Talk:Defense of Marriage Act/Archive 3

BLAG
We have generally been saying "the BLAG" as found in most press coverage and following the style we use for "the DOJ" rather than BLAG without the definite article. Only court docs seem to drop the definite article. Doesn't it make sense to return to the more usual: the BLAG, the DOJ, à la the SEC, the DOD, etc.? (I'm surprised to find Geidner inconsistent, sometimes using both styles in the same article.) Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd go with the BLAG, but it's not of great moment. Court documents probably drop the article because the BLAG is a party, so it's like saying "the plaintiff" generically, as opposed to "Plaintiff" to refer to a party in the case. We're not a court document, although one could argue the same thing applies to us depending on how we are referring to (the) BLAG. Oh, and btw, court documents are not always consistent on these issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No, BLAG is an acronym. The DOJ, SEC, and DOD are all initialisms, which means you pronounce each letter. I find your assertion that press coverage usually uses the article puzzling, but even if it were true, the courts (you know, the ones that actually work with the group and have the group before them) leave out the article. -Rrius (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The courts are not a good style guide, IMHO, but you're right about the acronym, like NASA. Not an intuitive rule. Maybe removing the definite article across WP will help the rest of the world get it right. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Courts are terrible on style for some things, but for something like "what do you call the group appearing before you?", I think they can be relied upon. Anyway, I've seen the article-less version far outweigh "the BLAG" in sources. A Google News search backs this up, with even many of the articled versions actually being something like "the BLAG petition", where "the" relates to "petition" (or some other noun). I think the fact that MetroWeekly pieces, and ones by Geidner in particular, predominate here skews perceptions a bit. (Incidentally, that is not a criticism of using too much Geidner. I used to follow his old blog, so I'm in the "there can never be too much Geidner" camp.) -Rrius (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Homophobia
I removed this categorisation from the article, as there was nothing to substantiate it in the article. Moreover, the category page emphasises that it must not be added to organizations that are allegedly homophobic - I imagine the same would apply to legislation. StAnselm (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Euphemistic Language
The most recent edit changed

"fear among anti-gay activists..."

to

"...concern among advocates of traditional marriage..."

shouldn't we keep things more concise and direct?

--Charonn0 6-30-05 12:46 PDT

I made the original paragraph on Baehr v. Lewin. I changed it to a somewhat more neutral "concern among opponents of gay marriage".


 * That is much better.

--Charonn07-28-05 12:49 PDT

When will the cases be heard by the court?
Per scotusblog.com, the Supreme Court will be discussing deciding which cases will be heard on November 30. (I'd post a link, but I can't from this computer.) Should this be added to the article, or is it too tentative to be noteworthy? Or is scotusblog.com not a reliable enough source of information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.69.196.2 (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The date of the scheduled conference is probably just too fine a level of detail. It might make more sense to wait until the Supreme Court decides what if anything to grant. That decision could conceivably be put off to a future conference for a variety of reasons—it has already moved consideration from the 20th to the 30th. As for the reliability of SCOTUSblog, I'm not sure. Usually blogs aren't considered reliable enough, but this may be one where an exception is warranted. Even so, it is probably best to try to substitute a more traditional source if the issue comes up. In any event, I don't feel strongly enough either way about inclusion, so hopefully someone else will comment as well. -Rrius (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone has even added the conference date to the Wiki entries for any of the specific cases at issue. Better to wait. (I don't think anyone would quarrel with citing SCOTUSblog, but it's easy to find other sources, like the Tuscon Sentinel, which in turn cites BuzzFeed. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Note 6 needs to be updated
The total of states with constitutional bans has gone up and the information on statutory bans and Maine is completely out of date but I can't find a decent source on the exact numbers. Buck Winston (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Standing
For those who care about the details, Arthur Leonard, one of the clearest writers on LGBT legal issues, has polled his colleagues on the impact of a ruling that a party lacks standing. here 174.252.51.84 (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced editorial moved from article
Unsourced editorial moved from the article to here:


 * Obviously this is a politically charged case. With the recent upswing of avocation for Lesbian, Gay, Transgender, Bisexual (LGTB) relationships in U.S. society, there has been a surge of political statements from U.S. Officials, lobbying, and LGTB-oriented characters on primetime television.


