case studies

Argentina

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". Since 2003, the Argentine province of Río Negro and the city of Buenos Aires allow domestic partnerships. The City of Villa Carlos Paz (Córdoba) allowed it from 2007. Since 2009, the city of Río Cuarto (Córdoba) allows Civil Unions.

Australia

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote".

All levels of Australian Governments under nearly all Australian statutes do recognise same-sex couples as de facto couples as unregistered co-habitation or de facto status since 2009.[115] From 1 July 2009 Centrelink recognised same-sex couples equally regarding social security – under the common-law marriage, de facto status or unregistered cohabitation.[116]

Registered relationship recognition in state Governments:

State or territory Official relationship status Year of enactment
Australian Capital Territory Yes Civil partnership 2008
New South Wales Yes Registered relationship 2010
Queensland Yes Civil partnership 2012
Tasmania Yes Significant relationship 2004
Victoria Yes Registered domestic relationship 2008
South Australia Yes Registered relationship 2017

Registered relationship recognition in 5 local government areas within Australia:

Brazil

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote".

File:Civil union map South America detailed.svg
Countries performing civil unions in South America <templatestyles src="Legend/styles.css" />
  Gender-neutral civil unions
<templatestyles src="Legend/styles.css" />
  Civil unions for opposite-sex couples only
<templatestyles src="Legend/styles.css" />
  Civil unions never performed

Cohabitation grants 112 benefits as family entities in Brazil since 2002. It is known as Script error: No such module "Lang". when both parts are legally authorized to marry, and as Script error: No such module "Lang". when at least one party is legally prohibited from doing so.[122] Cohabitation grants all rights marriage confers, with the exception of automatic opt-in for one of four systems of property share married couples have access to, and automatic right to inheritance. Potential confusion might arise regarding terminology, given how when Brazilian Portuguese refers to the term Script error: No such module "Lang"., it tends to be short for Script error: No such module "Lang"., or civil marriage.

Couples that have at least one child registered as a descendant of both parties might also have access to Script error: No such module "Lang". or Script error: No such module "Lang". rights.

Same-sex stable cohabitation in Brazil is legally recognized nationwide since May 5, 2011. Brazil's Supreme Court voted 10–0 with one abstention to allow same-sex couples the same legal rights as married couples, following pointed recognition of such relationships that dates as far back as 2004. The ruling gave same-sex couples in such relationships the same financial and social rights enjoyed by those in mixed-sex ones.[123]

A union between two women and one man was reported in August 2012, though its legality was doubted.[124]

Canada

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote".

File:Civil union map North America.svg
Jurisdictions performing civil unions in North America <templatestyles src="Legend/styles.css" />
  Gender-neutral civil unions
<templatestyles src="Legend/styles.css" />
  Former civil unions for same-sex couples, replaced by marriage
<templatestyles src="Legend/styles.css" />
  Civil unions never performed

In Canada:

were extended to same-sex couples before the enactment of the federal Civil Marriage Act which legalized same-sex marriage in Canada nationally.

The 1994 proposed Equality Rights Statute Amendment Act in Ontario was a notable early attempt to introduce a status similar to civil unions. It was supported by the provincial government but was defeated in the legislature.[125]

Some provinces and territories amended their family law to extend statutory benefits to same-sex couples that were equivalent to those granted to unmarried cohabiting opposite-sex couples without establishing a specific name for the partnership. For example, Ontario was required to amend its family law legislation in 1999 in response to the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling in M v H.

Colombia

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". In 2007, Colombia came close to passing a law granting legal recognition to same-sex couples, but the bill failed on final passage in one house of the national legislature. However, a court decision in October 2007 extended social security and health insurance rights to same-sex couples.[126] On January 29, 2009, the Constitutional Court ruled that cohabitating same-sex couples must be given all rights offered to unmarried heterosexual couples,[127] making Colombia the first Latin American country to fully grant this right to all its citizens. Couples can claim these rights after living together for two years. Colombia has since approved same-sex marriage.

