Talk:2008 California Proposition 8/Archive 3

Problems with the Very First Line of the Article
"Proposition 8 (commonly abbreviated Prop 8) is an initiative measure on the 2008 California General Election ballot titled Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry"

First off, Proposition 8 (and the various other state Propositions) are not "commonly abbreviated" as "Prop. 'X'." Sometimes radio and t.v. commercials will use the shortened term "Prop.," as "proposition" is a four-syllable word, and abbreviating it to "prop" makes it easier for them to squeeze more info into their 30-second ad slots, but as someone who's lived in this state since 1972, I can assure you people do not go around referring to "Prop. 8."

In any event, I have visited the Wikipedia articles for numerous state propositions in recent days (due primarily to the fact that I authored recent articles on two of them), and none of the other articles I visited included this "(commonly abbreviated as Prop 'X')" parenthetical in the first line. In my opinion, this is just one of those foolish things that gets added to an article when a bunch of people who don't normally edit articles suddenly jump into the fray. Not being one of those people, and within the spirit of bringing this article into conformity with all/nearly all other articles on California ballot initiatives, and by way of removing something that seemingly has no innate value to the article, I am going to delete the paranthetical in question. I'm confident no good argument for its inclusion can be made, but in the event I am mistaken, it can always be replaced. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, so there's more than just one problem with the first line.

"Proposition 8 is an initiative measure on the 2008 California General Election ballot titled Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry."


 * The first link in the article takes one of the initiative article (as a redirect from "ballot initiative"), while the second link takes one to the Initiative and referendum article (as a redirect from "ballot measure"). Not only is this sloppy and redundant, but it also perhaps calls into question whether those two articles ought not be Merged.  Since I find it very difficult to believe that a consensus would dispute my principal assertion from the previous sentence, I am going to take action to further improve that first line, thus eliminating the redundancy (as well as any unnecessary redirects, which presumably contribute, however slightly, to inefficiency within the site). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with your removal of the abbreviation (it's trivial/trivia), but I do disagree with the premise that it's not common; I've been hearing things like "prop 13" all my adult life, and Google hits for the "prop 8" abbreviation are currently >5X the full form. —EqualRights (talk) 13:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

In conversation, everyone calls it "Prop 8". The signs say "No on Prop 8". If you type "Prop 8" into the Wikipedia search, you're directed here. For the sake of clarity and definition, it's important to say somewhere that "Proposition 8" and the "Prop 8" are the same thing. &mdash; AssataShakur (talk) 11:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Supporters, opponents, news sources, both print and media, as well as commercials utilize the phrase "Prop 8." I have even heard politicians use "Prop 8." That's what Mayor Newsom said during a recent rally. It's well within the vernacular even if law professors might not say "Prop 8."Mercruz (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Italian
Can you please add the italian page California Proposition 8 (2008)? 84.103.208.134 (talk) 11:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Cultures of influence
Honestly, I think the sub-section called "cultures of influence" is the weakest part of this article. It relies on opinion polling data that's very fluid and that varies from pollster to pollster. I've just removed a sentence that said African-Americans supported the proposition because it conflicts with the latest poll (from Survey USA) which shows African Americans are equally split on the measure, 45–45%. Similarly, I've removed a sentence about Latinos being in favor by a six-point margin because the latest poll suggests that margin has almost halved to the point where it's within the margin of error (which, for the whole poll, is ±4% but will be significantly higher for demographic sub-groups which have a smaller sample size). Is there any merit in leaving in the rest of this paragraph if it includes only Asian-Americans? — Lincolnite (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We're thinking alike. I was about to post a question, exactly what is a "culture of influence"?  The term seems to have some minor currency as some kind of new way to think of or describe ethnic / racial / cultural group thinking.  But it's inherently POV to analyze opinions as racially based.  What does race have to do with same sex marriage anyway?  Why are some races "of influence" and others not?  Why are some groups' views important - why say that African Americans think differently about this than others?  Why not say that insurance executives, or suburbanites, or people from single-parent households, etc., have divergent views?  If there is sufficient weight in the reliable sources that there is a racial component, fine, it's notable.  For example it is very notable, and well covered by the sources, that blacks have a certain level of support for Barack Obama.  But are we going to report the black vote separately from the white (and other) votes on every single issue?  To report the intersection of race and politics as a matter of course seems divisive and unencylopedic.  Wikidemon (talk) 07:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What about something like "Straw polls by ethnicity" ? Although that too sounds rather absurd. I mean, I can see what the section is trying to do, but the section title makes it kinda weird. Pandacomics (talk) 06:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

difference between a constitutional revision and a constitutional amendment
In the Legal challenges section it says: "The question of whether Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment or constitutional revision remains unresolved." I have never heard of a constitutional revision before, and would have guessed that it is the same thing as a constitutional amendment. The difference between these terms should either be briefly explained in this section, or there should be a link to an article that explains the difference. Can some one explain the difference to me? Thanks. Noldoaran (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In the external links, REPLY Reply Brief in BENNETT v. BOWEN (HOLLINGSWORTH) S165420, includes an explanation on page two. Also see California Constitution Article XVIII  —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmeryvilleEric (talk • contribs) 19:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The second link you listed doesn't explain the difference between an amendment and a revision, and the first one is 41 pages. No one wants to wade through that big of a document to find the difference between the two. Either there needs to be an brief explanation of the terms in this article, or there needs to be a link to a source when the information can be viewed quickly. Can someone please add a link, or explanation? I would, but I haven't the slighted clue what the difference between an amendment and a revision is. Thanks, Noldoaran (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears that the REPLY brief argues that an amendment that defines marriage as that between only one man and one woman should be put before the voters in a deliberative revision process. The argument proceeds however, that some fundamental rights questions should not be put to the voters at all.  In short, the REPLY argues that the Constitution requires revision to go through a deliberative process.  Since Prop 8 is an initiative to amend, then it doesn't go through a more deliberative revision process, or so goes the argument.  The BRIEF argues that the initiative should be a revision.  While the initiative restricts the rights of all citizens as far as marriage goes, it has more of an effect on a certain people-group.  The BRIEF also argues that a revision would ensure that voters would better understand the issue.  That the law will inevitably apply only to same-sex couples because they're the only ones wanting to marry same-sex partners is the crux of the argument which also asserts that the deliberative safeguards to aid voters in that understanding are important. ElderHap (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * An amendment is a change to the state Constitution that seeks to elaborate or improve upon existing constitutional principles. Whereas a revision makes changes to the "underlying principles" upon which the Constitution is premised (Livermore, supra, 102 Cal. at pp. 117-119) and makes "far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan" (Amador Valley, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 223). EmeryvilleEric (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So, it seems to follow that a probable attack on the amendment will be premised upon an underlying principle that same-sex couples always had the right to marry and that that right is a fundamental right. ElderHap (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding ballot title
With reference to a self-deleted comment, for the benefit of new readers now joining us:


 * This matter has been extensively discussed in archived discussion and this has been the consensus wording for some months. The paragraph refers to the official title of the proposition on the ballot (please see the referenced citations) and outlines the history of why that language appears there. The "Ballot summary language" section also outlines this history and explains where that title appears. Please consider presenting something here other than a bare demand for revision of already settled language. Mike Doughney (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Results
Does anyone know when thr results are made public? 92.0.0.46 (talk) 09:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the local NBC affiliate I watched this morning, and depending on how close the tally is, the results may not be certified until as much as a week after today. Bastique demandez 16:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

According to http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/map190000000008.htm, it is currently leaning yes at 52.7% vs, 47.3%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.192.223.127 (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I edited the sentence regarding the effective date. Just to remove the passive voice in the grammar. But, looking at the Constitution, it seems that the Electors must first vote. Has that occurred? ElderHap (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I calculated the percentages based on the actual numbers reported here as of 12 November, and they don't add up to the percentages? If you divide the 'for' and 'against' votes by the total number of votes INCL invalids (which is the total reflected in this section) - the percentages are 51.2% and 46.7% respectively, with the invalid votes at 2.2% of this total (this adds up to 100%). If you divide the 'for' and 'against' votes by the total number of votes EXCL invalids - the percentages are 52.3% and 47.7% respectively (this adds up to 100%). So what's the deal?Nebelation (talk) 08:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure. But the SoS site has updated results again as of 10:07 p.m. I don't have time to make the changes now, but the percentages are the ones you stated (but more ballots are also included). Gambit2392 (talk) 09:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your math is correct, and your calculated percentages reflect the true "will of the people", but a ballot initiative passes when the Yes votes exceed the No votes, blank ballots don't count toward or against the passage of an initiative. The Secretary of State therefore reports the percentages based on only the Yes and No totals. The result template the article uses is not the best solution when presenting ballot initiatives. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've updated the results table, hopefully the new format will clarify things. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What in the world is this?

 * According to Joan Hollinger, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, "Constitutional scholars agree that the amendment cannot be effective retroactively."[27] This is a reference to the prohibition of ex post facto law by Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution.

Huh? That makes as much sense as quoting a law professor as saying that the amendment would apply on Tuesdays, because scholars agree that all amendments apply on Tuesdays unless they specifically say otherwise.

The only way this could be more than an irrelevant remark is if there was debate over whether the amendment was retroactive. However, no such debate is mentioned in the article.

I suspect that the intent of this paragraph was to say that existing marriages cannot be invalidated because laws aren't retroactive, but that you can't get away with making a WP:SYNTH like that, so it was whittled down to this pointless-by-itself quote. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ex post facto laws of the federal Constitution deals with Congress passing laws that makes an act criminal that was legal before the law was passed. This change to California constitution doesn't deal with a criminal act, so it doesn't conflict with ex post facto. If ex post facto applied to non-criminal retroactive changes to a constitution, then that would be very significant and novel. However, I would not bet on it or attend any additional classes being taught by Joan Hollinger.


 * Actually if you read the Wikipedia quote carefully, only the quote itself is attributed to a professor. The interpretation that it refers to the ex post facto laws in the US Constitution isn't attributed to anything at all.
 * I'm deleting it. The ex post facto part for being unsourced (and as you say wrong), and the quote itself for being irrelevant unless it was intended as a WP:SYNTH. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Title of proposition is wrong
What is provided and cited in the article is the summary, not the title. You can see here that it is actually titled the "California Marriage Protection Act," and not "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry." 67.135.49.198 (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know how it looks on your screen, but about three inches above this section is another section titled "Regarding ballot title" and I'll again repeat this chunk of text from that section for reference.

This matter has been extensively discussed in archived discussion and this has been the consensus wording for some months. The paragraph refers to the official title of the proposition on the ballot (please see the referenced citations) and outlines the history of why that language appears there. The "Ballot summary language" section also outlines this history and explains where that title appears. Please consider presenting something here other than a bare demand for revision of already settled language. Mike Doughney (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Mike Doughney (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I provided a reference explicitly stating the title of the measure. I'm not surprised you overlooked/ignored it. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I note your IP address places you in Minnesota... I suppose you couldn't see for yourself what was on the California ballot yesterday, but all the references in this article indicate that the ballot title was that which is stated in this article, and this article goes into excruciating detail at least twice as to the differences between the proponent's title, the state's titles (two of them), and why the titles appeared as they did. Mike Doughney (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Mike is correct. In Southern California, the ballot title discussed in this article ("Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry") was that listed on the ballot, although the proponents did indeed orginally intend it to read differently ("California Marriage Protection Act").  See the section titled "Changes to ballot title and summary." Mrbell (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ex post facto reasoning
I've added a citation needed tag to the sentence after Professor Hollinger's legal analysis. The Advocate article doesn't give ex post facto as a reason for the Professor's previous sentence, and ex post facto analysis is complicated. But, as a general rule, the ex post facto clause does not apply to civil actions, only criminal laws. See Calder v. Bull. It's likely that the Professor's referencing more general due process concerns, or perhaps the contracts clause of the constitution, or California constitutional doctrine.