 * The core argument against DOMA's constitutionality--which has been repeatedly conveyed using all of the means above--is that LGTB is not a choice or preference, but rather, part of the genetic makeup of a person which cannot be changed. In essence, LGTB is genetically a class of people in the same way people are defined by gender and race. For example, a person that has a dark skin complexion cannot receive less rights than a person of light skin complexion. Further, a person who is female cannot receive less rights than a person who is male. This concept was embodied during the Civil Rights Movement. The LGTB community claims that gay marriage is a continuation of this movement and as such, LGTB oriented people should be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples.


 * However, the counterargument to this case is that DOMA allows society to define marriage at the state level. This means that if the majority of citizens in a state conclude that marriage should be defined as "between one man and one woman" then they have the right to uphold that stance.


 * The genetic make-up claim which argues that this is a civil-rights issue, is more difficult to prove than previous civil-rights cases. This is evident in that the differences between male and female biology cannot be refuted, nor can the color of a person's skin. However, genetic evidence proving a person was born gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender is more difficult to pin down. There is an ongoing debate of nature vs. nurture. The crux of which is that either a person's environment  (i.e. the way a person was brought up, traumatic child-hood experiences, social confusion, or other outside factors shaped a person's mindset regarding sexual orientation), or a person's nature (or biological make-up) defines one's sexual orientation. Conclusive genetic evidence for the latter argument has not been provided, while the former argument is somewhat evident in bisexual and transgender cases, yet less apparent in gay and lesbian cases.


 * Thus, until conclusive genetic evidence can be provided that LGTB orientation is part of a person's make-up these claims remain debatable. This is an important distinction because DOMA does not just define marriage between a man and a woman but also between ONE man and ONE woman, as someone at a later time could argue that they are genetically disposed to having multiple husband or wives. Further, a person could argue that they are disposed to having inter-species partners (such as a beloved dog, goat, sheep, etc). Obviously, these are outrageous examples but are issues in this debate, nonetheless. A key argument in support of DOMA is that these types of relationships devalue marriage's sanctity, place, and tradition in society.


 * Since marriage is more than just sexual behavior, but serves as society's core instrument through which children are born, raised, taught values, and shaped into productive citizens; the people within society have the right to define these relationships and set limits as to what constitutes them.

These are excellent points, but this is unsourced commentary by an anonymous Wikipedia editor. Wikipedia articles are not the place for this. Instead, find defenses or critiques made by previously published third party sources, and include citations to your sources. Famspear (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Controversy over the term "traditional marriage" when used in U.S. and globally-specific context
a RFC arguing that the term "traditional marriage", as used in discussions of marriage in western, predominantly/historically christian, countries -- and, specifically, the United States -- is not a neutral term and should not be used without explanation/contextualization, has been logged on the Traditional marriage Talk page.

the term "traditional marriage" is not a neutral term when it is used by advocates of a certain position in regards to the Defense_of_Marriage_Act, it refers to the evangelical christian concept of "traditional marriage", which is between one man and one woman -- usually permenantly, until death. globally, however, there are myriad forms of "traditonal marriage"... therefore, it is imperative that wikipedia -- as a global, neutral source -- specify precisely what is meant when the phrase "traditional marriage" is used to advance a very narrow point-of-view, which implies that orthodox christian marriage is the "default", "normal" and "immutable" familial arrangement for all...