Costa Rica

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". The Legislative Assembly of Costa Rica passed a bill in early July 2013 that "confers social rights and benefits of a civil union, free from discrimination", language inserted by lawmaker José María Villalta Florez-Estrada of the Broad Front party. After the bill passed, several media outlets reported that conservative lawmakers realized the bill's implications for same-sex unions and urged President Laura Chinchilla, who is set to face Villalta in the 2014 presidential election, to use her veto power to stop the bill from becoming law. Chinchilla, who has suggested the courts should determine the legality of same-sex unions in Costa Rica, refused and signed the bill into law on 4 July. A gay couple has filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica asking that their union be recognized under the new law.[128] Gay rights activists reacting to the law said it needs to survive a constitutional challenge in court.[129][130] Some constitutional lawyers stated that same-sex couples will "still lack legal capacity" to formalize their unions, despite passage of the bill.[131]

Ecuador

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". The 2008 Constitution of Ecuador enacted civil unions between two people without regard to gender, giving same-sex couples the same rights as legally married heterosexual couples except for the right to adopt.[132]

Europe

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote".

File:Civil union map Europe detailed.svg
Countries performing civil unions in Europe <templatestyles src="Legend/styles.css" />
  Gender-neutral civil unions
<templatestyles src="Legend/styles.css" />
  Civil unions for same-sex couples only
<templatestyles src="Legend/styles.css" />
  Former civil unions for same-sex couples, replaced by marriage
<templatestyles src="Legend/styles.css" />
  Civil unions never performed

In Europe:

Template:Div col

Template:Div col end


Andorra

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote".

Austria

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". In 2018, Minister of Justice Josef Moser announced that both marriage and registered partnership would be open to homosexuals and heterosexuals. This occurred because Helga Ratzenböck and Martin Seydl have been appealing for yearsTemplate:Clarify timeframe in court for a registered civil partnership in Austria. At the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg they attempted to sue Austria for discrimination against their sexuality,Template:When because they were a heterosexual couple and were excluded from the benefits of registered partnership, but this failed.[133][134] Only when the Constitutional Court of Austria opened up marriage to homosexuals in December 2018 registered partnerships also become possible for heterosexuals. After 35 years of living together, the two entered into a registered partnership in 2019.[135]

Croatia

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote".

Cyprus

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote".

Czech Republic

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote".

Denmark

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". Civil unions were introduced in Denmark by law on 7 June 1989, the world's first such law, and came into effect on 1 October 1989. On 7 June 2012, the law was replaced by a new same-sex marriage law, which came into effect on 15 June 2012.[136]

Registered partnership was by civil ceremony only, but the Church of Denmark allowed priests to perform blessings of same-sex couples, as it stated that the church blesses people, not institutions. The new law makes same-sex marriages in churches possible, but allows vicars to decline marriages of same-sex couples in their church.[136]

On 17 March 2009, the Folketing introduced a bill that gave same-sex couples in registered partnerships the right to adopt jointly.[137] This bill was approved on 4 May 2010 and took effect on 1 July 2010.[138]

Estonia

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote".Registered partnerships that provide some of the rights, benefits, and obligations of marriage have been available to same-sex couples since 1 January 2016.[139]

France

File:Mariages et pacs de 2008 à 2018.svg
PACS (blue) and marriage (red) in France (INSEE)

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". The French law providing benefits to same-sex couples also applies to opposite-sex couples who choose this form of partnership over marriage. Known as the "Pacte civil de solidarité" (PACS), it is more easily dissolved than the divorce process applying to marriage. Tax benefits accrue immediately (only from 2007 onScript error: No such module "Unsubst".), while immigration benefits accrue only after the contract has been in effect for one year. The partners are required to have a common address, making it difficult for foreigners to use this law as a means to a residence permit, and difficult for French citizens to gain the right to live with a foreign partnerTemplate:Sndespecially since the contract does not automatically give immigration rights, as marriage does.[140]

Between 2000 and 2010, the number of marriages decreased while the number of PACS strongly increased. In 2010, there were 3 PACS for every 4 marriages celebrated in France.[141] Especially amongst heterosexual couples PACS is very popular, with 96 out of 100 PACS couples being heterosexual in the year 2019.[142]

File:Civil union map Central America and the Caribbean Islands.svg
Countries performing civil unions in Central America and the Caribbean Islands <templatestyles src="Legend/styles.css" />
  Gender-neutral civil unions
<templatestyles src="Legend/styles.css" />
  Civil unions for opposite-sex couples only
<templatestyles src="Legend/styles.css" />
  Civil unions never performed

