Talk:2008 California Proposition 8/Archive 9

Overall tone of article, not bad....but redirects to propped up articles is outrageous!
I started doing some checking and this article has been sabotaged by someone who has gone through placing links to articles with Heavy POV. The links to Mormonism and violence was there but the article itself was vandalised by Mormon supporters to alter the subject in very bad faith. I have restored the article and begun Violence against Mormons so that the information and work of others would still be maintained and in an enclyclopedic manner.

The entire article should be check for POV and POV links.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

US Supreme Court Case
I'm sure all you know by now that the Bush lawyer and Gore lawyer that fought each other in 2000 over the recount in Florida in the US Supreme Court are now teaming up to challenge the prop 8 one man on woman marriage limitation [same-sex marriage ban] in the federal Supreme Court. Can we please elaborate, and maybe, create a individual article on this. News article on YouTube, from the Associate Press.--cooljuno411 23:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi - I did the recent GA review on this article. I strongly suggest no separate article - it would be a case of recentism - just create a paragraph in the existing article. There shouldn't be lots of microscopic detail, just enough for a reader to be fully informed about the history of Prop 8. That would be my view. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support an individual article on this. There are individual articles for all legal cases of importance - and this has potential. But I would support it as being only in this article until the notability of the case becomes really notable. Smelt v. United States of America should be included also. --haha169 (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm doing a U-turn on my position on this, in the interests of keeping the Prop 8 article under control. There is currently microscopic detail on the Perry case in the Prop 8 article - stuff of no consequence in the big scheme of things. But I accept people aren't going to wear my views on this while the case is underway. So let's move it out to its own article, but a "main article" link in, and chop the stuff down here. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Lists in Results section
The list was getting a little tough to scroll through; does the split look better? I placed the s where it looked somewhat even, with no regard to what section would be first or in any order. Someone could rearrange the lists so they are the same length, but also ordered by general topic (e.g. party and ideology should be together, etc.). Mr Bell ( talk ) 00:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've rearranged the list contents using general themes. Is it organized well enough? Mr Bell  ( talk ) 19:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ballot repeal effort
There appears to be a little edit war in the making for this section. I understand everyone's desire to be vigilant on POV issues in this article. The arguments involved in the debate have been covered in previous sections and do not need to be repeated in this section. Further, a WP article should not seek to document each small step along the way: see the useful discussion at Recentism. In the case of the section on ballot repeal, my suggestion is that it should be confined to documenting key events, and omitting any material relating to arguments for or against either the 2008 measure or a repeal. The only case where arguments / lines of reasoning should be included in this section should be if it is necessary in order to explain aspects of the repeal proposals, but not the motivations for repeal / opposition per se. For example, it may be appropriate to include a sentence explaining why one significant LGBT lobby favours a different ballot year to other significant LGBT lobby organisations - provided of course the explanation can be located in a reliable source. But we don't want material here on why they want repeal. That is obvious from preceding sections. Ditto their opponents. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Refreshing to see an editor who has a clear idea of how to improve an article instead of just tagging WP:SPS, deleting, and then tagging WP:BURDEN Lionelt (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Splitting
Per WP:SPLIT, articles greater than 100kb "almost certainly should be divided". I therefore propose moving the campaign section to a new article with an appropriate title (suggestions?). In my opinion, while the parties involved are indeed important, a one paragraph summary linked to a template would be more appropriate. Thoughts? Mr Bell ( talk ) 17:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I will work on an article split within the next few days. Any suggestions for a title? How about a summary paragraph that will be left in this article, how should it be worded?  Mr Bell  ( talk ) 21:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I support the split. A name would be something along the lines of Proposition 8 initiative campaign, 2008. I'm not too versed with the Wikipedia naming guidelines. --haha169 (talk) 04:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally, with the influx of things in the post-election events (the federal challenges section is still updating); that could potentially become a separate article as well. --haha169 (talk) 04:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * When you create the new article you will have to write a summary of that article for its WP:Lede section. That lede can be the default summary here. -- Banj e  b oi   21:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose splitting. Frankly, the great length of this article shows it is getting too long for the subject. Rather than splitting it, reduce its length, remove unnecessary images. My view would be that this subject does not deserve multiple articles - it is an example of recentism and giving undue weight to a subject. The longer it gets, the harder it is for a lay reader to actually learn anything. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's another suggestion - delete all external links that are already included in footnote citations. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's an example of how to get rid of runaway overlinking and useles detail: replace "All ten of the state's largest newspapers editorialized against Proposition 8: the Los Angeles Times,[105] the San Francisco Chronicle,[106] the San Diego Union-Tribune,[107] The Orange County Register,[108] The Sacramento Bee,[109] the San Jose Mercury News,[110] the Contra Costa Times,[111] The Press-Enterprise (Riverside-San Bernardino),[112] The Fresno Bee,[113] and the Daily News (Los Angeles).[114]" With: "All ten of the state's largest newspapers editorialized against Proposition 8, including the Los Angeles Times,[105] the San Francisco Chronicle,[106][107][108][109][110] etc" hamiltonstone (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And, having said it during a GA review, I will say it again: get rid of the huge table of demographics of voting on Prop. 8 from the exit poll. This is completely unnecessary. All that is called for is a couple of sentences, based on reliable analytical published sources, about which of these trends is notable and why. Store the table for the use of other editors on an archived talk page if editors wish to keep it around. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I would welcome a thinning of the article, but I hesitate because of my POV (and the sure POV war that would ensue if I would undertake such a task). If you propose specifics, I'll voice my support.  Otherwise, if I personally have to do the editing, I'd feel more comfortable with a split to avoid the reverts and accusations.  Mr Bell  ( talk ) 17:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support split. Folks really, this article is only going to grow longer. Splitting off the campaign and summarizing it here is an excellent idea. It's a big section and the repeal efforts seem to now be targeted for 2012. Yes, that means at least three more years of this.  -- Banj e  b oi   21:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hamiltonstone, thoughts? If a split happens, should the post-election events section get its own page too? Mr Bell  ( talk ) 23:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (my thoughts are in another comment below - if there is a split, i would make only one split at this stage, and that would be for post-election events, not the campaign. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe, I would do one at a time. Likely a timeline of post Prop 8 events would make the most sense as it can let the latest episode bloat then be trimmed back in hindsight. -- Banj e  b oi   00:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Very well, we can hold off on a possible split of the post Prop 8 events section (I'll propose it again next week to see what the consensus is). Mr Bell  ( talk ) 15:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the campaign section, at this moment the overall consensus appears to support the split. Any other thoughts? (hamiltonstone, I would still support a thinning, but I'm unsure how to best to it, and would feel uncomfortable wording it myself - your suggestion?) Let's at least wait until Friday before working on the split of the campaign section to allow for additional comments/replies. As for a title, Proposition 8 initiative campaign, 2008 was proposed by haha169; any other suggestions or does the consensus support this? Mr Bell ( talk ) 15:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if this sounds a little uncivil, but having been asked my thoughts, they are: "no one read my post". I encourage Benjiboi and colleagues to improve this article by editing it down rather than by adding more text. This appears to me an example of recentism getting out of control. I have seen the same phenomenon on a range of other WP articles on recent US political events generally. I beg editors to ask themselves: what manner of writing, and what length of article, is most likely to encourage people to read and acquire knowledge about this subject? The way this article is heading, no one will ever get to its end (let alone the end of the spin-offs) and no-one will really learn about Proposition 8. This was (and is) a high-profile political debate. But put it in another perspective: it was one ballot initiative among several, in one state of one country in one election year, amongst thousands of democratic elections in over a hundred countries, and thousands of regional jurisdictions around the world, over a history of people's political choices spanning centuries. So i am sorry to not respond to Benjiboi's second question, but i want to stick to my first response. In the interests of avoinding recentism, undue weight, and giving all editors encouragement to write and improve the wide range of other similar articles, just cut this down. Best wishes. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hamiltonstone, out of those thousands of democratic elections, Proposition 8's campaign stands out in stark contrast to many - even rivaling many nationwide constitutional referendums in importance. "...largest financed campaign on a social issue in the United States..." in addition with huge media coverage makes a campaign article quite notable. And out of the three related initiatives in 2008, Arizona and Florida being the other two, Proposition 8 also stands out in stark contrast. I rarely see anybody talking about Florida or Arizona's amendments without mention of Proposition 8. My entire argument thus far has been based on notability of the campaign subject; but consider the original argument: WP:SPLIT. And because of simultaneous court litigation and ballot repeal efforts as well as ongoing campaigning still continuing in California because of this, this article will only continue to expand in the many years to come. Splits will become necessary if we want to avoid the length that Roman Catholic Church suffers. --haha169 (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All true, but that doesn't mean it has to be long. Roman Catholic Church as a subject, with respect, is on a completely different level to a Californian ballot initiative. The RCC is a millenium-aged institution that has shaped the beliefs and international affairs of a large chunk of the entire globe for centuries, as well as being the largest single denominational element of one of the world's main religions. That is why it may benefit from being a top-level article with lots of 'main article" redirects. Anyway, just to show I think you may partly be right, I've just reversed my previous position on Perry v Schwarzenegger, killed the redirect, set it up as its own piece, and am now editing it down here :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 12:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This was not an ordinary proposition, I believe it was the most expensive and likely best known in all history. It's been hacked at here quite a bit enough that I really don't bother trying to edit the actual article anymore. If a split seems logical then do the split and make the edits on the new article. If something is unneeded it will be just as unneeded there. This article will keep growing without a doubt. -- Banj e  b oi   12:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support split I should prob not jump in but splitting this section will not affect the article in a huge way in my opinion. Splitting will also as was pointed out reduce the size of this growing article. I disagree slightly on the title though it should be: Proposition 8 initiative campaign (2008) or Proposition 8 (2008) initiative campaign. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2009 (AT)
 * 2008 probably shouldn't be within parenthesis in this situation. Although I'm going on a whim here and saying that initiative campaigns follow the same standard as candidacy campaigns; and such candidacy campaigns use commas. ie. Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 --haha169 (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh okay then, im not picky as long as the article gets shortened its ok by me =). Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2009 (AT)