I don't know the answer, but the ex post facto explanation is questionable at best, and deserves a citation if it's going to remain.LH (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The ex post facto reasoning is flawed and Professor Hollinger did not make that claim. Her reference is more likely to state law.  Ballot initiatives are not retro active unless they state that they are.  The exact language is citable, I think the exact language is in the ballot statutes language or it might be in the Secretary of State initiative process instructions.  To further complicate the issue, Prop 8 doesn't state that it is retro active, but the "rebuttal to argument against Proposition 8" mentions "...only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in California, regardless of where or when performed" and the Proponents mentioned it again in their acceptance press release.  As was mentioned during the campaign and is also citable the first legal battles will be over what effect, if any, the argument statements have on the retroactivity of the amendment.  EmeryvilleEric (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The text of the proposition says only marriage between a man and a woman "will" be valid or recognized in California [that is from this point on]. So this has nothing to do with retroactively affecting gay "marriages" directly. In other words it doesn't do anything to them in the form of penalties or whatnot. It basically states that they don't count as marriages now. The ex post facto argument is completely unrelated to the nature of this amendment. EmeraldElement (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So, it won't "undo" the marriages. It mandates legal recognition of only man/woman marriages. ElderHap (talk) 03:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The text is: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." So, it is possible that current same-sex couples can be affected as the text of the amendment is what matters. Gambit2392 (talk) 03:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * With further information, it seems that a reasonable understanding of the retroactivity of the amendment may lead some to believe certain repercussions flow from it. For example, homosexual couples filing state income tax returns may believe they are liable for any additional taxes or penalties as a result of the law.  That is, they may think that the retroactivity voids their marriage ab initio, and that their tax returns need to be amended.  It is unlikely to be reality, however.  --ElderHap (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding off topic comments
That is a fine explanation, but I do not think this is the best place to post it - this page is for suggesting and working out improvements to the article. Perhaps there is an article devoted to varying Christian beliefs about same sex marriage. Wikidemon (talk) 06:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note that this talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for the posting of lengthy tracts or diatribes that have nothing to do with editing the article. I've removed the tract to which you replied. Such comments may be removed immediately, as they tend to spark flamewars and other unproductive activity. Editors are reminded of these guidelines via the header at the top of the page. The user who has posted this material has been reminded of the talk page guidelines on their user talk page. Mike Doughney (talk) 06:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

did it pass?
!St. Puid, Head of Assisi 12:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably, but not done counting; see http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/59.htm —EqualRights (talk) 12:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

As of 1222 my time (UK), CNN.com tells me - 90% Precincts reporting. YES 52% NO 48% doktorb wordsdeeds 12:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "passed with 52.1% of the vote, against 47.9% opposed, with 94.6% of precints reporting." WSJ.com --Pmsyyz (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The Associated Press is reporting that the measure has passed (see )

The article has been updated with data and cite from the California Secretary of State's office, which still shows only 96.4% reporting. Presumably not enough left uncounted to change the outcome, which is why and how the AP calls it. I would prefer to make it clear in the article that these are still incomplete and unofficial results. Mike Doughney (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Editors are quick to finalize things, but it may be worthwhile to note that the Secretary of State said that number of mail-in and provisional ballots won't be known until Thursday. Third-party estimates on the number of uncounted ballots range from 2-4 million. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It passed, but was promptly swatted with a lawsuit over the legality of the method of changing the Constitution. California has pretty silly laws, after all. 204.52.215.13 (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

What happened at the 1st lawsuit? Mr. Invisible Person (talk) 04:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If by "first" you mean the lawsuits filed before the election they were all decided or dismissed - it got on the ballot and there were no pending suits as of election day. Previous legal challenges did not take it off the ballot.  The current status is that upon official certification of its passage (I don't know what that involves) it immediately alters the constitution, unless and until a court decides otherwise.  At present three new suits have been reported.  Any litigation over its validity could get dismissed quickly, but if not dismissed would take many months or even years to go through the litigation process.  Pending the outcome of the litigation a court could enjoin it from taking effect, completely or in parts, meaning it would be in limbo until the court finally rules one way or the other, or there is some intervening event (like another referendum that renders the dispute a moot issue).  In the meanwhile the counties performing marriages do not feel they have any choice but to assume the new provision is in effect unless they are told otherwise.  A few counties have taken the position that they will wait until the state tells them to stop performing marriages, but most have stopped on their own.  That's just my summary understanding from memory and not an attempt to justify an edit, so I won't take the time to find sources or citations on that.  Wikidemon (talk) 06:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Needs approval by Assembly/Senate?
I've heard that initiative amendments still require approval by the state senate and assembly. Is this true? Is there some other way for them to stop it? If so, how likely is it that they will? --67.187.245.214 (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You've apparently misheard. Article 18, Section three of the California Constitution says "The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative."  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The first part of your question is relevant, as it determines editing this article for present tense. As far as other stopping means, that's a political forum subject.


 * This article is ready for some update, to reflect the vote and present.Mdvaden (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The State Supreme Court can still overturn the Proposition. Remember that Prop 22 passed with over a 60% majority, and it was overturned on the grounds of being a Human rights violation. Well this time the voting margin is much narrower, so I'm still hopefull. 92.20.241.184 (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect to this article - please note, all comments here should be directed toward edits/improvements to the article - I would like to see some citations that would indicate what options may or may not exist for opponents of the proposition, and for that matter, by what means proponents intend to deal with those who have marriages that they claim are now invalidated. Most other propositions are not amendments to the state Constitution, as this one was. Mike Doughney (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Partially answering my own question - the first lawsuit hits: . Also: . Perhaps we should start thinking about adding an 'Aftermath' section. Mike Doughney (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there will definitely be legal battles and opinions to go around. I suppose the new challenges could go in the legal challenges section. Maybe pre and post election subheadings?EmeryvilleEric (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

'nominee' Barack Obama?
Barack Obama is in this line, still a 'presidental nominee', but since Nov. 4, he's a president-elect.

Democratic presidential nominee and U.S. Senator Barack Obama stated that he personally considers marriage to be between a man and woman, and supports civil unions that confer comparable rights rather than gay marriage.

I suppose a small change could be done here. /Linkeeey (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Because he was the nominee when he said it, the statement is probably okay as is. Alanraywiki (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You can say "then presidential nominee...," but he's not the president elect until the electors vote. 171.71.36.248 (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Changing it would only add confusion - it's convention that the titles, etc. that are used are those held at the time of action, yes? Mike Doughney (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But he's the presumptive president elect. And the election of the Electoral College is mostly a formality those days anyhow because the electors are generally pledged to vote for specific candidates. 204.52.215.13 (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps titled "Then-Democratic Presidential Nominee" would be more appropriate for the time when the quote was taken? 128.205.228.246 (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably need to add that Obama's promised repeal of DOMA will be a step toward invalidating the amendment. --ElderHap (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I like this - it's not clear to me why it needs to be done tonight but it seems some find the old wording jarring. I'm sure most of the planet knows Obama's the President-elect and all the events in this article occurred before yesterday, but that, of course, isn't always going to be clear. Mike Doughney (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Results Addition
the article mentions the vote percentage, and 3 million absentee ballots, but not the difference in votes (ie about 400,000). From Reference #8 (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20081105-0828-ca-gaymarriage.html): "With 95 percent of precincts reprorting, the ban had 5,163,908 votes, or 52 percent, while there were 4,760,336 votes, or 48 percent, opposed, a difference of about 400,000 votes. Late absentee and provisional ballots meant as many as 3 million ballots were left to be counted after all precinct votes were tallied". Bluescrubbie (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)bluescrubbie


 * Done - . Difference calculated from the current SOS result, not the newspaper report. Mike Doughney (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Bias
I feel that this article had a clear bias. Reading it, it was obvious that the author was against Proposition 8. It is unacceptable that an article about a topic so delicate as this is biased...especially when the propsition was, in fact, passed!

Mccabea (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well fix it! It has in fact not officially passed either.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 00:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * User Mccabea doesn't appear to have made sufficient edits to autoconfirm and edit this page. I will also note a few other things. This article is the product of more than a few editors who've been working on it since last summer sometime, and I'm pretty sure those editors came from a variety of viewpoints both for and against the measure. From my experience of editing this article over the past few weeks, it appears to me that the very act of chronicling the legislative and judicial history of this matter must in and of itself be mistaken for "bias" by some readers, judging by the sheer volume of restorals of content I've had to do, and in particular, the repeated restoring of the legal title of the measure on the ballot as all you Californians who voted saw it yesterday. I've often called for specific charges of bias to be aired here and suggestions for changes, as can be seen on the archived talk page, and I still haven't received any significant suggestions along those lines, just vague accusations of "bias." I've also invited comments here for changes since the page was protected, and again, while content often gets modified or deleted in the absence of protection, those same changes aren't discussed here in any detail after protection. This is not to invite a flamewar, I'm just repeating - if you think the article is biased, please say precisely how. I'd like to know. Mike Doughney (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Dontations
The "Contributions" table is outdated and needs to be put back up to date. According to the Los Angeles Times, there has been more than than $74 million in contributions, all together on both the "yes" and "no" side. The opposition side ended up receiving more money, which contradicts the current edit that says the supporting side received more donations. Someone please update the table, thanks. : ] --Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Source: Los Angeles Times: PROPOSITION 8- Tracking the money

There is a lot of disinformation about the extent of actual contribution from the Mormon church. This needs to be clarified with facts to maintain a NPOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.254.150 (talk) 04:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10842051

"The in-kind donation of $2,078.97 from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was made on Oct. 25 to ProtectMarriage.com, a coalition of faith organizations and conservative groups supporting Proposition 8." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.254.150 (talk) 04:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the section on Proponents has a misleading line about the number of campaign donations from Utah. Here's the Wiki, "About 45% of out-of-state contributions to ProtectMarriage.com came from Utah, over three times more than any other state", and here's the source, "Among the 12 percent of total donations to ProtectMarriage.com. that came from outside California, about 45 percent came from Utah — over three times more than any other state, state records show. About 21 percent of donations to Equality California came from outside the Golden State." Since there is no other commentary on any other state, or even on the amount of donations from out of state in the Opponents section (which strikes me as odd since more of the donations came from out of state on that one), what's the point of including the Utah line? 24.119.152.219 (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Mormon "Church" encouraging Spam and Astroturfing
Though web pages like this

http://www.whatisprop8.com/how-to-blog-about-prop-8.html

and

http://www.whatisprop8.com/dna.html

Which encourages members to form an "army" and spam websites.

This page used to have an attribution to the "Church" of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints at the bottom, but was removed. archive.org, however, still shows it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.95.36 (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * All those pages prove is that someone tried to connect the sites to the LDS Church. That sort of thing happens all the time, with religious, political, and corporate instutions as well. I've been receiving e-mail and fax spam for years attributing things to the UN and Nigerian government, complete with URLs to fake websites; does that mean the UN and Nigeria really endorsed those sites or made thos statements? Of course not. Do you have any sources which prove the attributions were authentically indicative of an actual connection to the Mormon church? Given what the LDS Church ACTUALLY said to its membership in all of its announcements, both in their regular Sunday meetings and official statements, those sites seem more likely the work of people who hoped to increase their support-base by pretending to have official support from the LDS Church (or implying it anyway). Awakeandalive1 (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It's over, or not
Here are the current conditions as of about 02:00 UTC, 6 November:


 * As of about three hours ago, the Associated Press reported, in a story titled "Millions of votes left to be counted in California," that "between 2.6 million and 3 million remain to be tallied." Also mentioned is that election officials will spend the next month "poring over several million absentee and provisional ballots," as the writer puts it.


 * No on Prop 8 refuses to concede. Their website says "we must wait to hear from the Secretary of State tomorrow how many votes are yet to be counted as well as where they are from." An e-mail from No on Prop 8 that I received about two hours ago says, "The No on Prop 8 campaign has determined that, given the incredible gravity of the situation, we will not issue the ultimate call on this election until we have more information (24-48 hours)."

It seems a number of editors have gone through and changed the article's language to reflect the passing of the election. Clearly with about 3 million outstanding ballots and a difference of about 500,000, there is a very small chance of reversal, but only if the outstanding ballots run 2-1 against the proposition.