Germany

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". Civil unions in Germany began in 2001.[143]

In 2017, registered life partnership was replaced with marriage, with any couple regardless of sex allowed to marry.[144]

Greece

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". Greek parliament voted in favor of a Cohabitation Pact (Greek: Σύμφωνο Συμβίωσης) giving almost the same rights as marriage to couples regardless of their sex. The draft was approved in the relevant Greek parliament committeeTemplate:When and during voting on 22 December 2015, the law was passed with 194 positive votes (out of 300).[145]

Hungary

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote".Civil unions in Hungary began in 2009.[146]

Iceland

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". Iceland does not have a comprehensive legal act on civil unions (Template:Langx). Instead, various laws deal with civil unions and their meaning. When Iceland legalised same-sex marriages in 2010, the Act on Registered Partnerships (87/1996) was abolished. Registered partnerships (Template:Langx) had been the principal legal unions for same-sex partners since the law was passed in 1996.[147]

Ireland

In 2010, the lower house of the Irish Parliament Dáil Éireann passed the bill on Civil Partnerships unanimously. This bill allows civil partnerships of same-sex couples, and establishes an extensive package of rights, obligations and protections for same-sex couples who register as civil partners.[148] The bill passed all stages of in both Houses of the Oireachtas,[149] and came into effect on 1 January 2011. The first partnership between two men was registered on 7 February 2011.[150]

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Ireland since 2015 following a referendum.[151]

Italy

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote".Legal recognition of same-sex civil unions in Italy began in 2016.I[152][153][154][155]

Liechtenstein

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote".Civil unions in Liechtenstein began in 2011.[156]

Monaco

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote".Civil unions in Monaco began in 2020.[157]

Montenegro

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote".Civil unions in Montenegro began in 2020.[158][159][160][161]

Netherlands

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". In 2001, the Netherlands passed a law allowing same-sex couples to marry, in addition to its 1998 "registered partnership" law (civil union) for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.[162][163]

Poland

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". In 2003, Senator Maria Szyszkowska proposed a bill which would legalize same-sex civil unions in Poland.[164] The project was approved by the Senate but was never voted upon by the Sejm, as Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz (then the Marshal of the Sejm) did not bring it for the deliberation.

In 2008, when asked about same-sex civil unions, First Cabinet of Donald Tusk spokeswoman Agnieszka Liszka answered: "Council of Ministers did not and would not take care of that matter."[165]

On January 25, 2013, Sejm voted upon three separate bills regarding same-sex civil unions in Poland: by the centre-left Democratic Left Alliance, liberal Palikot's Movement and centre-right Civic Platform. The first bill had 283 against, 137 for, 30 abstaining. The second had 276 against, 150 for, 23 abstaining. The third had 228 against, 211 for, 10 abstaining. All three were rejected, mainly with the votes of centre-right, right-wing and conservative parties: Polish People's Party, Law and Justice and United Poland. A majority of deputies from the ruling centre-right Civic Platform also voted against the first two bills.[166][167][168] The Roman Catholic Church in Poland, Polish Orthodox Church and Polish Muslims opposed all three bills.

In March 2013, Prime Minister Donald Tusk officially stated that a new project of civil unions bill would be presented to the parliament "in two months time" (in May 2013), but Template:As ofTemplate:Update inline no such initiatives took place.

In a 2013 opinion poll conducted by CBOS, 68% of Poles were against gays and lesbians publicly showing their way of life, 65% of Poles were against same-sex civil unions, 72% were against same-sex marriage and 88% were against adoption by same-sex couples.[169]

In December 2014, the Sejm refused to deal with a civil partnership bill proposed by Your Movement, with 235 MPs voting against debating the bill, and 185 MPs voting for.[170]

In May 2015, the Sejm again refused to deal with the topic, with 215 MPs voting against and only 146 for. The Prime Minister, Ewa Kopacz, said that civil partnerships are an issue for the next parliament to deal with.[171]

San Marino

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote".San Marino has recognized civil unions for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples since December 2018.[172][173]

Slovenia

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote".Slovenia recognized same-sex partnerships since 2006.[174][175]

Switzerland

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote".