OK, give me a moment with the article, and let me show you what I mean about simplifying it to give it a clear focus and coverage of the issues. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Neutral I have now done a major run-through to simplify the text. As someone who regularly reviews articles here, I think it is better in this new form, but I expect there will be some debate about that and tweaking of these edits. The article is now a bit smaller. I have conceded the need for a split on Perry v Schwartzenegger, and have taken the first steps to make that split myself, so there is now a main article on the case, and just a summary here. Yes, the current article is still long. That is partly because I didn't want to be too radical in one hit - I still think there is unnecessary detail, but wouldn't cut more without a discussion here. However, given others may still not agree, I favour a chronological split: this article should end with the results of the vote, and the new article should be post-election campaigns and legal challenges seeking to overturn the decision. Bets wishes, hamiltonstone (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed the campaign section split tag because the article length has been reduced - the only reason why I recommended to split that section was because of the article length. However, I left the split tag for the post-election events section.  What is the consensus behind a split of that section?  Mr Bell  ( talk ) 16:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit
I'm part way through a run-through to simplify the text, while attempting to retain all kep points, in a bid to make it more readable. I hope it will also make it shorter. I've tried to explain each edit in an edit summary, deliberately splitting the edits up so people can see clearly what I'm doing. There are a few points I may not tackle but which would help the article: I may add more points later. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is stuff under "protests" that doesn't really fit there, like the making of a musical about the proposition!
 * The section "Controversies about campaign financing and donations" is a problem: it contains allegations and rebuttals, but gives no indication if any of these suits are continuing or have lapsed, been withdrawn, or been rejected by the courts. Unless the answers to these questions are known, I would lean toward deleting the whole thing. The reasons are (1) taken at face value, the evidence presented suggests the filing deadline was met, whether anyone likes the result or not; and (2) frankly, some stakeholders in a political battle saying "you spent more money than that" "did not!" "did too!" is about as notable as... well, nothing. That's politics, all the time. It is not worth retaining, unless the suits are continuing or have been upheld. Can someone clarify this?
 * Hey Hamilton, I've seen you do lots of work to this article over a short burst, and won't be reverting/editing your work; quite frankly, I'm just not bothered. However, I will draw attention to the fact you are introducing a pov driven agenda (propaganda...) into your edits that does you, and this project, no favours. Ultimately, the "truth will out" (is that a pun?) and when it does, this sort of revisionism and colourful editing will be the source of shame and derision. 193.188.33.23 (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone is welcome to their view about POV. I've worked hard to keep this neutral, have no particular views about most aspects of this article, and come here as an experienced researcher, writer, and, at WP, with some experience of reviewing articles for Good Article status. I have tried to stay focussed on answering the questions:
 * what text would most honor the policies and objectives of WP as an encyclopedia?
 * what would a lay reader with no knowledge about this topic want to read and how should the text be structured to ensure they will understand it?
 * what would be likely to be passed at Wikipedia's Good Article project because it both "addresses the main aspects of the topic" and "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail" - because I think these tests are important tests of a good encyclopedia article (which, I gues, is why they are key criteria at GA
 * I hope that now I'm more or less done, people might consider this might be a better article to a lay reader, even though the amount of detail in it has been reduced (slightly). I'd like to see this nominated and get through WP:GA, but now I've done a major edit I obviously would not be the reviewer (as I was last time). Best wishes, hamiltonstone (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support edits. I've been going through your edits one at a time, and overall they are well-founded in good editing practices. I was about to question your POV, but your edits have been even-handed on both sides on the issue. Your edit summaries are brilliant! I support the changes, if only to try and wipe the proverbial slate clean.  Mr Bell  ( talk ) 16:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead
A few months ago, I was under the impression the lead was stable (something like this). The last listed discussion of the lead (I believe) was this in March 2009. Recent edits have changed the lead (version I see today) What is the consensus behind these changes? Here are some differences between the revisions:
 * 1) "Proposition 8 was a California ballot measure addressing the legality of same-sex marriage by changing the state's constitution to limit marriage to unions between one man and one woman" as the lead sentence instead of "Proposition 8 was a California ballot proposition passed in the November 4, 2008, general election." (the latter was a bit simpler?)
 * 2) Placing "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" in large quotes (scare quotes?)
 * 3) "...carving out an exception to the preexisting scope of the privacy and due process clauses" of the state constitution ("carving out" seems a bit strong? Google search for that quotation)
 * Hi there. Amused to think there would be a consensus behind a major change to a lead. Just someone being bold I should think. Like you, I don't see them as progress, and in particular the scare quotes must go. So revert away unless others object here. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