the meaning and connotations of the phrase "traditional marriage" when used in U.S.-specific controversies, such as the Defense of Marriage Act are only self-evident to those who live in cultures where the term "traditional" equals a very specific understanding of "christianity"... if this article -- and any other article that refer to "traditional marriage" where what is meant is a "traditional christian definition of marriage" -- is to be truly neutral and universally understood, it is imperative that the term "traditional marriage" either be explained/contextualized, or replaced by an alternate term, such as:


 * traditional Christian definition of marriage
 * orthodox Christian definition of marriage

note that the term "orthodox Christian definition of marriage", might be an acceptable neutral alternative, as there are an ever-increasing number of christian denominations who have expanded their understanding of marriage...

the wikipedia entry for "traditional marriage" provides a rock-solid basis for a wiki-wide consideration of a nomenclature change/clarification when the term "treaditional marriage" is used in a U.S.-specific context... oedipus (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Traditionally in America marriage has been between a man and a woman. The first US state to legalize same-sex marriage was Massachusetts in 2003, while the first jurisdiction in the modern world to legalize same-sex marriage was the Netherlands in 2001.  Thus, without question same-sex marriage is very recent trend in the modern world that is contrary to the traditional definition of marriage (male-female union).


 * This includes non-Christian states such as India, Iraq, China, Israel, Palestine, etc. Thus, it is rather incorrect to say that traditional marriage in the modern world is anything other than male-female union. You're posting represents a heavy bias for homosexual advocacy. I recommend you change the wording of your title to "Controversy over the term "traditional marriage" when used in U.S. and globally"

Editing warring
An IP editor has been trying to edit-war in a blatant WP:OR analysis claiming various disliked groups would benefit from the elimination of DOMA. This has been reverted by a series of editors. Under WP:BRD, he is encouraged to take it here to the talk page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for setting up a forum for dialogue. Please point out which specific portions of the article are analysis or opinion. It clearly and fairly presents the topic raised by a Supreme Court Justice in a hearing on DOMA. The section is very comparable to other sections on this page in both style and format. The only grounds upon which it is being deleted is that it can be misconstrued as comparing Homosexuals to other fringe groups--granted that is not what it is saying. Perhaps there is a way to word the article more clearly. Suggestions? 98.169.199.113 (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It is, by all appearances, a list that you made up, with your own opinion. You list groups not mentioned in anything you cite. The items you did cite, both a justice asking a question and a lawyer making a statement in court, are not WP:RS even if they did say the statements you are making. Wikipedia is not a place for inserting your own essays into the articles. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but that is a load of horseshit. You are trying to bootstrap a hypothetical posed during oral arguments for the Proposition 8 case (not the DOMA case) about whether overturning a state marriage law would affect state prohibitions of incest and polygamy into a definitive statement that child molesters, animal-fuckers, polygamists and incestuous couples would benefit from a repeal of a federal law. Since the Supreme Court does not repeal laws, you clearly couldn't even get that right. In any event, your proposed addition is illogical, ill-informed, and inflammatory. It is for you to defend this pile of garbage you seek to add, so try. But be warned that trolling is just as disruptive as edit warring, and will also get you blocked. Therefore you should seriously consider if and how you answer. -Rrius (talk) 07:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses--one very respectful, one very inflammatory. Please understand that I am a new to Wikipedia and still learning the 'lingo.' I am somewhat aghast at the subsequent conclusions being made by the section that was provided, I certainly did not derive that from what was written. One of the things that makes an article stronger is appealing to a broader audience with a diversity of content. This page is sorely lacking information on how the abrogation of DOMA will affect other minorities. Certainly, Polygamists consider themselves to be in a civil rights struggle just as homosexuals do, albeit, a decade or more behind in public opinion. Other groups that practice pedophilia, such as NAMBLA also advocate for 'equal protection under the law,' although this does not mean that such a practice is palatable or acceptable, expanding marriage beyond 'one man and one woman' opens the gamut to other types of marriage (one boy and one man; multiple women and one man; one animal and one man; and of course two men or two women). The section presents the information agnostically, fairly, and cites all the content based on Supreme Court oral arguments on DOMA/Prop 8 or published dialogue reacting to those Supreme Court arguments.98.169.199.113 (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Although I hope it is not the case, I am starting to suspect that this page is being used to support ONLY the viewpoint of the homosexual community. The Wikipedia audience is much broader than any one group, particularly as DOMA and Prop 8 are being reviewed by the Supreme Court. Wikipedia and this article benefits from a broad diversity of content.98.169.199.113 (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, by the way, this is no more a "homosexual viewpoint" than black civil rights was a "negro viewpoint". Most of the people that oppose DOMA are not gay. For example 81% of people under 30 support gay marriage and the trend has been on the upswing for years.  Some people in the same states that opposed interracial marriage by saying legalizing it would lead to bestiality are now using the same logic with gay civil marriage today. And the groups you mention, NAMBLA for example. How does the number of folks in NAMBLA today compare with 81% of the under 30s and a landslide majority over the under 50s? what percentage of the hundred million+ folks would be NAMBA folks that have expressed an opinion? A fringe. We do not do fringes in Wikipedia. It would distort the article and could be used as a coat rack to introduce all sorts of crap. Javaweb