The Canton of Geneva has a law on the cantonal level, the Partenariat cantonal (the Cantonal Domestic Partnership), since 2001. It grants unmarried couples, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, many of the rights, responsibilities and protections that married couples have. However, it does not allow benefits in taxation, social security, or health insurance premiums (unlike the federal law). Geneva was the first Canton to recognise same-sex couples through this law.

On September 22, 2002, voters in the Swiss canton of Zurich voted to extend a number of marriage rights to same-sex partners, including tax, inheritance, and social security benefits.[176] The law is limited to same-sex couples, and both partners must have lived in the canton for six months and formally commit to running a household together and supporting and aiding each another.

On November 12, 2003, the Constituent assembly of the Canton of Fribourg granted Registered Partnership as a constitutional right under the Article 14.

On January 27, 2004, the Canton of Neuchâtel voted for a law on the cantonal level, the Partenariat enregistré (the Cantonal Registered Partnership). It grants unmarried couples, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, the same rights as married couple for cantonal matters such as responsibilities and protections, benefits in taxation, social security, or health insurance premiums.

On June 5, 2005, voters extended this right to the whole of Switzerland through a federal referendum. This was the first time that the civil union laws were affirmed in a nationwide referendum in any country. The Federal Domestic Partnership Law, reserved for same-sex couples, came into force on January 1, 2007. It grants the same rights as marriage, but full joint adoption rights, facilitated naturalization and medically assisted procreation are explicitly forbidden for same-sex domestic partners.[177]

In 2017, the Federal Councilor Simonetta Sommaruga addressed the issue that civil union is not open yet for heterosexual couples, in collaboration with experts at the University of Bern. In Geneva and Neuchâtel a type of civil union called cantonal PACS is available to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.[178] The cantonal PACS effects are limited to cantonal law. The cantonal PACS, however, has no impact on civil status and inheritance, which are regulated by federal law.[178]

On September 26, 2021, the people of Switzerland approved on national referendum the initiative "Marriage for all", which would grant marriage and adoption rights for same-sex couples. This initiative would be made effective on July 1, 2022.

United Kingdom

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". In 2003, the British government announced plans to introduce civil partnerships which would allow same-sex couples the rights and responsibilities resulting from marriage. The Civil Partnership Bill was introduced into the House of Lords on 30 March 2004. After considering amendments made by the House of Commons, it was passed by the House of Lords, its final legislative step, on 17 November 2004, and received royal assent on 18 November. The Act came into force on 5 December 2005, and same-sex, but not opposite-sex, couples were able to form the civil partnerships from 19 December 2005 in Northern Ireland, 20 December 2005 in Scotland and 21 December 2005 in England and Wales.[179] Separate provisions were included in the first Finance Act 2005 to allow regulations to be made to amend tax laws to give the same tax advantages and disadvantages to couples in civil partnerships as apply to married couples. At that time, the Church of England, the state church in England, permitted clergy to enter into same-sex civil partnerships.[180]

Aside from the manner in which couples register and the non-use of the word "marriage", civil partnerships grant most of the same legal rights as marriage and generally operate under the same constrictions (one difference being that marriage requires dissolution by divorce while a civil union does not). It is not legal to be in both a civil partnership and a marriage at the same time. Nevertheless, some of those in favour of legal same-sex marriage object that civil partnerships do not grant full equality.

Both same-sex marriages and civil unions of other nations will be automatically considered civil partnerships under UK law providing they came within Section 20 of the Act. This means, in some cases, non-Britons from nations with civil unions will have greater rights in the UK than in their native countries. For example, a Vermont civil union would have legal standing in the UK; however, in cases where one partner was American and the other British, the Vermont civil union would not provide the Briton with right of abode in Vermont (or any other US state or territory), whereas it would provide the American with right of abode in the UK.

In September 2011, the succeeding coalition government announced its intention to legalise same-sex marriage in England and Wales by 2015 at the latest.[181] The future status of civil partnerships is unclear. The Scottish Government, which has devolved responsibility for such legislation, held a consultation concerning both civil and religious same sex marriage in the autumn of 2011.Template:When Legislation to allow same-sex marriage in England and Wales was passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom in July 2013 and came into force on 13 March 2014, and the first same-sex marriages took place on 29 March 2014. The first same-sex marriages in Scotland took place in December 2014.