Seems to me that the refusal of No on Prop 8 to concede yet should at least be included with the fact that 3 million ballots remain outstanding. I should also point out that in my view, it's not up to Wikipedia editors to "call" an election in the manner of the news media, only to rely on those "reliable sources" for verification. Thus the fact that media sources have called the election themselves, independent of the state, should be attributed somehow, rather than simply changing the article to make it appear as if the election is officially over, which it is not. Mike Doughney (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't over yet. I've been reverting all day, along with the 3 gay marriage templates, and a few other pages. They all need to be protected. We need to wait till all votes are counted, and any potential lawsuits, that are going to be filed.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 02:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Add that content to the article, Mike. People were confused by the future election tag, so I did what was necessary to remove it. The intro definitely should state that there is legal action being taken, and that the results have not been certified.Synchronism (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've re-added the current election tag, since the election results are still pending. Please let me know if this is still too confusing to readers. chrylis (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid it is over. At least for now, pending law suits. ABC 7 reported that the city of san Francisco has stopped issuing marriage licences to same-sex couple today. The city website implies that this decision could be reversed if final poll results show that the proposition failed to pass, but for now they are working on the assumption that it did. Passportguy (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, still 3 million ballets need counting, it isn't over. Ya, I'm sure it will pass, but wait for all ballots to be counted.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 02:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not calling this either way. I'm just saying that the city of San Francisco, as of today, is no longer issuing marriage licences to same-sex couples (see the link above). They may start again soon, depeding on what happens in the courts or if final results of the poll are different, but for now - at least in San Francisco - same-sex marriage is suspended. Passportguy (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What's the rush or harm either way? For now we can just say that although some ballots have yet to be counted and the official results have not been announced, major media are announcing that the proposition passed.  It almost certainly will pass, so there is probably no harm in jumping the gun, and we could always fix the article in the unlikely event it did not pass.  At the same time, I see no harm waiting until tomorrow or whenever the results are official to report the passage.  This edit does not seem worth getting worked up about.  Wikidemon (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The only SF thing I see is to bar arrests for prostitution, nothing about not issuing marriage licenses. Why rush? The US is a democracy, where every vote counts, not all but 3 million  C T J F 8 3 Talk 02:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * “'This city is no longer marrying people' of the same sex, Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, announced at a grim news conference at City Hall" (Bans in 3 States on Gay Marriage) —EqualRights (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's nice for San Francisco, but California is a big state. While the prop passes for now, three million votes is probably enough to swing the prop over to failure. A note saying that most major news outlets are announcing pass might be warranted, but without all the votes tallied, I have to agree that it's not 100% final yet. --CCFreak2K (talk) 07:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * LA has followed suit . Almost all other cities will likely follow. I think this needs to be included in the article somehow. Even if Prop 8 ends up failing (due to vote or legal challenge) the fact that two of the largest cities (and likely others) have stopped issuing mariage licences because of the results is in and of itself notable ! - Passportguy (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ctjf83 can continue to hold his breath on this, but the LA Times and many others report that it's passed. SF and LA have stopped issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. They've accepted the outcome. Waiting for the final tally in December is just denial and holding the article hostage to an individual's POV. Update it and move on. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 00:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that if these things are reported in the press, they should be included in the article. However, I am not sure I agree that this is all over.  There are court challenges that must also be reported on.--Blue Tie (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Btphelps, it isn't over till all ballots are counted. That's how Democracy works! You clearly have a POV for the amendment, while I have one against. So leave it, till all ballots are counted. I also don't appreciate your oppressive comments on us "holding it hostage" on our POV. Of course you don't care about the other ballots that hold a slight chance of upholding gay marriage, you're a straight, white, male and have the world on a silver platter for you.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 04:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't intend to intrude, but assuming he's white is incorrectly prejudiced. Less than 50% of whites and Asians supported Proposition 8, as opposed to the majorities of blacks and Hispanics who supported it. Just letting you know. Gambit2392 (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Take 30 seconds to look at his user page, and you'll see that he is.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 07:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A few individuals on Wikipedia vs. the millions who affirmed Proposition 8 is a minority. When a minority refuses to acknowledge the will of the majority and prevents access by that majority to property or individuals until the minority's specified terms are met, the property or persons are by Wikipeida's own definition held Hostage.


 * Wikipedia's accuracy is based on verifiability, not POV. Another fact found on the Nov. 10 San Francisco Chronicle is that "81 percent of white evangelicals voted yes." A third fact is that 52% of the 95% of the votes cast by the electorate to date affirmed democracy. No one has provided any verifiable sources supporting the idea that pending votes to be tallied will change the outcome of Proposition 8. Thus the refusal to acknowledge the results of the election, and the continual reverting by, in this instance, a single user, makes it one person's opinion but does not revert the election, which is a fait accompli. The facts can be reverted until the very last vote is tallied, but based on verifiable sources, will not change the facts. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't you do a little research. These  users also reverted back to present tense, it just happens that I get to it first, most of the time. Some me a source or two that says the vote is actually in effect, not just that cities have stopped issuing licenses.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 20:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * First, counties issue marriage licenses (San Francisco is both a city and a county, so it has a unique situation). Second, when Proposition 8 goes into effect, it will bring an end to same-sex couples being issued marriage licenses, which is exactly what has happened in many counties, including San Francisco which one would expect to wait until the absolute last moment before halting the distribution of same-sex licenses. Also, the California Constitution states that such an initiative takes effect the day immediately after the election. I may just be misunderstanding your argument, but your most recent comment makes it sound like you are desperately trying to insert your POV into the article, since it is obvious that Proposition 8 has already taken effect. You ask for evidence that it has taken effect, then you say "not just that cities have stopped issuing licenses," which is the proposition's intent... Gambit2392 (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The election results won't be certified until December 9th, if Prop 8 is certified, then it is effective as of November 5th. It looks like Prop 8 has passed and I don't see a problem with the article saying that it has unofficially passed with 80% of the ballots counted.  Some counties have stopped issuing marriage licenses, because they don't want to have to deal with the November 5th - December 9th gray zone, and possibly have to invalidate licenses later, others (San Francisco and Santa Clara) have stopped issuing marriage licenses, so they would have grounds to sue over Prop 8.  The determining factor will be to watch what the supreme court does and says about Prop 8, will they wait until after December 9th when the election is finalized or will they issue something sooner.  My guess is that they will tell the parties that they will address the issue after the election results are certified. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ya, so we should wait till the results are certified and any response from the Supreme Court. Surprisingly, even Schwarzenegger, now supports gay marriage and the overturning of prop 8.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 00:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The New York Times, LA Times , and San Francisco Chronicle have reported that Proposition 8 has been defeated. These are verifiable facts. I still have not seen anyone offer any verifiable sources supporting the POV of a few minority individuals holding the article hostage that waiting for the remaining votes to be counted will change anything.


 * Gambit2392 is correct. According to the California Constitution:


 * CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
 * ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION


 * SEC. 4. A proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise.


 * Denying reality does not change it. It's an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary, otherwise known as a "delusion". -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 17:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Instead of name calling and an all or nothing attitude, why don't we work for consensus. The vote for Prop 8 happened on November 4th, so it should be referred to in the past tense.  As to the Constitution, the section cited speaks to when approved amendments go into effect, not when the vote is certified.  It is true that some papers have called the election; they wouldn't sell many papers if they waited until December 9th to report the results.  Prop 8 is most likely going to pass, the 16% of the vote that does remain to be counted is predominately from counties that supported Prop 8, but the vote count is not official until it is certified by the Secretary of State.  So for now, why not include all that in the article and everybody wins.  The section can be revised again if the Supreme Court issues a stay or with the final language on December 9th. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the vote is an event to which reference should be made in the past tense. The instance of the law's effect is likewise a past event because of the mandate of the state's Constitution.  The exercise of California's police powers in executing the new law have occurred (refusals to license), are occurring, and will occur.  The only events to which one can properly refer as prospective are 1) those exercises of the aforementioned police powers that occur upon the state's forthcoming recognitions of same-sex rituals, ceremonies, and solemnizations as unavailing of the application of the title, "married," to the parties; or 2) the non-exercises of the same which became illegal on November 5.  --ElderHap (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Article rewrite
Now that the election is over, some of the stuff looks excessive. For one we should eliminate the polling section because it's moot. The section on the reliability of the polling data is especially moot. The proposition had somewhat more support than the polls indicated but not vastly so - it might be worth a sentence tops if there's a strong post-election analysis of the polls' accuracy. But really, that's for another article on polls. The lengthy list of proponents and opponents ought to be condensed. The issue is it passed. A brief break-down of the key demographic issues may be in order, probably no more than a paragraph or so. Also, the support for the measure flip-flopped so that might be worth reporting (but maybe not - that's normal). The history of the campaign ought to be put in one place, and likely trimmed considerably. I'll implement some of these but I don't know how far I'll get. Wikidemon (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a very concise lead for a truly contentious topic.Synchronism (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * True, but I did not eliminate anything pertinent. The long second paragraph was seemingly contentious/argumentative material regarding the naming of the amendment that is completely moot now that it passed.  If sourced, a statement that the renaming of the amendment by the attorney general, which was challenged unsuccessfully, caused a slight decrease in support, might belong somewhere in the article but it is not one of the key issues.  The third paragraph was just added, and is just a note that the official results are not in.  If we expand the lead it should summarize a few choice things about the campaign, the history, the context amidst 20-something other states that have banned gay marriages, that it is undergoing challenge, etc.  None of that was in the lead before.  It was a long lead with very little content.  I think the best approach might be to work on the body of the article to reflect the post-election state of things, and then expand the lead by summarizing what looks most notable from the article.  Wikidemon (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the pre-vote polls are also currently over-rated in the article and have added comments in the appropriate section to this effect. I do think, however, that the "Results" section should include a breakdown of where and from whom the amendment got support and opposition, based on exit polling--a demographic breakdown by relevant factors: geographic, ethnic, gender, religious, etc.  From the data I have seen, income and education did not play much of a role.  Gun ownership and support for the Iraq war, however, did play a big role.--Bhuck (talk) 09:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"Civil Writes Issue"
Big Typo in the first section "...civil writes (rights) issue."

76.11.143.213 (talk) 07:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Luke

Proposed change to first line
Hi, everyone. I want to discuss this in good faith before being bold. Shouldn't Prop 8 be correctly described as a 'proposed amendment' or an 'amendment to propose'? It is not actually an amendment until it, firstly, passes the vote, and secondly, is sent through the legislature. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Richard. I think that it does not have to go through the legislature.  However, it is not final until the Secretary of State declares the vote. So it probably should be "proposed" for a few more weeks. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Threats of death?
Have there been any widespread death threats, shootings, or stabbings against the voters of California for passing this that needs to be noted? Some sort of talk of revolution that involves pistol-whipping and kicking the voters who approved this while they're huddled in a fetal position and begging for it to stop? Are there any reports of this at this time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.224.64.170 (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll take that as a real question. No, I have seen no reports of violence.  There are some vigils and peaceful protests, and a lot of upset.  There is some talk of boycotting businesses who donated money.  For the most part this is not directed at California because the majority of other states have outlawed same sex marriages on way or another too.  Certain liberals in New York are using it to claim that they're more enlightened than Californian, and the Californians respond that New York does not have gay marriage either.Wikidemon (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * New York, unlike California, does recognize gay marriages performed in Canada, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Belgium, South Africa, Spain and the Netherlands.--Bhuck (talk) 09:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Should a section be added dealing with the protests and especially those that are directed against the mormon church? It seems that this would be an appropriate section to add at this time.64.244.37.206 (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that no comparable protests, threats or actions are being taken (or at least being reported) against Catholics, Conservative/Orthodox Jews, Evangelical Christian groups, African-American and Latino community groups, or any of the other major communities/organizations which supported the proposition, I'd say a section is probably warranted. There's a protest at the Mormon temple in Manhattan scheduled for Wednesday. The fact that Mormons are being singled out and made the primary visible target of attack is not a unique historical phenomenon, but it's definitely relevant here. You might also want to create a separate section for Catholic reactions, since the SF Chronicle just reported that Californian Catholic authorities asked for Mormon help, and Catholic leaders have apparently been speaking out in defense of Mormon support of "Prop. 8." Awakeandalive1 (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Potentially relevant articles: From: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27669478/
 * 'Exit polls in California showed that the gay marriage ban received a majority from black voters, which has prompted some gay leaders to complain that they were abandoned by a minority group that should understand discrimination.'
 * 'Kathryn Kolbert, a black lesbian who is president of People for the American Way, a Washington-based group that monitors the religious right, was so worried about a backlash that she wrote a memo to colleagues, warning it is wrong and self-defeating to blame black voters for the outcome.'
 * '"It's always easy to scapegoat when you are feeling bitter about a loss," Kolbert said. "What we do in America when we are frustrated is blame the people we always blame."'
 * Also: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27677272
 * '"We're not trying to convey an image of persecution, we're not trying to attack any specific group," said Ryan McNeely, an organizer for the Join the Impact protest movement.'