 * So, you claim that same-sex marriage starts us down a slippery slope to a man marrying a non-human animal? Don't be absurd.
 * Of the minorities you listed, only polygamists have a movement for extending marriage rights, so overturning DOMA could be said to benefit them. But unless a reliable source advocates your risible viewpoint that marriage equality would lead to not only legalization of pedophilia, zoophilia, and incest but official recognition of such unions as marriages, your proposed addition is too ridiculous to take seriously. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Robin, thanks for the thoughtful response, but to clarify, the proposed section does not make an argument nor does it state an opinion. It simply presents details about other minority groups that would benefit from the abrogation/repeal of DOMA, as was proposed by Supreme Court Justice Sotomayer. Legally speaking, the only way to determine a person was born gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender is through social science (a study in the behavioral realm). This is because no conclusive genetic evidence has been presented that a person is born gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender. However, to further clairify, this is not to debate whether someone 'is' or 'is not' born with an atypical sexual orientation, only that it cannot be proven outside of behavioral science. This is problematic in the legal realm when compared to other civil rights cases because there is genetic evidence to prove a person was born a 'woman' or 'black', but no genetic evidence to prove a person was born gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender.98.169.199.113 (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is this pertinent to DOMA? It is pertinent because other minorities such as practitioners of polygamy and incest (proposed by Supreme Court Justice Sotomayer) and pedophiles and practitioners of zoophilia as well, all can present 'civil rights' cases based on social science (the study of behavior) that they were born with those predispositions. Obviously, the practice of polygamy, incest, pedophilia, and zoophilia are somewhat taboo, but this does not mean that public opinion concerning these practices are unchangeable.98.169.199.113 (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Indeed, Lawyers are currently advocating for polygamy rights, there has been a pro-incest lobby since the 1980s, NAMBLA has attempted to advocate for pedophilia rights since the late 1960s, and zoophilia is practiced widely enough to constitute a minority that may advocate for rights in the future. Thus, the information presented is not ridiculous--as some contend--but is based on historical precedent. DOMA does not just bar homosexual unions, it also bars polygamy unions, incest unions, pedophilia unions, and zoophilia unions at the federal level. To say otherwise is an overly narrow interpretation of the law.98.169.199.113 (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