In June 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that restricting civil partnerships to same-sex couples was discriminatory.[182] In response, the Prime Minister announced in October 2018 that civil partnerships would be opened to heterosexual couples.[183] In autumn 2018 Theresa May announced that she would open up the "Civil Partnership" to heterosexual couples in England.[184] As of 31st December 2019 it is possible for both same-sex and heterosexual couples to enter into a civil partnership in England.[185]

Mexico

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote".

File:Civil union map Mexico.svg
States performing civil unions in Mexico <templatestyles src="Legend/styles.css" />
  Gender-neutral civil unions
<templatestyles src="Legend/styles.css" />
  Former civil unions for same-sex couples, replaced by marriage
<templatestyles src="Legend/styles.css" />
  Civil unions never performed

On 9 November 2006, Mexico City's unicameral Legislative Assembly passed and approved (43–17) a bill legalizing same-sex civil unions, under the name Ley de Sociedades de Convivencia (Law for Co-existence Partnerships), which became effective on 16 March 2007.[186] The law gives property and inheritance rights to same-sex couples. On 11 January 2007, the northern state of Coahuila, which borders Texas, passed a similar bill (20–13), under the name Pacto Civil de Solidaridad (Civil Pact of Solidarity).[187] Unlike Mexico City's law, once same-sex couples have registered in Coahuila, the state protects their rights no matter where they live in the country.[187] Twenty days after the law had passed,Template:When the country's first same-sex civil union took place in Saltillo, Coahuila.[188] Civil unions have been proposed in at least six states since 2006.[189]

In Colima, governor Mario Anguiano Moreno has agreed to discuss the legalization of civil unions and adoption by same-sex couples.[190]Template:When In Jalisco, local congress approved on 31 October 2013 the Free Coexistence Act, which allows the performance of civil unions in the state.[191]

New Zealand

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote".

File:Civil union map Oceania.svg
Countries performing civil unions in Oceania <templatestyles src="Legend/styles.css" />
  Gender-neutral civil unions
<templatestyles src="Legend/styles.css" />
  Civil unions never performed

On 9 December 2004 the New Zealand Parliament passed the Civil Union Bill, establishing civil unions for same-sex and opposite-sex couples.[192][193] The debate over Civil Unions was highly divisive in New Zealand, inspiring great public emotion both for and against the passing. A companion bill, the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill was passed shortly thereafter to remove discriminatory provisions on the basis of relationship status from a range of statutes and regulations. As a result of these bills, all couples in New Zealand, whether married, in a civil union, or in a de facto partnership, now generally enjoy the same rights and undertake the same obligations. These rights extend to immigration, next-of-kin status, social welfare, matrimonial property and other areas.

The Civil Union Act 2004 came into effect on 26 April 2005 with the first unions able to occur from Friday 29 April 2005.

South Africa

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote".

File:Civil union map Africa.svg
Countries performing civil unions in Africa <templatestyles src="Legend/styles.css" />
  Gender-neutral civil unions
<templatestyles src="Legend/styles.css" />
  Civil unions never performed

In South Africa, a "civil union" is either a marriage or a civil partnership, although the term "civil union" is commonly used when "civil partnership" is meant. Same-sex and opposite-sex couples may register their unions either as marriages or as civil partnerships. This was achieved through the Civil Union Act, 2006.[194][195] In laws where "marriage" is mentioned, its definition now retroactively includes civil partnerships.

United States

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote".Template:More citations needed section

File:Same-sex unions in the United States.svg
States performing civil unions <templatestyles src="Legend/styles.css" />
  Civil union
<templatestyles src="Legend/styles.css" />
  Civil union with limited rights
<templatestyles src="Legend/styles.css" />
  Civil unions not performed
<templatestyles src="Legend/styles.css" />
  Civil unions forbidden

The first civil unions in the United States were offered by the state of Vermont in 2000.[196] The federal government does not recognize these unions. By the end of 2006, Connecticut[197] and New Jersey[198] had also enacted civil union laws; New Hampshire followed in 2007.[199] Furthermore, California's domestic partnership law had been expanded to the point that it became practically a civil union law as well. The same might be saidTemplate:By whom for domestic partnership in the District of Columbia, domestic partnership in Washington, and domestic partnership in Oregon.