Referendum not election
"On the day after the election, the results remain uncertified,". It should read "On the day after the referendum, the results remain uncertified,". There is a difference between a referendum and election. 81.140.78.90 (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But it is the day after the election, not the day after the referendum. I don't think it fairly characterizes the mass exercise in public voting a "referendum".  It was an election during which the question was on the ballot.  What is the generic name for a "going to the polls" event?  We could call it a "vote".  Calling it a "poll" or a "ballot" is a little colloquial sounding.  Any other words?  Wikidemon (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Wikidemon. Plays on wording here only degrade an article already lacking in common sense terminology.  I'd suggest to  leave it how people will understand it.  Digital Ninja  19:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Referendum has a specific meaning in California, it is used when the people vote on what the legislature has already passed. The term is not appropriate in this context.  Prop 8 was an initiative not a referendum. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's official! It's passed!
Fortunately, the bill is passed and over with. Hopefully this clears up any discussion. FOX, CNN, CBS, and SkyNews all report on the final recount as "passed".  Digital Ninja  17:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Again still 3 million votes to be counted.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 18:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, they'll figure it out soon so we can get this article updated.  Digital Ninja  19:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Noonprop8 have now conceded defeat on their website. Passportguy (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We should still wait for the 3 million ballots....ya, I'm probably just delaying the inevitable, but eh.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 20:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Article updated to reflect No on 8 concession, replacing previous holding out for more info. Mike Doughney (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I reverted it. They can concede all they want, the state is still going to count the 3 million votes. John Kerry Conceded in 2000, and took it back, just like No on 8 can do.   C T J F 8 3 Talk 22:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove factual, cited information from the article. The fact that the primary organizers of the opposition conceded is an indicator of where things stand. (I sympathize with your frustration at the outcome, for what its worth.) Mike Doughney (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not all about that, I'm not directly affected anyway. We need to wait for all 3 million votes, whether they conceded or not.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 22:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody should add anything to the article that hasn't become a reality through verification (see here why). I'd have to agree with Ctjf83 on on this.  Digital Ninja  22:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Concession statements have absolutely no legal standing. It's the vote count that matters, and we don't know what the final result is yet (although it looks highly likely that the vote passed). - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Still not updated as passed, and yet California Proposition 4 (2008) is displayed as rejected. Hypertechnical arguments shining a bright light on the intellectual dishonesty inherent to the failed project that is Wikipedia. I thought it a nice idea once. In hindsight, I'm glad I didn't donate. Apparently, policies (WP:SYNTH, etc.) cannot make up for lack of good will. Does anyone reflect on why Wikipedia references aren't taken seriously? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.134.114 (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Issues with article
There is some suspicious plays on wording here, not to mention completely lacking sourcing, that I propose to remove or reword. The main issue is the first sentence nonetheless, which reads:


 * Proposition 8 was an amendment to the California Constitution that eliminated the recently recognized fundamental right of same-sex couples to marry.

What the hell is that? How can that be an unbiased way of describing a proposition when national news organizations don't even go that far? I propose the following rewording:


 * Proposition 8 is a California State ballot proposition which amends the state Constitution by overturning current legislation and eliminating same-sex marriage.

This is a much more neutral way of stating it. In my opinion, this entire article needs a rewrite. Examples can be seen both anti-prop 8 and pro-prop 8 throughout the entire prose. It's like a war zone, really.  Digital Ninja 


 * I'll remain as neutral as possible. Since I "made you" fix your neutrality issues on the talk page, go ahead and change it to the second one, it is more neutral.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 19:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input, I appreciate it. I too vow to remain neutral!  I was reading the article trying to wrap my head around everything that is happening, and it really does swing wildly.  However, I found this in attempt to solidify my case and make sure it's the best possible way.  However, the ballot itself uses the word right, so I maybe it should be this:


 * Proposition 8 is a California State ballot proposition which amends the state Constitution by eliminating legislation that previously made same-sex marriage a right of state citizens.

What do you think about this?  Digital Ninja  20:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, you didn't "make me" fix my point of view, you simply made me realize that my wording was a little dickish. And then, you subsequently made me feel bad :) (however I do appreciate it bring brought to my attention.  Nobody wants to be a dick!)  Digital Ninja  20:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL, that is why I put quotes in. Ya, your latest proposal is good, but legislation never made it legal, so that is inaccurate. It was the State Supreme Court.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 20:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahhh, good point! It wouldn't have made it legal.  I tried a new version, let me know what you think.  The source for the ballet title is the PDF I posted a few paragraphs above.  I think it flows much more neutral, now just have to work out inaccuracies :)  Digital Ninja  20:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

(<-) Ok, what do you think about the way it reads now? All I know is, ILIKEIT, but that doesn't mean I'm not open to criticism!  Digital Ninja  20:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, looks good.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 20:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There is pending litigation over "amend" vs. "revise", perhaps using "change", like the ballot language, would be more neutral until the issue is resolved. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't see any POV issues with amend or revise or change, for that matter. So if you want to change it to change, that is fine with me.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 20:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I noticed that, so I added the actual ballot language directly to the article. It's the second sentence.  However, it is a ballot (so that has to be there), and it did reverse a Supreme Court decision (so that has been added), and the language is now in there, so I think we're good.  Of course, anyone can tweak what I added if they feel the need :)  Digital Ninja  20:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. "Change" isn't even in the lead anymore.


 * It happens to override a part of a supreme court decision, but the wording makes it sound like the purpose of Prop 8 was to override the decision. Prop 8 started long before (2005) the court case ruling (2008) and there is no causal relationship between the two. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The way I understand it, somebody chime in if I'm incorrect, is that no current legislation directly supports same-sex marriage and the only reason it's going on is due to a Supreme Court decision. This makes the Supreme Court decision completely relevant.  Secondly, the fact that Prop 8 started before or after is irrelevant simply as now there is a casual relationship; e.g. Constitutional amendment trumps Supreme Court Decision...  Digital Ninja  21:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I replaced "to" and inserted "and" to give equal weight to both. I agree that it did kind of sound like it was speaking towards the decision. Now, it should sound better.  Digital Ninja  21:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the right to have same-sex marriage is common law, not legislation. Secondly, you shouldn't speak about 'rights' like this. So far as the law is concerned, something being legal does not make it a 'right'. Third, people other than citizens can marry. Fourthly, Prop 8 affects the recognition of marriages from outside the state in addition to affecting those who want to marry inside the state. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I get most of your points (however the right to same sex marriage is not a common law right, obviously) and I made some adjustments to the wording, along with Wikidemon to clarify it. I admit that sometimes my edits are completely nonsensical, and I contribute that to my excessive ADHD disorder, which I'm working on :-D  Digital Ninja  15:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Protectmarriage.com letter to Equality California donors
The previous discussion of this matter has been moved to the archive. Please reopen fresh discussion below without copying archived material, doing so makes it difficult to keep this page to a manageable size. Mike Doughney (talk) 04:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The latest discussion in this now re-archived material *is* fresh, and it is a genuine attempt to improve this article. Please respond to the discussion rather than archiving. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.237.76 (talk) 04:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The last edit to that section of the talk page was fully 3 days ago, which is in no way "fresh," an eternity considering real-world events and the amount of activity that has centered on this article over the last three days. It is unclear which issue you are again raising, but clearly, no other editor agreed that changes to the article were necessary. The citations of the letter itself were made via a Wikipedia citation template which includes both a link to the copy of the material and a date of access. If this is the issue which you are revisiting, please offer a specific example of the changes you feel are necessary. Mike Doughney (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Not every contributor and potential contributor to Wikipedia hovers over a page that interests them. Yes, it is understandable that an article on this topic has undergone a flurry of activity at this time. Thank you for keeping on top of it.

The text of citation 61 lists ProtectMarriage.com as the source, not noonprop8.com. Please change this to noonprop8.com. (If this is still unclear please refer to ).

It is surprising that californiansagainsthate.com is considered a moot issue. Why not add a section featuring its activities and impact? It is an officially registered organization run by a veteran political activist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueDigDog (talk • contribs)
 * Fixed.— Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 07:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of good info/rationalizations/excuses from both sides of the issue in the cited SF Gate article that is not included. I have attempted to include most of it to permit a more balanced representation of the article, but it may be too much of a giant quote. Any ideas? Should we include a picture of the letter, or would that be too much? MrBell (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And then I just read the archive on the subject. Was there a consensus reached regarding the content?  Should my changes be reverted? MrBell (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Black vote and other voting results by ethnicity.
Blacks overwhelmingly vote YES on prop 8, 71%, of them [saw in on CNN, google it for a reference], i think such a dramatic fact like this needs to be incorporated in the article. It was the only group that overwelming vote on one side, most other ethnic groups were about 50/50, whites actaully were more on the NO side. The ethnic make up of the results should be in the results sections. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Last I checked, there was only one exit poll providing these figures. Might be a POV/undue weight issue here. Mike Doughney (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw the CNN exit poll, too. Based on things like geographic distribution of yes votes and geographic distribution of the black population, I think a correlation is quite likely here, but it might be POV if we focus only on the black vote.  The Asian vote was slightly more opposed to Proposition 8 than the white vote, for example, while Hispanics/Latinos/Latinas were more supportive than whites but less supportive than blacks, with a particularly pronounced difference among age groups--Hispanics under 30 did not differ much from non-Hispanic counterparts, while older Hispanics were much more strongly supportive.  As I have mentioned elsewhere, I believe this sort of thing should be reported in the article, though not with a one-issue focus on race, but also correlations to things like place of residence, views on Iraq war, religious affiliations and practice, etc.--Bhuck (talk) 09:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We should focus on all ethnic groups, of course. Someone should create a sub-section in the results section. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * the only notable race-based distinction I've seen from this is that African Americans voted overwhelmingly for it. That is meaningful, and begs for an explanation.  Other than that I would generally oppose dividing everything up on racial grounds because that unnecessarily highlights race and it does not seem very pertinent.  Wikidemon (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add it to the article. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Causal relationship? How useful is saying 2/3 of some group is non-supportive/supportive. It can not be used to predict an individuals opinion. You will never meet a Black person that is 71% in favorite of something. People occur in the quantum amount of 1. Below in my comments I mention that the predictor for prop 8 were wrong so why are results for Black voters taken so seriously (other than being on CNN that is).

A crucial role? I do not think saying "African American voters played a crucial role in the outcome" is justified. Later in this article it is stated " and was unusually large making up roughly 10% of the voters". Surely 6.6% can not play a critical role as 1/3 of the Black vote was no. Black voter did not know the vote count and decide to throw in for yes on 8. And I don't believe the Yes supporter were counting on that 3.7% edge the Black vote would provide.

Please notice the other polling information, the exit polling cited on Wikipedia shows "Overall, 49% of the pollee(s) were against the proposition, 44% were for it, and 7% were undecided", in fact all of the polls mentioned predicted a No victory.

If the results from exit polls are incorrect, I think it is unwise to conclude anything significant or "critical".

Lately, I may be reaching here but I should mention, I'm Black and no one asked me, am I not significant :-( Tonstarr (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Start of article
The opening of the article is rather long and rambling.

What's wrong with the summary language: "Proposition 8 was a California state ballot proposition that changed the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California and provided that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

We could then go on to say that currently Proposition 8 has enough votes to pass, but ballots remain uncounted and that election results will not be official until 35 days after the election. When the election results are finalized, if Proposition 8 passes, it will be effective as of November 5th. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * How about the article opening now? I think since most people care only about the results and the current events anyway, why not combine it all into results and move it to the top?  Paragraph two still seems a little too wordy... Mrbell (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Any objections to removing the vote totals from the summary, at least until after the vote is certified? The results section is now right below and the vote totals are triplicated in the article. And are the campaign contributions necessary in the summary? EmeryvilleEric (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Unclear intro sentence
The last sentence in the intro reads:

"A storm of controversy met the early results, including mass protests and candlelight vigil in most major cities, and three lawsuits have been filed contesting the legal validity of the amendment."

.....what is a "storm of controversy"? what defines a "mass protest"? and can anyone quantify "most major cities"? None of this material is cited.

I would recommend a rewrite to something like this: Controversy met the early results, including protests and demonstrations in several cities around the state. Additionally, three separate lawsuits have been filed to challenge the amendment on various grounds. Macutty (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed; I toned it down. —EqualRights (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Clarify the Actual Donations by the Mormon church The best evidence from campaign finance records show an: "...in-kind donation of $2,078.97 from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was made on Oct. 25 to ProtectMarriage.com...to cover the travel expenses of several Utah-based church leaders who went to California for a meeting..."