How about this:


 * Proposition 8 was a California ballot proposition passed in the November 2008, general election. The measure added a new section (7.5) to Article I of the California Constitution. The new section reads: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases, thereby restricting the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples and eliminating same-sex couples' constitutional right to marry. California's State Constitution put the measure into immediate effect the day after the election.  The proposition did not affect domestic partnership in California.

Two comments/questions:
 * 1) Lead paragraphs should be simple, e.g. identify when and when, then the specific text, then the political meaning, then the social implications
 * 2) I'm a little concerned about "right to marry." Some have argued that it's not (moral, social reasons, etc.) but it was clearly defined as a constitutional right per In re Marriage Cases. What is a better way to word this to avoid the confusion/contention? Mr Bell  ( talk ) 16:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The right to marry as found by the Supreme Court of California? occono (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Occono, though court should be replaced with Marriage Cases to make it more specific. --haha169 (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair enough. Any other thoughts? Mr Bell  ( talk ) 19:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How about "constitutional right to marry as ruled previously in In re Marriage Cases." IMO, "ruled previously" sounds a bit odd, are there other suggestions? Mr Bell  ( talk ) 16:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Switch "ruled" and "previously" around. I think that sounds better. --haha169 (talk) 03:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So: "The proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases, thereby restricting the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, and eliminating same-sex couples' constitutional right to marry as previously ruled in In re Marriage Cases." Does that sound like a run-on sentence? Mr Bell  ( talk ) 15:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, a little. Current wording is more concise and is more specific as to what is overturned: "The proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, thereby restricting the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples." If you really want to put "eliminating" in the sentence, you could put right after the comma "thereby eliminating that right and..." but that is already implied in the current wording and I see no reason to make it messier than it has to be. Shalom. Wikibojopayne (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I just realized that technically, the restriction of the def. of marriage in Prop 8 overturned the court's ruling, not the other way around, so the text should be adjusted accordingly. My suggestion: "By restricting the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry." Shalom. Wikibojopayne (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, much better. More accurate, and more NPOV. Very clever. Thank you.Ragazz (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems biased
This article overall is good, but really seems to take the side of the Anti Prop 8 side. For instance, the vocabulary in this article is very biased in favor of the gay marriage group. In fact- terms like homosexual, gay, lesbian, etc. are not used and in place, almost ackwardly, is the repeated use of "same sex." This is the vernacular of the pro Prop 8 agenda. Any chages to this, particularly to commonly anit inflamitory terms like "Gay" and "homosexual" are inappropriately changed to vandalism. Durnian1811 (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The proposition (and now constitution) restrict marriages based on the sex, not the sexual orientation, of the parties. "Gay marriage" is more of a vernacular, informal term, which draws the obvious conclusion that two people who are in a marriage presumably have sex, and in so doing are exhibiting a sexual orientation.  But that's an indirect even if obvious conclusion.  "Homosexual" is a slightly disapproved term in some circles for several reasons.  It's unduly clinical sounding, and it literally means a sexual orientation for men (so taken literally it would apply to women who sleep with men, but not women who sleep with women).  Plus it's an older term, so perhaps it reminds people of the bad old days.  Of course there's a PC undercurrent with all the various terms for sex, gender, orientation, etc., as there is with most minority groups.  Wikipedia just tries to adopt whatever the most common neutral mainstream language here.Wikidemon (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand your explanation for the first part- however, there are plenty of references to hetrosexual. Why use one and not the other? Durnian1811 (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I looked it up and I'm wrong. See the article, Terminology of homosexuality.  homosexual comes from the greek prefix for "same".  "Sexual" is from a latin root meaning, well, sexual.  So technically by its etymological origins the word means people who commit or are oriented towards sexual acts with people of the same sex.  That could correctly include lesbians (named for Lesbos Island, where female erotic poet Sappho was born).  I don't even want to think about asexual people having sex with asexual people, or hermaphrodites dating other hermaphrodites :).  And then heterosexual comes from the greek prefix for different or diverse, meaning someone who has sex with or is drawn to people from a sex different than their own.  So technically it would be correct to refer to marriages as heterosexual or homosexual.  I think that leaves PC as the best explanation.  Some people just don't like those terms.  You know, language changes.  We can't call people grease monkeys or garbage men anymore, they're mechanics and sanitation engineers.  Same thing I guess.  Wikidemon (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's "Same-Sex Marriage" or "Marriage Equality." Gay people get married everyday in all 50 states, the true issue of marriage equality is whether people of the same sex should marry each other. "Gay marriage" is incorrect. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is only one place the therm "heterosexual" is used in the article, not "plenty of references"--that is when referring to proponents' arguments in favor of "exclusively heterosexual marriage". Would people prefer the term "exclusively opposite-sex marriage"?  That sounds a bit awkward to me.  Alternatively, we could try "restricting marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples", but that is wordy.  Just using the term "opposite-sex marriage" is confusing, because no one ever banned opposite-sex marriage.--Bhuck (talk) 10:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for Semi-Protection
Can we semi-protect this page or something? I have been noticing alot of vandalism going on recentlly. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2009 (AT)
 * Anyone can request it at WP:RFPP. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that everyone is new at somethings at one point, thanks for your help =). Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2009 (AT)
 * No need to apologize, I didn't mean to come across as snippy or gruff. I've already requested temporary semi-protection after I posted my reply above. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay and thanks again =). No offense taken its ok.Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2009 (AT)
 * Personally, I'm confused. Why the vandalism all of a sudden? Is it just a single person conducting sockpuppetry? --haha169 (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * From the article history, the vandalism has been there and has resulted in several page protections in the past - we've just seen another spike in activity recently. It does look to be sockpuppet related this time ... here's a link to the archived sockpuppet investigation: Sockpuppet investigations/Brucejenner/Archive. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads-up, semi-protection has been recently lifted. Shalom. Wikibojopayne (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Pro Prop 8 "Activist Judges" argument
The following arguement was given on the Yes on 8 website.

"CALIFORNIANS HAVE NEVER VOTED FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. If gay activists want to legalize gay marriage, they should put it on the ballot. Instead, they have gone behind the backs of voters and convinced four activist judges in San Francisco to redefine marriage for the rest of society. That is the wrong approach."

This arguement concerning limits on judicial power was repeated often, gives historical context for the election results, and should be included in this article in the appropriate section(s).Ragazz (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Constitutional right to marriage?
This article begins with an claim that proposition 8 passing robbed homosexuals of their "constitutional right" to marriage. It's not remotely NPOV, and there is no citation. I assume there is no citation, because there is no constitutional right to "marriage", and I suspect that word appears nowhere therein. Given the above points, I think it the article warrants a revision in this regard. It's not NPOV, and there is no citation. I think it should be removed. 69.244.168.60 (talk) 14:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The constitutional right as found by the Supreme Court in Re: Marriage Cases. occono (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, the wording is not NPOV. The constitution does not explicitly describe this right, it was the court's interpretation and that should be made clear in the wording. For the sake of the reader's understanding, this fact should be apparent. Here is a suggestion:

The proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases, thereby restricting the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples and eliminating same-sex couples' right to marry.