Jurisdictions in the U.S. that offer civil unions or domestic partnerships granting nearly all of the state-recognized rights of marriage to same-sex couples include:

States in the U.S. with domestic partnerships or similar status granting some of the rights of marriage include:

Since October 2014, all states that provide for civil unions, domestic partnerships, or similar arrangements between same-sex partners also allow same-sex partners to legally wed.[200][201]

Arizona

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". In 2013, Bisbee became the first city in Arizona to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples.[202] After its passage, the state's Attorney General, Tom Horne, threatened to challenge the law in court, arguing that it violated the state's constitution.[203] However, the Attorney General agreed to withdraw the challenge after Bisbee amended the law, and the civil union ordinance was approved.[204]

Following Bisbee, also in 2013, Tucson became the second municipality to legalize civil unions.[205] Jerome followed in the same year.[206] Also in 2013, Clarkdale and Cottonwood were the next cities in the Verde Valley to pass civil unions.[207][208] A measure to allow civil unions failed in Camp Verde by a split 3–3 vote in the city council making it the only city in the Verde Valley to not have passed the bill.[209]

Sedona passed civil unions in September 2013.[210] The city of Tempe considered legal advice about a civil union ordinance, but it did not pass a bill.[211] After the legalization of same-sex marriage in Arizona, civil unions may continue to be registered in the cities that had legalized the ordinances.[212]

California

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". In California, where domestic partnership (DP) has been available to same-sex and certain opposite-sex couples since 2000, a wholesale revision of the law in 2005 made it substantially equivalent to marriage at the state level. In 2007, the Legislature took a further step when it required same-sex DP couples to file state income taxes jointly. (Couples must continue to file federal taxes as individuals.) In the May 2008 In re Marriage Cases decision, the state supreme court noted nine differences between Domestic Partnerships and same-sex marriage in state law, including a cohabitation requirement for domestic partners, access to CalPERS long-term care insurance (but not CalPERS in general), and the lack of an equivalent to California's "confidential marriage" institution.[7] The cohabitation requirement was dropped on January 1, 2012, and a "confidential option" for domestic partners became available the same day.

Colorado

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". A bill to establish civil unions for same-sex and opposite-sex couples passed both chambers of the Colorado legislature and was signed into law by Governor John Hickenlooper. Civil unions began on May 1, 2013.[213][214][215]

Connecticut

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". In 2005, the Connecticut General Assembly passed a bill to adopt civil unions in Connecticut. Connecticut's civil unions were identical to marriage and provided all of the same rights and responsibilities except for the title. Connecticut was the first state in the U.S. to voluntarily pass a same-sex civil unions law through the legislature without any immediate court intervention.[216] The law was repealed on October 1, 2010, and replaced with a law making marriage gender-neutral.

Delaware

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". Delaware Governor Jack Markell signed a civil union bill on May 12, 2011, that establishes civil unions in the state effective January 1, 2012.[217] The law was repealed on July 1, 2014, and replaced with a law making marriage gender-neutral.

District of Columbia

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". Same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia was legalized on December 18, 2009.[218] Marriage licenses became available on March 3, 2010,[219] and marriages began on March 9, 2010.[220] Legislation on domestic partnerships in the District of Columbia was first passed in 1992, implemented in 2002, and expanded over time up to 2009.[221][222][223]

Hawaii

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". Hawaii legalized civil unions for same-sex and opposite-sex couples on January 1, 2012.[224] Same-sex marriage became legal on December 2, 2013.[225][226]

Illinois

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". On December 1, 2010, the Illinois state senate passed SB1716Template:Sndthe "Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act"Template:Sndin a 32–24–1 vote, just one day after the Illinois House of Representatives did the same in a 61–52–2 vote. On January 31, 2011, Illinois state Governor Pat Quinn signed SB1716 into law, establishing civil unions for same-sex and opposite-sex couples. The new law came into effect on June 1, 2011. The provision allowing opposite-sex couples to establish a civil union effectively doubles as a tool for widowed seniors to keep survivor's benefits from a marriage while gaining marital rights at the state level with another partner.[227][228]

Maine

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". Maine legalized domestic partnership for same-sex and opposite-sex couples in 2004.[229][230] Maine's domestic partnership registry only provides limited rights, most of which are aimed at protecting couples' security in emergency situations.