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10842051 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.254.150 (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

External links: addition of mormonsfor8.com
This link has been added. It has been immediately removed in the past. Thought I'd bring it up here since (1) reviewing WP:LINKS, it doesn't appear to egregiously violate the guideline and (2) it's related to the post-election controversy and protests. I'd initially considered removing it, primarily because it's a completely anonymous website and the self-reporting after-the-fact of who is or is not a Mormon contributor is completely unverifiable. At the same time, it appears to be a means by which Mormons (if in fact Mormons created the site) are attempting to confirm that members of their church did contribute in disproportionate numbers to the campaign. No sense in incrementing my revert count for the day if there is now a consensus to keep this link in. Mike Doughney (talk) 07:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ain't that a bitch! They can have 10 wives and be ok, but they don't support gay marriage...hypocritical! Anyway, I don't think we should list it, because we don't need to list every site for or against the proposition.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 08:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not too up-to-date on your history are you? ;) Mormons can't have multiple spouses at the same time; the US voted against polygamy (and polyandry) and the Mormons eventually accepted that (i believe it was a requirement for admission of Utah into the Union?). The LDS Church no longer allows any polygamous marriages by members *anywhere* in the world. There are fringe/splinter-groups that continue polygamy, but they aren't affiliated with the LDS Church, they aren't the ones being discussed in this article, and they aren't the ones whose temples/chapels/what-have-you are being picketed. You might also want to look into the Jewish and Muslim populations who supported the proposition, since they both have polygamy as an integral part of their history too. Awakeandalive1 (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not think it is a valid source and is unencyclopedic. --Blue Tie (talk) 22:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

External links: broken link for S147999
S147999 The full text of S147999, the decision from the California Supreme Court, May 15, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clakesnapster (talk • contribs) 07:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Some questions...
I came across this article a bit by accident and I must admit that the article as left me with one or two unanswered questions, (I see some points on legality and referendums requirements are mentioned, but I am still a little confused on the matter). FFMG (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is there a section about spending? I mean, what difference does it make if X has given $Y to Z? What does that tell me about the proposition? Any election needs some form of funding.
 * If Yes wins then No is planning one or more legal challenge of some sort.
 * Why were such challenges not more actively done before the referendum?
 * If one side was never planning to accept the outcome of the polls, why even agree to it in the first place and go straight to the courts and challenge the actual referendum itself? (I think there was only one challenge against the proposition).
 * If the referendum has already been sufficiently challenged in court, what else can they hope to happen?
 * The missing +/-3 million ballots,
 * Why is it taking so long to count them?
 * Why would one side concede when they still have a chance of winning?
 * What is so special about those ballots that would make a change of result unlikely?
 * How can the result section show 100% total votes if 25% of the votes are still not counted?
 * The referendum itself.
 * What would be the procedure to have another referendum to have prop 8 reverted?
 * Why is that not done? Is there a limit on how often a referendum can be held? How often can the constitution be amended?
 * What has race got yo do with the proposition? Why is there a section about how Asians, blacks, Latinos and so on would have voted? Especially given that it does not really tell us much.
 * Same with supporter/opponents of the proposition, some Christians/Jews supported prop 8 while other didn't. So why name them at all? I am sure some Muslims, Hindus, Atheist groups were for/against it, why are they no listed as well?

—EqualRights (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There has been long-standing consensus that major sources of funding (e.g. churches), like prominent supporters/opponents, are interesting and notable; you're welcome to discuss in detail why you think otherwise
 * Early challenges were rejected by the courts until after the election; see Early legal challenges
 * The remaining ballots are absentee, provisional, or require other manual intervention; see Unprocessed Ballots 2008
 * The demographics of the uncounted votes could be different than that of the general election, and the margin has decreased slightly so far
 * Good point about the 100% total; the problem is that the template used doesn't handle unprocessed ballots (technically, the result should still be "pending") - I've added emphasis to the uncounted vote statement to help
 * The referendum process to undo Prop 8 would be identical; see California ballot proposition
 * There has been recent consensus that the disproportional support of African-Americans is interesting and notable; you're welcome to discuss in detail why you think otherwise


 * Thanks for the replies, but I am still not sure as to why it is taking so long to count those extra 3M ballots, why would the No side not wait for the remaining 20% of the ballots to be counted, (given that it is so close).


 * I also see, (in the article), the legal challenges that were made, but I see no mention of the No, (or Yes), camp planning further legal challenges after the referendum. Or even what made the previous court ruling unacceptable.
 * If the courts already decided one way or another, what other ruling are they expecting.
 * Why did the No camp say they were not going to accept the result of the referendum and keep the legal pressure on the actual process itself?


 * The point about major support/opponents is that it tell us nothing. Some Christians supported the proposition, while others did not. Some Jews did, while others did not. So list those groups when the bottom line is that they are as divided, (50/50), as the rest of the sate makes no real sense. : I am also curious as to why only a selected group of religious organizations was selected.


 * I am not aware of any long standing consensus, but all the numbers tell me is that the state was always 50/50 on the proposition, (by funding, by race, by religion, by polls and so on). In fact all the numbers seem to show a small margin in favour of the Yes to the proposition.
 * FFMG (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to respond to the issue, as opposed to any article edits that may result - so no attempt to source these things, just an attempt to explain things to someone who may not be familiar with California or the politics. Hope that helps. Again, just my (uncited) opinions. Wikidemon (talk) 06:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * regarding spending, this is the most expensive proposition in state history. The voter petition / ballot initiative process, and the cost of sponsoring and opposing measures, is a very relevant issue in California politics.  Many think it is has spun out of control and reversed the very purpose of the ballot initiative, to give citizens a way to change the law directly outside of the standard election / lobbying process.
 * The initiative has won, and it is being challenged. The same challenges were made before the election, but the court decided it would be better to let the vote occur, and decide later on a slower schedule whether the initiative is a valid one.  If it had ruled against the initiative before the election, it would have disrupted the election and the voters would not have been heard.
 * The main challenge to the outcome at this point is that the changes are too sweeping to be allowed under a simple yes/no vote. In California, major changes to the Constitution (called "revisions") require super-majority approval by the legislature before they are submitted to the voters; more minor changes (called "amendments") simply require majority approval by the voters.  There is a secondary issue regarding whether the initiative annuls marriages already in place, something that is not very clear.
 * The 3 million ballots are votes by mail. They have to be processed by hand, not machine.  They are not "missing".  Things take time.  But it is very unlikely they will change the outcome.  I think they have analyzed who the voters are who voted remotely.  In the past most remote voters are military people, old people who cannot easily come to the polls, people who are traveling, and people with busy work schedules, all of whom are to some degree a little more conservative than average and probably less likely to support same-sex marriage.  Whether that's the reason or not, a number of people have reviewed it and believe that the absentee ballots will not make a difference.  As far as I know they are counted by now, though.  100% refers to 100% of the live in-person polling locations.
 * I think the procedure to overturn the amendment is the same procedure to place it on the ballot. They need to gather a 1.x million signatures, at which time it gets certified and placed on the ballot.  There may be a procedure for calling a special election if none is coming up; otherwise it piggybacks on the next available election.  The whole thing takes +/- 1 year.  However, opposition to gay marriage is running around 50% now but shrinking.  Too soon and there may still be a majority opposed.  Also, some people in the middle may be willing to vote to support same sex marriage, but would vote no simply because they think it is too soon to reconsider the issue.  So a re-vote is unlikely for a couple years in my opinion, possibly longer.  Nobody knows the outcome.  There has been a trend of increasing support for same-sex marriage, but nobody knows if the trend will continue and how long.
 * It is not obvious why, but people of some races are much more tolerant of same-sex marriages than others. African-Americans tend to oppose it by a strong margin, despite being liberal in other areas.  Jews support it, and are liberal too.  There are deep reasons for this, which are not explored in this article and are probably very controversial.  Jews are a major political force in California, as are Asian Americans, Christians, Latinos, and African Americans.  I tend to agree that the Asian vote is not worth commenting on because it reflects the population as a whole.  But the Jewish, Christian, and African American voters and political groups are notable to the issue.  After all, much of the opposition to same-sex marriage is religiously based.
 * Oh, and one final issue. There has been a huge shift to support gays and same-sex marriage.  8 years ago a ballot measure to make same-sex marriage illegal won by a 22% margin.  This time it won by a 4% margin.  Shifts of that magnitude in social attitudes are rare, so something is clearly going on.  Wikidemon (talk) 06:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The Error Defined
The article makes a claim that the original language of the 1850 statutes was “gender-neutral”. This is untrue.

Here is the passage in question:

1850–1977: Gender-neutral statutory language In 1850, California's marriage statutes used gender-neutral language, without reference to "man" or "woman," in providing that marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of the parties capable of making the contract is necessary.

The reference used to support this claim (California Assembly Bill AB 43 – 2006) does NOT say that the statute used gender neutral language and so this source does not support the statement. The only way anyone can support this view is by an egregious mis-reading and by use of original research.

Referenced definitions and beliefs at the time
In 1850, marriage itself was not a “gender-neutral” term as intended to be represented here. It was specifically designated as a contract or relationship specifically between men and women. The evidence is found in the most authoritative dictionaries which were used by courts and by lawmakers at the time.

Samuel Johnson’s dictionary in 1873 was the seminal dictionary in the English Language and still held force in many parts of the English speaking world by 1850. This dictionary defined marriage as “the act of uniting a man and woman for life

Noah Webster’s dictionary, written just 20 years prior to the California Statehood movement and still very actively in force at the time and very influential gave this definition of marriage:  The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them.

But, perhaps the most persuasive is the dictionary that was predecessor to the Oxford English Dictionary. Created to identify and remedy deficiencies in dictionaries like Websters and Johnsons, it gave lengthy historical support for its definitions (just as the OED does today). This was the extremely well researched, 10 volume set called “A new English Dictionary on Historical Principles”. Though it came out in 1928, it was the culmination of years of work starting about 1858. Being based upon historical principles, its efforts were to bring the dictionary to the most complete status possible. It gave these definitions for marriage:

1. The condition of being a husband or wife ; the relation between married persons ; spousehood, wedlock.

2. Entrance into wedlock ; the action, or an act, of marrying ; the ceremony or procedure by which two persons are made husband and wife.

In this same dictionary “husband” is defined as 1. The master of a house, the MALE head of a household” and “2. A MAN joined to a WOMAN by MARRIAGE. Correlative of wife”. And “wife” was defined as “1. A WOMAN; formerly in a general sense but now restricted to a woman of honorable rank” “2. A WOMAN joined to a MAN by MARRIAGE; a married woman”

There was no conception of man married to man or woman married to woman. It would be as alien to their thinking as a goat being sired by a tree would be to us today.

What the actual statutes said about men and women and marriage
The ACTUAL 1850 statutes were NOT Gender Neutral. Here are examples:

On Regulating Marriages:

1.	 All marriages between parents and children, including grand-parents and grand-children of every degree; between brothers and sisters of the one half as well as the whole blood; and between UNCLES and NIECES, AUNTS and NEPHEWS, are declared to be incestuous and absolutely void. This section shall extend to illegitimate as well as to legitimate children and relations. (Notice the references and implications where gender specific titles are used)

7.	 No Judge, Justice of the Peace, Clergyman, preacher of the Gospel or other person, shall join in marriage any MALE under the age of twenty-one years or FEMALE under the age of eighteen years, without the consent of the parent or guardian or other person under whose care and government such minor may be. Any person who shall violate the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction, shall be punished by fine not exceeding on thousand dollars. (Notice the clear references to MALE and FEMALE).

On Rights of Married Persons

1.	All property, both real and personal, of THE WIFE owned by HER before marriage and that acquired afterwards by gift, bequest, devise or descent shall be HER separate property and all property owned by THE husband before marriage and that acquired by HIM afterwards, by gift, bequest, devise or descent shall be HIS separate property. 5.	The filing of the inventory in the Recorder’s office shall be notice of the title of the wife and all property belonging to HER, included in the inventory shall be exempt from seizure or execution for the debts of HER husband. 6.	The husband shall have the management and control of the separate property of the wife, during the continuance of the marriage; but no sale or other alienation of any part of such property can be made, nor any lien or encumbrance created thereon, unless by an instrument in writing, signed by the husband and wife, and acknowledge by HER upon an examination separate and apart from HER husband before a Justices…. 7.	When any sale shall be made by the wife of any of her separate property, for the benefit of HER husband, or when HE shall have used the proceeds of such sale with HER consent in writing, it shall be deemed a gift, and neither she nor those claiming under HER shall have any right to recover the same. 8.	If the wife has just cause to apprehend that HER husband has mismanaged or wasted or will mismanage or waste, her separate property, she, or any other person in her behalf may apply to the District Court for the appointment of a trustee…. 9.	The husband shall have the entire management and control of the common property, with the like absolute power of disposition as of his own separate estate. 10.	No estate shall be allowed to the husband as tenant by courtesy upon the decease of HIS wife nor any estate in dower be allowed to the wife upon the decease of HER husband.

(Notice the repeated and consistent references through pronouns of Gender specific concepts for “Husband” and “Wife”. This is not “gender neutral”).

On Conveyances 2.	A husband and wife may by their joint deed convey the real estate of the WIFE in like manner as she might do by HER separate deed if SHE were unmarried.