OR

The proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases, thereby restricting the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples and eliminating for same-sex couples what the court had determined was their constitutional right to marry. Ragazz (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been struggling with finding a NPOV wording for this, and you seemed to find a solution almost efforlessly. I like the new addition, and added it. I don't think there are any objections, are there? --haha169 (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see how it could be a tricky sentence. I still think my version doesn't read that well, but at least it has the correct substance. Glad you agreed.Ragazz (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the proposed wording looks like a step forward. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, marriage is a right in the great state of California, as stated in our constitution and in the "In Re Marriage Cases" that User:Occono added. I think the unregistered user who started this needs to read the 10th Amendment. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no explicit mention of same-sex marriage. The wording was misleading before we fixed it. This is not a forum, please remember that. Thanks Ragazz (talk) 05:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest this wording: "The proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, thereby restricting the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples." It's simpler, neutral, and more accurate. Peace.Wikibojopayne (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Brilliantly worded, I support. Mr Bell  ( talk ) 16:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's better wording, but now I'm not sure if this is the right place for mention of re Marriage Cases. Prop 8 didn't excatcly reverse the decision, it side-stepped it, making the case irrelevent (legally).Ragazz (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ragazz, I suggest you read our constitution. The LGBT community was confused by Prop 8 because most of us knew that marriage, itself, is a right under both our constitution and judicial opinion. Not all provisions of the right to marry in California specify the gender requirements. If I'm not mistaken only once does it mention the gender requirement. Using your mentality, you're asserting that breeders can't marry, either, because there is no mention of same sex marriage... which is false.

Really, I dare you to read our monstrosity of a constitution, as I have, then you may argue constitutional law. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Gnarly, take it to my talk page if you really want to discuss this. Your personal view does not constitute NPOV.Ragazz (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the Prop 8 ballot title, upheld by Jansson v. Bowen, Prop 8 "Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" (by rendering same-sex marriage neither "valid" nor "recognized"), overturning the ruling in re Marriage Cases that same-sex marriage a constitutional right. Prop 8 did not overturn the whole ruling, but it did overturn that element of the court's ruling. Moreover, Prop 8 is universally recognized as a reaction to re Marriage Cases; how can that ruling be irrelevant to an article on Prop 8? Shalom. Wikibojopayne (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're talking to me... it isn't [irrelevant]. I even used the court's ruling to emphasize my argument. Prop 8 eliminated the right of same sex couples to marry; there is, however, a right to marry in Californa, with or without gender-neutrality. That was an argument in the cases to overturn Prop 8. The conditions and case, the tide was just right for potential marriage equality via Supreme Court intervention in 2009 as it was when Prop 22 was overturned in 2008. That's what I think wasn't absorbed earlier in this discussion by others. Thanks for your input on this bro. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

My above statement somewhat responds to this by Ragazz (I can't resist responding):

"I agree, the wording is not NPOV. The constitution does not explicitly describe this right, it was the court's interpretation and that should be made clear in the wording. For the sake of the reader's understanding, this fact should be apparent. Here is a suggestion:

''The proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases, thereby restricting the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples and eliminating same-sex couples' right to marry. OR The proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases, thereby restricting the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples and eliminating for same-sex couples what the court had determined was their constitutional right to marry.''

Ragazz (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposition 8 did not overturn the entire ruling of the In Re Marriage cases; additionally, the cases did not determine only that same sex marriage should be allowed, but a few other points, such as making sexual orientation a suspect class. Those other points and precedent are still standing because Prop 8 did not address them.... only marriage. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Salvatore J. Cordileone
I want to add to this article the information found in this article on Mr. Cordileones role in prop 8. As this is a controversial article, i want to get others thoughts on the reliability of this source. i think its impeccable as a local paper that (currently) has integrity in its reporting. I think just a single sentence showing his, or even just the california catholic churchs role in creating, not just supporting prop 8 is enough.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ooo, thank you for this... this is great! GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The wording of the article is hopelessly biased ("the movement to deprive gay men and lesbians of the right to marry" etc.). It reads like an op-ed. I like that paper, but it seems like there could be a more neutral source (this is an encyclopedia, there are better sources than local entertainment rags). I don't see what the point in including the info about bishop Cordileone is. The Roman Catholic Church is already included in "religious organizations".Ragazz (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I kind of, sort of agree with you. Now, I'm gay, my friends are gay, but I must admit that the opening of the article could be construed as being biased, and therefore would not qualify as an acceptable reference here. But I suggest you read all of it. The tone evens out.


