Talk:Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge the 4 articles mentioned below to Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten. This has been performed by moving Same-sex marriage in Aruba to that page; partially rewrite, and to implement information from Same-sex marriage in Curaçao. L.tak (talk) 08:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

---

At present there are 4 articles on same-sex marriage in the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the Caribbean:

• Same-sex marriage in Aruba
• Same-sex marriage in Sint Maarten
• Same-sex marriage in Curaçao
• Same-sex marriage in the Netherlands Antilles

and Same-sex marriage in the Caribbean Netherlands would be thinkable... The articles on aruba, sint maarten, curacao and the Netherlands Antilles are very similar (the latter three: very, very similar) and are based on the fact that same sex marriage is not possible but that same sex marriages from the Netherlands have to be accepted. I think the easiest and most comprehensive treatment of this subject would be in a single new article. My title proposal is Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten and the Caribbean Netherlands but I am open to new titles.. Let me know what you think below... L.tak (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• merge as suggested (proposer opinion...) L.tak (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Caribbean Netherlands is dispensable. The Netherlands Antilles not exist anymore. See Dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles. It should be titled Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten. Ron 1987 12:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I could live with that; only 2 years until the Caribbean Netherlands get their same-sex marriage (at least, that term is in the law now) and the Neth. Antilles could indeeed link to a section, so the name does not need to be in the title... L.tak (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You changed the title to And the Caribbean Netherlands. The Caribbean Netherlands is absolutely dispensable, because these islands only implemented Dutch law. Nothing more. Ron 1987 14:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Although it might seem a bit pointy; it was a simple copy paste error. I meant to remove the part "and the caribbean netherlands" from the original article name change suggestion... (btw for info on the specific situation of the caribbean nehterlands: see the specific section now at same-sex marriage in the Netherlands.. Rectifiying my error now! L.tak (talk) 14:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Application of ruling in Sint Maarten

It would appear that the sources used in this article do not support the claim that Sint Maarten is not required to allow same sex marriage.

In fact, the very first source, an article sadly taken from the telegraaf (which is notorious with their paywalls, and thus does not allow verification as easily) (who sadly also use titles that are in my opinion rather liberal or provocative) has Sint Maarten in its title, which would imply that the ruling applies there as well.

Could someone explain why this Wikipedia article constantly claims Sint Maarten’s situation is different from that of Curaçao and Aruba? The sentence ‘ruling did not explicitly legalize same-sex marriage in Sint Maarten‘ is not followed by any reference whatsoever.

Slomo666 (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@panda2024 has added a source that was already used in the text on one of the sections, but this source actually does not support the claim in the span.

I don’t have a lot of experience on Wikipedia yet, so I don’t quite know what to do about this, I don’t want to just remove his edit. Slomo666 (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Messiness in introduction

May I suggest that the first part of the article be shortened or rewritten? The details of the history of the litigation do not need to be in the introduction/summary of the article, in my opinion, and make the article less readable. Slomo666 (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

'has been'

@Panda2024 Seeing you reverted my revert again, I would like to discuss. You insist on saying the amendment 'would give' certain rights, but that would imply it was not passed and thus that it did not give those . If the amendment is passed, it gives these rights. When it was passed, it gave those rights.

The sentences following until the end of the same paragraph strongly imply that the amendment was passed and did indeed do everything your edit is saying it merely 'would' have given. Slomo666 (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Conditional verb tense is preferred in encyclopaedia entries, describing the situation at the time the amendment was passed, which more makes sense considering the paragraph. Panda2024 (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Could you point me to the Wikipedia guideline (I assume this is MOS) you are referring to? I have not seen anything like this until now and it just looks very confusing to me. Slomo666 (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)