(To avoid too much repetition, I have removed more sections where, there continue to be multiple references to “The woman” or “such woman” and “her” husband, all of these references calling “her” a “she” – not Gender Neutral at all)

The source of the error
Where the claims are coming from is this statement in the 1850 Statute:

“Marriage is considered in law as a civil contract, to which the consent of the parties is essential.”

It would be correct (but also silly) to say that this passage is "genderless". The subject is the contract and contracts do not have gender. This passage was not intended to refer to the gender or nature of the participants but rather on the nature of the contract, and particularly (very particularly) that consent was absolutely required. The emphasis and intent was not on DEFINING Marriage but on limiting it to CONSENT. Hence to use this passage as a definition is incorrect.

But it also requires Original Research to come to the conclusion that it was Gender Neutral.

Conclusion
Since there is NOTHING in the statute that can be seen as “Gender Neutral” (because gender was both assumed and explicitly represented in the statute, I am removing this obvious anachronism. If someone replaces it they must show it is true by a direct reference, not by original research. --Blue Tie (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion begins here - please resolve disputed language here before editing the article
Let me begin by reminding you that what you're proposing changing here is consensus language that has been developed by editors from a variety of viewpoints over the past several months. I would also point out that this is not "original research" but the reasoning given in AB43, placed in the timeline at this point because it (the language in AB43) refers to events and language of the time (of California statehood and thereafter). It also refers to the language used at that time to refer specifically to the "personal relation arising out of a civil contract" and not to the other matters also in that part of the law. Your previous edit which introduced vague references to dictionaries of the time, and creating a link between "fundamental right" and "associated with procreation" not clearly stated in the referenced law, in themselves constitute synthesis and "original research." Mike Doughney (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I will self revert if I see a discussion of this aspect of the article. HOWEVER, it is original research.. pure and simple. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I looked over the page. I see absolutely NO discussion about the historical anachronism found in the article. None. Except of course, for mine. I see NO consensus approach on the language of this section (based upon discussions). And no, AB43 does NOT say that the language was gender neutral. it does not speak to gender neutrality at all. To declare that the language ""personal relation arising out of a civil contract" is gender neutral is actually original research. Would you like me to quote the specific elements of the OR Policy that make it so?--Blue Tie (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * To address the claim of OR and that AB43 does not say that the language was gender neutral. AB43 reads:
 * SEC. 3. The Legislature finds and declares as follows:
 * (b) From 1850 to 1977, California's marriage statutes used gender-neutral language, without reference to "man" or "woman," in providing that marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of the parties capable of making the contract is necessary.
 * EmeryvilleEric (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * EmeryvilleEric (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * EmeryvilleEric (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The California Supreme Court also mentioned (bolded below) legislative history in In re Marriages:"California’s current marriage statutes derive in part from this state’s Civil Code, enacted in 1872, which was based in large part upon Field’s New York Draft Civil Code. As adopted in 1872, former section 55 of the Civil Code provided that marriage is “a personal relation arising out of a civil contract, to which the consent of the parties capable of making it is necessary,”13 and former section 56 of that code, in turn, provided that “[a]ny unmarried male of the age of eighteen years or upwards, and any unmarried female of the age of fifteen years or upwards, and not otherwise disqualified, are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage.” Although these statutory provisions did not expressly state that marriage could be entered into only by a man and a woman, the statutes clearly were intended to have that meaning and were so understood."


 * These two sources were the basis for the original consensus language. And explain why the legislature made revisions to the marriage statutes in 1977. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read Consensus. In particular, note that consensus is not always a product of explicit discussion, it can be (and was, here) the product of editing. "Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can happen through discussion, editing, or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner." Your editing of the article after posting, what I view as, a taunting screed to the talk page borders on incivility. Mike Doughney (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Uhh.. no. Consensus only arises without discussion when there is no conflict. But when there is conflict there must be discussion.  That is what WP:CON says.  I did not taunt on the talk page, even if you think so.  I was justifying my edit.  That is what the talk page is for.  That you found it lengthy does not change the basic fact that I worked very hard to justify my edit (and I am seeking NPOV) and that you have not justified your revert at all.  You claim consensus yet admit it has never been discussed.  You should not assume consensus if there has been no discussion and you should really consider the merits of the arguments I present rather than dismissing them as some sort of taunt.  To taunt on an article web page is indeed bad form, and it not good justification for an edit.  I have never done that previously and I did not do it this time.  So please understand.. .it was no taunt... it was research and justification for the edit. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with your "totally disputed" tag. It makes sense if you think that there is a problem with the factual accuracy or POV.  What factual accuracy or POV errors do you find and can support?--Blue Tie (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, as a matter of fact, I am going to assume consensus without discussion (as explicitly suggested in WP:CONS) with respect to language that's been in the article since last June, and if I recall correctly, was restored to the article several times in recent months by a number of editors. There was conflict, it was not explicitly discussed but resolved through ongoing editing. Mike Doughney (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Mike, that is bad faith. Discussion is what is required at this point, per Policy.  Again, what factual or NPOV problems do you find with the changes?  To me if you stick to the bare and actual facts and avoid Original Research, you tend to arrive more surely at neutrality.  If plenty of people discuss and agree, it improves the article.  If a few people gang up for a POV it ruins the article.  I am not a bunch of people ganging up... I am not trying to edit from any POV except to assert the facts from history and avoid OR. In the process, I am pleased to discuss the issues (as I have presented in my argument above). I do not have a problem with you disagreeing with me, but I want a reason that is better than "thats just the way it is".  --Blue Tie (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a quick note: I inserted a citation needed because the claim made in that sentence is contradicting the cited source. The source apparently says that gender-specific pronouns were used while the sentence claims that gender was not referenced. Gambit2392 (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I see no bad faith on my part in pointing out that, contrary to the conventions and etiquette around here that I generally try to follow, barging into a contentious article for the first time, posting one's own lengthy justification of an "error" (sure to start an argument, since it seems that "error" was ignored multiple times by California legislators) and then making edits, lamely claiming one's own talk page posting to be "discussion" when there has been no time for such a "discussion" to occur, all doesn't sound like behavior that would, or should, get a warm reception. Also, your edits last night to the same section were clearly an attempt to push the "marriage for procreation" POV with a "the dictionary says so" kind of justification. Mike Doughney (talk) 02:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, now bad faith again. You see, declaring that someone is "barging in" is bad faith. Describing someone's sincere efforts at communicating as "lame" is bad faith.  Also misrepresenting what I have said is bad faith.  Look it up per policy.  Look all this up per policy.  And who else's lengthy justification should I post other than my own?  To criticise me for justifying my edit is also wrong.  I do not care about a "warm" reception -- you could be neutral. But I have done nothing wrong, while you have repeatedly been hostile -- which is not right either.  The "Marriage for Procreation" POV is what is in the court rulings actually SAID.  They are certainly relevant to the discussion if some unstated belief that you infer from a single sentence that is contradicted by other statements in the statute is relevant.  Finally, its not a "Dictionary Said So" justification.  I am talking about historical accuracy and rejecting revisionism as POV.  There is no reason to bend history in this article to one view or the other, but if it is going to be bent in one way, then NPOV requires equivalent bending the other way.--Blue Tie (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The original consensus language came from the legislature. One can assume that the legislature would know it's own history and is thus NPOV. For you new editors, this has all been discussed before, please see the archives for past disputes over the history section. The marriage for procreation POV is not the position of the legislature nor the state supreme court. The position of the legislature and the court is that marriage and procreation are both fundamental rights and independent of each other. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 04:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me we need to address two things here: 1) What was the point of the 1977 change? If it was clear that marriage had been previously defined as being only between a man and a woman, why did things change?  The current (Blue Tie) wording results in the reader not understanding why 1977 was chosen as a break between the two history sub-sections.  And 2) maybe if we distinguish between "marriage laws" in general, and "laws defining marriage" (as opposed to laws in which marriage is referenced), we can come to some consensus.  It seems to me that the 1850-1977 version of the law defining marriage was "Marriage is a contract", and that there was no law saying "Marriage is a union between a man and a woman", but there were laws referring to marriage that were assuming that each such contract had a male and a female party.  Maybe saying this explicitly would resolve the dispute?--Bhuck (talk) 08:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a secondary and a primary source (the UC Berkeley library staff report and the In re. Marriage Cases decision, respectively) that analyzes the history of the legal treatment of same-sex unions in California. Both say that until 1977, the Civil Code language was gender-neutral but everyone assumed that it meant a man and a woman.  The early court cases simply stated it as a premise, without any argument or reasoning.  I suppose it was so obvious to people that nobody questioned or challenged it; even those that favored same-sex unions did not think the law provided for them.  The article is not clear on exactly why the Legislature decided in 1977 to make that an explicit part of the law.  Was it just part of a routine redraft, or were they responding to a challenge from somewhere?  Wikidemon (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's some legislative history from the Court of Appeals :"In 1977, the County Clerks Association of California sponsored Assembly Bill No. 607, which sought to specify that marriage is a relationship “between a man and a woman.” (Assem. Bill No. 607 (1977-1978 Reg. Sess.).) Although county clerks throughout the state had interpreted existing law as permitting only opposite-sex marriages, and consequently had “uniformly denied marriage licenses to same sex couples” (Legis. Counsel, Rep. on Assem. Bill No. 607 (1977-1978 Reg. Sess.) p. 1), they believed former Civil Code, section 4100 was unclear and could be interpreted to encompass same-sex unions. (Sen. Republican Caucus, analysis of Assem. Bill No. 607 (1977-1978 Reg. Sess.) p. 1.) Assembly Bill No. 607 was therefore introduced, and passed, for the express purpose of amending the statute “to prohibit persons of the same sex from entering lawful marriage.” (Sen. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 607 (1977-1978 Reg. Sess.) as amended May 23, 1977, p. 1; see Lockyer, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 1076, fn. 11 [stating the bill’s objective of prohibiting same-sex marriage is clear from its legislative history].) Former Civil Code, section 4100 was later recodified, without substantial change, as Family Code, section 300. (Stats. 1992, ch. 162, § 10, p. 474.)" EmeryvilleEric (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, interesting. I think this is a rare example of using a court's finding of facts as a secondary source for the narrative contained in the opinion, as opposed to a primary source as to what the court itself did.  Frankly, such a summary is probably as reliable as it gets.  Wikidemon (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Does this leave the door open...
Does this leave the door open for UK style Civil Partnerships to be legalized?  AJUK  <font color=#008800>Talk!! 00:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * no idea, this isn't a forum.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 01:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * California currently has, since the 90s, Domestic partnership, which has "all the equal benefits of marriage". Personally, that clearly goes against "separate but equal is not equal".  --Cooljuno411 (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Does this have any effect on domestic partnerships?  <font color=#Blue>AJUK  <font color=#008800>Talk!! 12:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, at least not directly. I suppose one could argue that the lack of an alternative (marriage) will make them more popular.  I'm not quite sure what the question is trying to get at, though.--Bhuck (talk) 12:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Effort to revoke tax-exempt status of Mormon Church
As suggested by this site. I have not edited the article, so was hoping someone involved with it could. --Moni3 (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A tax-exempt organization, including a church, may lobby for ballot initiatives but not for a political candidate. The approach for Proposition 8 taken by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as well as all the other churches and tax-exempt organizations involved, was perfectly legal under Internal Revenue Code.  Unless there is a lot of coverage in a reliable source, this topic should not be included in the article.  Alanraywiki (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is that? If it is an active effort to move against the primary fundraiser of one side of the campaign, why should that not be included as a result of the vote, even if it is unsuccessful? --Moni3 (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are asking why it should not be included in the article, I am just saying right now the only source is someone's web site. If the topic gets significant media coverage, then it can be included. Alanraywiki (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The Church did not fundraise Prop. 8, the people did. In addition, as Alanraywiki has said, the Church is legally able to promote the proposition as it affects the interests of the Church. It isn't able, however, to endorse specific candidates; while it can present its views on particular issues and show the candidates' views on those issues. Gambit2392 (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not really up to us to decide whether the challenge has merit - if it goes to court a court will decide that, and we may also get some good sources to analyze the issue. No harm speculating here, though, because that's a good reality check on whether we expect it to be a real issue.  If there's no merit to the legal position then it probably won't happen.  Wikidemon (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Judicial merit and legal merit often conflict.  That's where we see the value of the Separation of Powers.  When judges err in judgments, the correction is often a result of the people's voice.  But, the people can be wrong, too.  That's why the Preamble to the US Constitution uses the phrase, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..." (emhasis mine).  The use of the word, "more" reflects an understanding of the fact that all unions are not perfect, and that some unions are more perfect than others.  I mean to say political unions, not civil.