 * As far as "the movement to deprive gay men and lesbians the right to marry....", a quick look through the dictionary would solve your confusion in no time. It was a movement. That movement did seek to deprive LGBT people of that right. The truth hurts, and that's what it is, truth. Truth is not biased. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That specific phrase appears to express a particular POV. In a narrow legal sense it is possible to argue that each individual word in the sentence is used correctly. However the overall expression "deprive someone of a right" has a clear implication in everyday English that is not reasonable in the context of the present article. Setting that issue aside, the East Bay Express article is extremely detailed, and appears to provide new information about the origins of the Prop 8 campaign that should be included in the WP article, notwithstanding the source. Can I ask Mercurywoodrose, Ragazz and Gnarly to, before going further, check the media for any claims by Cordileone that the information in the article is inaccurate? Provided there are none, then I would not agree with Ragazz about there being nothing new here - the WP article has always been a bit weak on the origins of Prop 8, and this would help address that. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The express usually prints letters in response to their articles. in the issue following this one, they printed this letter, (the last letter), which seems to indicate that the local catholic church does not wish to respond to this article directly, and is actively censoring letters to their publications that reference the subject. I find it highly unlikely that the express would not publish a letter from the local church if they wrote to correct or refute the article. i believe the facts in the article may stand as they are. I agree that the language the express uses is often very adversarial and one sided, but its otherwise known for good reporting (except for a period about 2-6 years ago). it knows its audience well (very liberal, very progressive, very cultured and educated east bay/berkeley/oakland residents). I would of course not support quoting their language in the article, but rephrasing in NPOV language to just convey the facts. OH, and i just found the fuller letters page,, and the bishops supporters dont question his role, just the language and position of the article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Because of the source (EB Express, which has some greatly insightful and informative articles but also some of questionable fact-checking and NPOV, sometimes the same article), and the article's taking a plainly editorial and opinionated tone, I don't think we can treat it as a reliable source here. However, many of the claims made in the article may well be true so I would be on the lookout for any corroboration from other sources.  - Wikidemon (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And on the substance, both the movement and the proposition deprived gay people of the right to marry, but it all depends on how you're using the term "right". In a strictly legal sense, before the proposition there was a right recognized by the California supreme court for people (presumably, nearly entirely gays / queers / bisexuals / etc) to enter into a same-sex marriage.  After the proposition's change to the California Constitution, the right no longer existed.  "Deprive" is a little loaded, but it did serve to remove a legal right.  In a strictly moral / normative sense, whether gays have a right to marry or not is a value judgment, something Wikipedia cannot weigh in on.  So it may be okay to call it a perceived or acknowledged, or argued right, a right that many people believe in.  And in that sense too, if it was a right the proposition served to take it away, to deny people with that right the ability to exercise it.  The problem comes when you conflate the two, as often happens in political discourse.  If I feel I have a right to do something (e.g. take drugs in the privacy of my own home, hunt and kill any animal that wanders across my property, view and copy any video file that is available for the taking) and the government makes it illegal, I can say that the government has deprived me of a right.  But did I really have that right to begin with?  Unless there's some legal entitlement, or some broad moral / philosophical / ethical framework for why humans in my position should be able to do something, a "right" in this sense just boils down to the fact that I wish to do something but it is illegal.  Sexual orientation and desire to marry, most would argue, is a little more fundamental than watching pirated videos, but the framework is the same: a perceived entitlement that happens to be made illegal.   Anyway, using sources to resolve this kind of language / framework issue isn't all that helpful.  One would at the least have to see what the weight of the best sources say, not just find one source to call it a "right" or another source to say there is no right.  - Wikidemon (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that all aspects of the article's reliability should be discounted because of its opinionated tone in some parts. Specifically, the claims about Cordileone's activities appear readily rebutted by Cordileone or his church, and if seriously inadequate might also have been regarded as libelous. The absence of such contrary opinions (if editors have searched and failed to locate such) bolsters the articles credibility. I think the description of C's activities (worded in a more neutral manner than in the orginal article obviously) could be allowed to stand. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)