New Hampshire

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". On April 26, 2007, the New Hampshire General Court (state legislature) passed a civil union bill, and Governor John Lynch signed the bill into law on May 31, 2007.[231] At the time, New Hampshire was "... the first state to embrace same-sex unions without a court order or the threat of one".[232] The New Hampshire civil union legislation became effective on January 1, 2008.[233] The law was replaced by the same-sex marriage law on January 1, 2010.[234]

New Jersey

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". On October 25, 2006, the Supreme Court of New Jersey gave New Jersey lawmakers 180 days to rewrite the state's marriage laws, either including same-sex couples or creating a new system of civil unions for them. On December 14 the Legislature passed a bill establishing civil unions in New Jersey, which was signed into law by Governor Jon Corzine on December 21, 2006. The first civil unions took place on February 19, 2007.[198]

There are differences between civil unions and domestic partnerships. In 2004, the state of New Jersey enacted a domestic partnership law, the Domestic Partnership Act, offering certain limited rights and benefits to same-sex and different-sex couples. In 2006, however, after the state Supreme Court's ruling in Lewis vs. Harris that same-sex couples must be extended all the rights and benefits of marriage, the Legislature passed a civil unions law, the Civil Union Act, effective in 2007, which was an attempt to satisfy the court's ruling.[235]

Nevada

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". On May 31, 2009, the Nevada legislature overrode Governor Jim Gibbons' veto of a domestic partnership bill.[236][237][238][239] The bill allows registered domestic partners, whether they are a same-sex or opposite-sex couple, to have most of the state level rights and responsibilities afforded to married couples. It does not require any other entity to provide rights or benefits afforded to married individuals. This has left the partnership bill ineffective compared to those of other states. The law took effect on 1 October 2009.

Oregon

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". Since 4 February 2008, Oregon offers domestic partnerships which grant nearly all of the state-recognized rights of marriage to same-sex couples.

Rhode Island

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". Civil unions were permitted in Rhode Island since July 1, 2011 until July 1, 2013.

Vermont

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". The civil unions law[240] that was passed in the Vermont General Assembly in 2000 was a response to the Vermont Supreme Court ruling in Baker v. Vermont, requiring that the state grant same-sex couples the same rights and privileges accorded to married couples under the law.

A Vermont civil union is nearly identical to a legal marriage, as far as the rights and responsibilities for which state law, not federal law, is responsible are concerned.[240] It grants partners next-of-kin rights and other protections that heterosexual married couples also receive. However, despite the "full faith and credit" clause of the United States Constitution, civil unions are generally not recognized outside Vermont in the absence of specific legislation. Opponents of the law have supported the Defense of Marriage Act and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment in order to prevent obligatory recognition of same-sex couples in other jurisdictions. This means that many of the advantages of marriage, which fall in the federal jurisdiction (over 1,100 federal laws, such as joint federal income tax returns, visas and work permits for the foreign partner of a U.S. citizen, etc.), are not extended to the partners of a Vermont civil union.

Regarding voluntary recognition of the civil union in other jurisdictions, New York City's Domestic Partnership Law, passed in 2002, recognizes civil unions formalized in other jurisdictions. Germany's international civil law (EGBGB) also accords to Vermont civil unions the same benefits and responsibilities that apply in Vermont, as long as they do not exceed the standard accorded by German law to a German civil union. The law was replaced by the same-sex marriage law on September 1, 2009.

Washington

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". Washington offers domestic partnerships which grant nearly all of the state-recognized rights of marriage to same-sex couples. Washington is the first state to have passed a same-sex civil union bill by a popular vote.