The US Supreme Court often declines to hear cases because of what is called the Political Question Doctrine. In those cases, the Court refuses to intervene, sometimes because the contriversy is best resolved in the political process, by voters.

Further, churches can always and everywhere endorse specific candidates. It's less of a "real" choice with 501(c)(3) churches, though. --ElderHap (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Let me add that the choice to adopt 501(c)(3) status is the choice that qualifies the "realness" of the choice to endorse. --ElderHap (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Add to Proponents
The [Eastern] Orthodox Christian bishops of California issued a statement in favor of Prop 8:

http://www.aoiusa.org/blog/2008/10/california-bishops-support-ballot-initiative-on-marriage/

http://saintandrew.net/documents/FINALOrthodoxBishopsProp8Statement.pdf

http://www.antiochian.org/node/18321

71.164.40.129 (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing this out. Those are only moderately reliable sources - two are self published / primary sources from the religious organization itself and another is a blog.  The bigger issue, I think, is that now that the measure passed we should probably condense rather than expand the section on supporters and opponents.  At some point the main issue is that it's the new part of the constitution, but currently under some legal challenge - not a list of all the parties' positions.  The Mormon church support may be worth highlighting because there's a backlash on that (but too early to tell how serious that is).  Wikidemon (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If the Church, on their own site, says "we support it", then that's a reliable source. <font family="Arial"> Little Red Riding Hood  talk  23:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why I called it "semi" reliable. If you read WP:PSTS, primary sources are discouraged for several reasons.  For one, it involves the extra step of verifying that this is really the church's official site and its official position, and that it is the denomination we think it is.  There are so many sects, denominations, and individual churches in America that it's hard to tell who is who.  Second, pointing to a political statement as a source for a group's beliefs may establish that the claim is true, but unlike a secondary source like a news article it does not establish that it has any weight or relevance.  Say I found a very small out-of-state church that expressed an opinion about the matter, but didn't actually donate money or advocate.  That may not be relevant to the article.  On the other hand if there were articles in every major paper that a certain church said something, we get the message that journalists consider it worth knowing.  Wikidemon (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Why polling didn't match election results
It's probably worth finding and including an explanation on why the poll numbers didn't match the election results. One source may be Mark DiCamillo, director of The Field Poll, explaining [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/10/EDGQ140F5R.DTL Why Prop. 8 confounded pre-election pollsters]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmeryvilleEric (talk • contribs) 16:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Done —EqualRights (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else find that there has to be some type of error in the exit polling? According to the article, a majority of men and a majority of women voted against prop 8. If this were so, it would be mathematically impossible for prop 8 to have passed. Therefore, either the exit polling is wildly inaccurate (in which case, this inaccuracy should be pointed out in the article) or has been misquoted and/or misunderstood (in which case it should be corrected). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.61.219.34 (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Polls are only semi-useful in predicting election outcomes. As an after-the-fact analysis of what happened they are doubly unreliable.  I've already deleted a fair amount of polling data that may have seemed useful before the vote but is not very pertinent now.  We should probably clear the article of most polling data in favor of any more authoritative, thoughtful analysis that comes out about who voted, why, etc.  Otherwise this (and every) article about something involving a vote would get cluttered with a long discussion of the reliability of polls.  Wikidemon (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree Wikidemon. Polls have there role prior to an election but after that, election results are all that matter.


 * Also, the Field Poll and the Public Policy Institute of California consistently overestimated (significantly) opposition to Prop 8 (as compared to election results) while other polls (SurveyUSA) did a much better job showing how tight the election would be. But that was my point all along, election results carry much more weight than polls.  Reliability of polls can only be measured by election results.  The Field Poll and the Public Policy Institute of California were simply unreliable on this issue. Trying to insert an explanation to backup the Field Poll (or any poll for that matter) is simply POV towards to Field Poll.  That is why I deleted it.Gaytan (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Prop 8 had more polling than any of the other ballot measures. Removing the polling data gives the incorrect impression that the electorate was static and would have voted the same in August and September as in November.  Why did Prop 8 pass when the polls said it wouldn't?  If the answer to that question is available, it should be included in the article.  Polls have value before an election, opinions about Prop 8 definitely changed over time as commercials started playing, and when polls don't match election results, the reason why has value after an election.  If the polling organizations know why their numbers differed, that information is relevant. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Polling organizations may offer a surmise about why their predictions were inaccurate. But why should we give the the time of day on Wiki to report on THEIR defense of THEIR poor performance?? Let the polls speak for themselves and let the reader interpret the facts for themselves.  I thought were were supposed to stick to facts here on Wiki not conjectures.  Conjectures simply lead to opinion and POVs. How is this POV you may ask? By inserting DiCamillo's bias against "regular church-goers" who he claims were very prone to change their mind at the last minute, you throw out all facts and science out the window.  I think we can all agree, based on our own experiences, that "regular church-goers" are more likely to be very decided on this issue rather than being prone to indecisiveness.  Gaytan (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As long as the pre-election polling results remain in the article (and I'm not convinced they need to), relevant post-election expert analysis reported in the press is notable and informative. You're welcome to add other notable expert analysis, but please obtain consensus before removing what's already present.  (And note WP:3RR)  —EqualRights (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

History of Marriage in California
How about creating a new article called History of Marriage in California using the section History of Marriage in California and including just a snippet of that article in the prop 8 article? Mrbell (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the new article really frees up the Prop 8 article so we can all focus on the prop itself, not the history of CA marriage. However, I couldn't think of an appropriate opening paragraph for History of Marriage in California.  Any suggestions? Mrbell (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The history section was definitely a little heavy. Is a History of marriage in California new article warranted, or is it duplicating the Same-sex marriage in California work? EmeryvilleEric (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In either case, the history should include the pre-election detail that was removed post-election. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I agree. History of marriage in California should probably be added somehow to Same-sex marriage in California. The pre-election detail sounds good too, as long as it's not too long? Mrbell (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, but it'll all have to wait until the debate over there is resolved... MrBell (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I added the suggestion to move it there when the debate is resolved. MrBell (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Campaign for California Families
This is their website. The term "a conservative religious organization" was removed as being allegedly POV. Ok, then, what is this organization? From the website, I think it is clear we are dealing with a lobbying organization here that is trying to influence people's opinions, and particularly trying to encourage public policy that is anti-abortion and in favor of exclusively heterosexual marriage. They also seem to deal with what they term "religious freedom, financial freedom, and back-to-basics education." Just what these three terms actually mean is also worth looking into. I don't think by "religious freedom" they mean they are going to ally themselves with the ACLU to get the words "under God" removed from the pledge of allegiance in order to make the state more neutral in respecting others' religious freedom. Does financial freedom mean they oppose taxation? Or encourage zero-interest loans? This group is not sufficiently well-known that just mentioning their name will mean readers of the article know what they are.--Bhuck (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The characterization of CCF as "a conservative religious organization" is fully traceable to reliable sources; go do a Google News search and not only will you find that term applied to them in yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle but if you search the Google News archive index with the two strings "Campaign for California Families" "conservative religious" you'll find that the San Jose Mercury News and National Public Radio have termed it such back as far as 2001. So it should go back in with a cite from that language to one of those articles. Mike Doughney (talk) 09:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Done —EqualRights (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning domestic partnerships in the summary
I reverted the new sentence in the summary about domestic partnerships. Prop 8 was about marriage, there isn't a need to mention domestic partnerships in the summary. If mentioning domestic partnerships is warranted, it should be mentioned in another section. And to save everyone some time, if it is going to be mentioned, don't bother saying it is the same as marriage, the California Supreme Court found that to be untrue in May. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, absolutely relevant because the entire struggle at the moment is over the distinction between marriage and domestic partnership; the sentence which has twice been deleted simply explained that the two were distinct from one another and that the "marriage ban" would not alter the status of domestic partnerships in California, which is *absolutely* relevant to the introductory section. But, as with everything on Wikipedia, there's no point in my voicing an opinion because it will simply be debated or edit/revert warred into oblivion by people with more time/energy to dedicate to this website than I have. Awakeandalive1 (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume you are new to wikipedia, but EmeryvilleEric is correct, it is not supposed to be in the first portion of the article, the lead in summery, that is like an Article about Abraham Lincoln and you give the history of George Washington in the lead section, not appropriate. It can be mentioned somewhere else in the article, so feel free to put it somewhere it can correctly fit, say the history section. And no, domestic partnership is not equal to marriage, like EmeryvilleEric also said, the court did find that to be a void claim. And your whole statement about "voicing an opinion", this is not a social forum, so don't edit articles with the intention to put your point-of-view, Wikipedia is to remain neutral, not opinionated. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're making a reductio ad absurdum connection between Domestic Partnerships in California/Gay Marriage in California and George Washington/Abraham Lincoln -- flawed logic at best, disingenuous at worst. Domestic Partnership and the push for Gay Marriage co-exist, are related, and are relevant to discussions of one another in Wikipedia. Mentioning domestic partnership in the lead-in to this article is more like mentioning Jim Crow Laws in the lead section of an article about Brown vs. Board of Education; or if we hold with the anachronistic model, like mentioning Plessy vs. Ferguson in the lead section to Brown vs. etc. The lead section in Wikipedia is characteristically a brief summary of the issue at hand, including salient points of immediate and relevant interest; and while it may not be the message you wish to convey, the fact that a ban on gay marriage will not affect domestic partnerships is relevant, salient and of immediate interest. And by "my opinion," I meant that which I am posting here on the talk page; however, every edit is made according to our opinions, his deletion of the reverted text included. Wikipedia is, in essence the conglomeration of opinions on matters of interest to various parties. If opinions were kept out of the matter, then nothing would ever be posted or edited. I also appreciate your attempted "new to wikipedia" dig, but again that's reductio ad absurdum -- just because I don't follow your extrapolated understanding of article structure, that does not make me a "n00b" or what-have-you. Again, I hold that the inclusion of that line (though in an edited form if that makes everyone more comfortable) is necessary to the article. Awakeandalive1 (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Prop 8 is 14 words and makes no reference to domestic partnerships, nor did the ballot title and summary mention domestic partnerships, so why would someone think it affects domestic partnerships? Prop 1A's intro doesn't say that it doesn't impact airport bonds.  If we start listing all the things that Prop 8 didn't affect (presumptive parents, community property, property tax, hospital visitation, etc.), the summary would get out of control.  EmeryvilleEric (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * One reason to include the topic of domestic partnerships is because they were mentioned by both sides in the arguments and rebuttals section of the Official Voter Information Guide. Alanraywiki (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And "Can't do it because then we'd have to mention everything not affected" is also reductio ad absurdum. There's a legal and a practical distinction between domestic partnership and marriage, and while some may see that as a reason to avoid references to the former, others see it as an excellent reason to include them; since domestic partnership was an integral feature of both pro and con rhetoric, I'd say it's important to distinguish from the outset that a ban on gay marriage is not a ban on gay domestic partnerships to avoid any confusion. It's one brief sentence, but explains a lot. As for why someone might think it affects domestic partnership, please check the "Does this open the door..." section of this discussion page; feel free to ask them. Awakeandalive1 (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Courts - Timeline
What I would like to know, and have not seen in any article, is the timeline for litigation. When is it expected that the court will hear arguments, and approximately what is the timeline for a ruling on this? Are we looking at a month, a few months, a year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.193.31.63 (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * From what I've read, and from previous experience (such as in the case of Proposition 209, which is probably the closest analog for comparison; Proposition 187 took several years to resolve, before the state eventually stopped pursuing the interests of the voters under the Gray Davis administration, never-the-less, 187 seems to have been an outlier in this regard), it is likely the state Supreme Court will have ruled on the matter (as to whether Proposition 8 will be included within the state constitution, in accord with the majority vote in its favor) sometime prior to Christmas. But one really never knows. Then there will be the subsidiary issue as to whether the marriage licenses issued to homosexual couples over the approximate last six months will be regarded as valid in the future.  Attorney General Jerry Brown says they will, but it seems very clear that the state courts are going to be the arbiter of that issue, not the Office of the state Attorney General.  That almost certainly won't be decided until at least sometime in 2009, and it seems unlikely it would take any longer that that. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There was a pre-hearing conference scheduled for today with the various parties and the court, we should know more about a timeline in tonight's news cycle. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I read an article yesterday in which the court's spokesperson said that a ruling is expected to be made this week. Gambit2392 (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"Discrimination in the United States" Category?
PLEASE NOTE: I am not attempting to open a discusion about the merits of Proposition 8, but rather explaining my rationale for why I do not believe the article on Proposition 8 should be tagged as part of "Discrimination in America." Never-the-less, some overlap between a general discussion on the merits of the Proposition, and the basis for my opinion on the matter I've raised here, is effectively impossible to avoid. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this article should be tagged at the bottom for inclusion within the "Discrimination in the United States" category. All Proposition 8 does is re-define marriage as how it has always been defined, prior to the usurpation of its traditional definition by four members of a seven-member, activist state Supreme Court.

It is an objective fact that homosexuals still have the exact same, equality of rights to exercise the option of marriage as anyone else ie., their marriage partner must be a member of the opposite sex, just like anyone else's must be (and by the same token, my right to marry a man has also been taken away; the mere fact I would never have any desire to exercise such a right is frankly irrelevant). Its perhaps unfortunate that their personal proclivities make marriage a less appealing option for them than it would be for heterosexuals, but there is simply nothing innately discriminatory (in the sense that word is commonly used within political discourse ie., in reference to irrational, bigoted, unjust acts of a malicious and/or arbitrary/capricious nature) in re-applying the definition of marriage that has been in place for untold centuries. A union between one man and one woman is simply what marriage is within the context of Western civilization. Codifying reality isn't "discrimination."

Obviously, since this is a matter of some controversy, I will refrain from deleting that categorical link ("Discrimination in the United States") until such time as others have had an opportunity to weigh in with their opinions. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

For those who are unclear what I am referencing, at the bottom of the article on Proposition 8, there are several things one may click on, which I have taken to referring to as "categorical links" (I'm not sure what the official term for them is). One of those "categorical links" is entitled "Discrimination in the United States." If you click on that, you get taken to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Discrimination_in_the_United_States

I hope that clears up any confusion about what it is I am objecting to here. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Prop 8 eliminated a fundamental right from a suspect class, that sounds like discrimination. In addition, the California Supreme Court, the California legislature, and the Governor have all called the having separate institutions of marriage and domestic partnerships discriminatory.  As to your logic that "homosexuals still have the exact same, equality of rights to exercise the option of marriage as anyone else ie., their marriage partner must be a member of the opposite sex, just like anyone else's must be", the California Supreme Court rejected that argument in 1948 and again last May.  EmeryvilleEric (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you also clarify which traditional definition of marriage you are referring to? Traditional varies depending on whether you look at the number of people or the number of years practiced.  Is it parents arrange, grooms steal the bride, fathers sell the bride, excludes inter-racial couples, treats women as property, excludes slaves, excludes minorities, allows for multiple wives, allows for multiple husbands, excludes non-royalty, excludes non-land owners, or before marriage became a Christian sacrament? EmeryvilleEric (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * He is referring to the definition that exists in all of your examples: the union of the opposite sexes. Gambit2392 (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * >It is an objective fact that homosexuals still have the exact same, equality of rights to exercise the option of marriage as anyone else ie., their marriage partner must be a member of the opposite sex, just like anyone else's must be (and by the same token, my right to marry a man has also been taken away; the mere fact I would never have any desire to exercise such a right is frankly irrelevant).


 * You misunderstand the right to marry. The right to marry is the right to marry the person of your choice; the person you love. Just as the right to speech is the right to say what you'd like the idea of having the right to speech—that someone else chooses for you is silly.


 * Proposition 8 discriminates between marriages between two people of the opposite sex (and gives them state recognition) and marriages between two people of the same sex (that did so exist even before the window of time where judges ruled it legal—same-sex couples that married in other jurisdictions lived in California!). Furthermore, it discriminates against a class of people whose immutable characteristics compel them to attraction to members of the same sex. Occu͡pax (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * One reason I believe that this category should be included is that the category includes not only discrimination, but "perceived discrimination" (presumably this caveat is allowed so as to avoid the fact that for any form of discrimination there's probably at least some group of people who don't think it's discrimination). It is clear that many people and governments believe that Prop 8 is discrimination (Connecticut, Canada, etc), so this certainly fits under perceived discrimination. This reason is independent of any opinion of any editor of wiki of what marriage is. By your own admission, KevinOKeeffe, your reasoning for not including the category is inextricably linked to your opinion on what marriage is; this seems suboptimal.


 * I'd like to add that your rationale, KevinOKeeffe, is one I've heard before, and though not completely illogical, it is still faulty. You have made a sequence of true statements so you conclude that your reasoning is true, but it is false because of omission. This can be seen from the fact that it applies to inter-racial marriage as well. If inter-racial marriage is illegal, everyone is still allowed to marry someone of the same race, so your rationale says "What's the problem? Everyone still has the same rights." The fact of the matter is that any right is about giving you the right to do what you want. Any infringement on that right should be for a good reason. You can't just give people the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, you have to give them the right to marry who they want. You then infringe on that right: you can't marry someone who doesn't want to marry you (there are clearly good reasons for this), you can't marry your child (again, good reasons). But why can't you marry someone of the same gender? I can think of some reasons, but they are applicable to heterosexual couples as well, so selectively applying them only to homosexual couples is discrimination. RobHar (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The Court did not reject that argument. The court rejected the argument that the statutes did not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and reasoned that such statutory discrimination flowed from the fact that the statutes impinged on the Constitutional rights of same-sex couples to marry.  The Court remarks, "Just as a statute that restricted marriage only to couples of the same sex would discriminate against heterosexual persons on the basis of their heterosexual orientation, the current California statutes realistically must be viewed as discriminating against gay persons on the basis of their homosexual orientation.  In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384, 441 (Cal. 2008).  Therefore, the Court recognizes that the statutes are unconstitutional because it is just as wrong to force heterosexuals to marry a same-sex partner - something a heterosexual has no desire to do.
 * The court includes the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association's support for the argument that humanity justifies homosexuality because homosexual acts are the means by which deeply-felt needs are met. It would be discriminatory to withhold such basic satisfaction from people.  Therefore, the argument goes, since marriage is a deeply-felt need, and since that need is met in homosexuals by marriage, then homosexual marriage must be constitutional. Outlawing homosexual marriages discriminates against homosexuals becuase homosexuals have a right to satisfaction of needs.  But doesn't that argument assume that homosexuality is the only means by which two homosexual people of the same sex can fulfill their deeply-felt needs?  Can two heterosexuals not meet their deeply felt needs with members of the same sex?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but a logical consequence of the court's argument is that two people have to be homosexuals if they are of the same sex and meet each other's deeply felt needs.  My son has a deeply felt need (I am his father) that I satsfy; does that make us homosexuals?  Of course, it does not.  Does the court import to certain deeply felt needs a status that in their opinion avails the ones in search of satisfing that need of Constitutional protection insofar as that satisfaction requires?  If so, those are not the people the court is "protecting"; it is the "satisfaction" of those people.  Must we absolutely discriminate against certain modes and methods of satisfaction, even if a class of people is inherently subject to that discrimination?  See reverse discrimination/affirmative action for further insight.
 * The truth of Kevin's argument depends on how rights are defined. If rights are eliminated, they are no longer rights.  However, if "rights" were wrongly recognized as such, then such "rights" existed only to the extent that they were legally exercised, i.e., exercised in the absence of legal prohibition.  See slavery.  Exercising of a fundamental right in pursuit of a satisfaction makes the pursuit of the same no more of a right than calling the dog's tail a "fifth leg" makes it a leg.  It's the right that is protected; only constitutional means of exercise are necessarily annexed to that protection.
 * I am in favor of leaving the discrimination tag; for how else might we be thoroughly informed of the true nature of discrimination if we censor and allow no voice to those people who label sound discernment or proper discretion as "discrimination?" As this is not an expression of my personal view, but of a religious view shared by those for whom I speak, please inform me of any offensive expressions. --ElderHap (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

African American votes
There is a whole lot of talk in several newspapers and TV broadcasts about the crucial African American vote. This should be added.

Also, we should not group individuals into just "the entertainment industry;" these people are individuals. --Shamir1 (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding entertainment industry people, that was the consensus wording reached on this talk page. See Archive 2.  Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the African American vote, I agree. I have yet to hear a TV broadcast that doesn't mention the African American vote being crucial to the proposition's passage. Gambit2392 (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and the paragraph was deleted without comment, so I've restored it pending further discussion. —EqualRights (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, but I'm about to edit it for tone. "Crucial", "not only", and so on are peacock words, or weasel words, or antelope words, or something.... nothing wrong with what they say but in tone they sound more like an essay than an article. Wikidemon (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ...done, although I'm not terribly happy with the phrase "was important to" replacing "crucial to" the outcome. I couldn't figure out how to say it strongly without it sounding like an opinion.  Wikidemon (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I like the subsection called "exit polling".  C T J F 8 3 Talk 00:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It could be better named. How about "Breakdown" or "Demographics"? Occu͡pax (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I like demographics the best.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 05:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Images
There is an image on Wikipedia of youth evangelist Ron Luce at the podium with a "Yes on Prop 8" bumper sticker in his hand, grabbed from the broadcast of the "Fine Line" pro-Prop-8 youth rally on October 1,. It could be added along with the restoral of the image of Newsom so that each section has a picture of a proponent/opponent of the measure. Both of these images show the subject with signs or other material connecting them with the Proposition. If added, don't forget to add another fair use rationale for this article to the image page. Mike Doughney (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I say do it - pictures speak a thousand words. Mrbell (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not really like the Ron Luce image as it is not very clear, but I did find this which I just uploaded. It was in the Photo Gallery on the ProtectMarriage.com website. I was unsure how to license it, so if we decide to use it, we will need to fix that. What do you think? Gambit2392 (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems to me, upon reflection, there isn't a clear fair use justification for use in this particular article for either image. The Luce image is incidental to this article; the Prop 8 bus image may fall into the realm of identifying individuals and fair use images aren't usable for that according to Wikipedia policy. Prop 8 also makes a point of choosing the copyrighted/'all rights reserved' status for all of their images at Flickr. I suppose you could ask them to release one, but I've never asked anyone to do that and am unclear on the procedure. Mike Doughney (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's cut down on the images. Two pictures of the protest are unnecessary. And having four pictures against the proposition and one for seems pretty unbalanced and POV. I recommend removing the San Francisco protest (which is difficult to see anyway) and the one of Mayor Newsom. Alanraywiki (talk) 06:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose: the picture of the mayor is in the oppose section, and he apposes the proposition. I think you just have an underlying motive, i do not see any issue but a personal one on your behalf. And by the way, multimedia is strongly encouraged on wikipedia.  --Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not the use of images that I oppose, it is in the lack of balance per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. That policy, part of WP:NPOV, states that "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject."  That is where the balance of both sides of the issue comes in, including the use of images.  As far as an underlying motive, please assume good faith.  Alanraywiki (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Partial agreement - as photogenic as Newsom is, I continue to believe that a picture of a politician holding forth is uninteresting and adds nothing to this article. —EqualRights (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. We need more pictures, not fewer.  Those who believe the pictures are unbalanced should add pictures showing rallies conducted by the other side.  As for the Newsom picture, I think it is not bad, since it shows faces, rather than just a mass of people.  If there is a problem with politicians not being supposed to be depicted, maybe someone can turn up an image of Rev. Susan Russell, the IntegrityUSA chairperson, who probably spoke at a few rallies, too.--Bhuck (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur with Bhuck's disagreement. I think Newsom was a major opponent as should be included in some manner, and if not this picture than another.  However, we shouldn't start including The Governator's picture just because he had an opinion, and there shouldn't be a picture war about which side has more pictures than another.  But Alanraywiki is right about WP:UNDUEWEIGHT.  Perhaps there should be a consensus on the number of pictures? MrBell (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Newsom is already referenced twice in the text as a notable supporter. —EqualRights (talk) 14:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Redundancy?
Sorry for having no follow through, but I don't have time to verify and vet this. Still, it looks redundant to me:

Still near the top of the article:

Republican party members' support for the measure was still more important to the outcome. An exit poll showed that Republican party members sided in favour of the measure by a ratio of more than 4 to 1. Furthermore, Republican party members made up nearly a third of the voters. [9]

White Republicans' support for the measure was still more important to the outcome. An exit poll showed that white Republicans sided in favour of the measure by a ratio of more than 4 to 1. Furthermore, Republican party members made up nearly a third of the voters. [10]

9 and 10 seemingly link to the same exit polling site.

174.40.149.131 (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * References 8, 9, and 10 fixed. What would be the best way to describe these two polls? Perhaps the exit poll data should be combined with the pre-election poll data at the end? MrBell (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know how useful any of the data is. I just went through the cnn exit polls looking for any yes-votes above two-thirds to include alongside the African-American information already there. The site was not loading very well for me but it did seem to have two separate entries for Republican Party Members and White Republicans, albeit with the same numbers for each.MairAW (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)