Washington legalized same-sex marriage early in 2012, which provided that a couple in a civil union would have two years to convert their civil union to a marriage. The law was upheld by popular referendum in November 2012.[241]

Uruguay

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". Civil unions in Uruguay were allowed nationwide from January 2008.[242][243]

National debates

Template:Div col

Template:Div col end

International standards

To date, only two countries, Spain and Portugal, have signed onto the Convention on the Recognition of Registered Partnerships, a draft multilateral agreement on the status of civil, unmarried partnerships.[248] The document is inclusive of rights for both same and opposite sex partnerships.[249]

See also

References

Template:Reflist

Notes Template:Notelist

External links

Script error: No such module "Navbox with collapsible groups". Template:Authority control

  1. ↑ NYC Protest and Civil Rights March Opposing Proposition 8 Template:Webarchive, Andy Towle, Towelroad.com, November 13, 2008; accessed November 14, 2008.
  2. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  3. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  4. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  5. ↑ Interview with Evan Wolfson, David Shankbone, September 30, 2007
  6. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  7. ↑ a b In Re Marriage Cases Template:Webarchive, California Supreme Court Decision, footnote 24, pages 42–44.
  8. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  9. ↑ a b Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  10. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  11. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  12. ↑ Template:Cite magazine
  13. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  14. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  15. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  16. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  17. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  18. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  19. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  20. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  21. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  22. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  23. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  24. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  25. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  26. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  27. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  28. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  29. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  30. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  31. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  32. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  33. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  34. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  35. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  36. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  37. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  38. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  39. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  40. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  41. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  42. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  43. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  44. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  45. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  46. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  47. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  48. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  49. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  50. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  51. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  52. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  53. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  54. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  55. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  56. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  57. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  58. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  59. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  60. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  61. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  62. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  63. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  64. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  65. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  66. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  67. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  68. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  69. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  70. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  71. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  72. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  73. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  74. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  75. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  76. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  77. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  78. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  79. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  80. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  81. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  82. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  83. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  84. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  85. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  86. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  87. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  88. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  89. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  90. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  91. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  92. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  93. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  94. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  95. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  96. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  97. ↑ a b Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  98. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  99. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  100. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  101. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  102. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  103. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  104. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  105. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  106. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  107. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  108. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  109. ↑ a b c d e f Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  110. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  111. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  112. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  113. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  114. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  115. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  116. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  117. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  118. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  119. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  120. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  121. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  122. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  123. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  124. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  125. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  126. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  127. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  128. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  129. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  130. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  131. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  132. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  133. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  134. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  135. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  136. ↑ a b The Copenhagen Post, 7 June 2012: Gay marriage legalised Template:Webarchive Retrieved 2012-09-19
  137. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  138. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  139. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  140. ↑ Circulaire n°2007-03 CIV du 5 février 2007
  141. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  142. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  143. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  144. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  145. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  146. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  147. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  148. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  149. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  150. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  151. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  152. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  153. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  154. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  155. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  156. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  157. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  158. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  159. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  160. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  161. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  162. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  163. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  164. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  165. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  166. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  167. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  168. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  169. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  170. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  171. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  172. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  173. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  174. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  175. ↑ Template:In lang Zakon o registraciji istospolne partnerske skupnosti (ZRIPS) Template:Webarchive
  176. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  177. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  178. ↑ a b "Ein PACS für die Schweiz?": Tagung zu neuen Rechtsformen für PaarbeziehungenTemplate:Webarchive
  179. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  180. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  181. ↑ Sky News: Drive for same-sex marriages Template:Webarchive. 17 September 2011. Access date: 31 October 2012.
  182. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  183. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  184. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  185. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  186. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  187. ↑ a b Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  188. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  189. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  190. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  191. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  192. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  193. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  194. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  195. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  196. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  197. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  198. ↑ a b Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  199. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  200. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  201. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  202. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  203. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  204. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  205. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  206. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  207. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  208. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  209. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  210. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  211. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  212. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  213. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  214. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  215. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  216. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  217. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  218. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  219. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  220. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  221. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  222. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  223. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  224. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  225. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  226. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  227. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  228. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  229. ↑ Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, sec. 2710
  230. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  231. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  232. ↑ Wang, Beverley. (April 26, 2007) State Senate approves civil unions for same-sex couples Template:Webarchive Concord Monitor. Accessed April 26, 2007.
  233. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  234. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  235. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  236. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  237. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  238. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  239. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  240. ↑ a b Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  241. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  242. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  243. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  244. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  245. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  246. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  247. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  248. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  249. ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
Retrieved from "http://debianws.lexgopc.com/wiki143/index.php?title=Civil_union&oldid=3222308"