If you would like to contribute feedback to modify/improve this section, please contribute constructively. Otherwise, I propose that the section is added back on the basis that it directly relates to DOMA in that 1) the issue was raised by a Supreme Court Justice, 2) there is historical precedent that these minorities exist, 3) there are lobbies for their social acceptance, and 4) legal argument for "equal protection under the law" is based on behavioral science, which is exactly the same means through which homosexuality is advocated for.98.169.199.113 (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If there is no valid reason to the contrary by tomorrow, the deleted section will be re-added. Regards.98.169.199.113 (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sotomayor was talking about Hollingsworth, the California Prop case, not Windsor, which is the DOMA case. So your first argument dies right there. The phrase "there is historical precedent that these minorities exist" is meaningless. Whether they exist is not at issue. That these groups lobby for acceptance is s superficial connection to gay rights groups. Behavioural science is relevant to only some of the arguments regarding same-sex marriage, arguments that were discussed with regard to Prop 8, but those arguments are not especially relevant to the DOMA case. Most importantly, there are no reliable sources presented for the proposition that abrogating DOMA aids child molesters and sheepfuckers. Finally, Wikipedia works by consensus. You proposed a change that has been objected to by multiple editors. It is or you to convince us that your edit should stand, and you have yet to do that. Your ultimatum based on our raising "a valid reason" as judged by you is not an appropriate way forward. If you carry through on your threat and recommence your edit war, you will in all likelihood find yourself blocked fairly quickly. -Rrius (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How do you figure an animal with no concept of marriage would meaningfully consent to it?
 * And suppose, for the sake of argument, a man did somehow marry a goat. Do you suppose our Social Security administration would start paying a goat spousal benefits? Or the IRS allow him to declare a goat as a tax exemption?
 * Yes, I still contend your suggestion is, indeed, ridiculous. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Robin, agreed, it is somewhat of a continuum with the most reasonable suggestion at one end and the most outrageous example at the other end. However, that is not to say that something that seems outrageous today will not seem "reasonable" at some point in the future. To humor the outrageous, there are certainly people in the US who love their pets to extraordinary degrees and there are also examples where people leave an inheritance to their pets for the caretaking of those pets after the owner is deceased. Perhaps, a relative or caretaker who was put in charge of administering an inheritance could have a legitimate grievance that the pet's inheritance is unfairly taxed. A hypothetical argument could be "other people have the right to love whomever or whatever they choose, why should a person's love be discriminated against because it is for an animal? Aren't we all animals?"98.169.199.113 (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I am certainly not advocating for any of these obscure practices to be legalized, only presenting some legitimate legal challenges that the courts could face if DOMA is repealed on the basis of behavioral science (as opposed to conclusive genetic science).98.169.199.113 (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This article is not the place for your supposition of what legal challenges the court might face. That would qualify as original research under Wikipedia guidelines. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Section 3 only?
The article states that only section 3 was overturned, and the news seems to be reporting it that way. The decision itself says that DOMA is unconstitutional, and says nothing about limiting the scope of that declaration to section 3. Is this procedurally limited because the lower court's decision only overturned section 3? Can anyone find a source that explains the apparent discrepancy?&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * One source is the text of the Court's opinion. On page 2, the Court specifically states, "Section 2, which has not been challenged here, allows States to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed under the laws of other States.... Section 3 is at issue here." See slip op., United States v. Windsor, no. 12-307 (June 26, 2013). Generally, a federal court can decide only the issues presented to the court. Famspear (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do I understand you correctly to be asking if there is a discrepancy or that you feel there is one and wish a clarification for the article? Section three is the pretty much the heart of the single page document as I understand it and is the very reasoning for the Defense of Marriage Act itself. As unconstitutional, section 3 seems to very much strikes down the whole of the law. Am I incorrect in this? The reason ones states that DOMA has been struck down is that Section three is the portion that directly defines how the US federal government recognizes marriage, where and how. Without section three I believe the law becomes useless in implementation as there is nothing to implement. Is that what you are referring to and are looking for a reference to clarify the article with an explanation on how this "overturns" the law itself if only a single section is deemed unconstitutional?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * And the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Second Circuit, which only addressed Section 3. Quality sources make it clear, like this from SCOTUSblog.
 * Section 2 remains. Texas does not have to recognize a Massachusetts marriage. And that matters big-time if you live in Texas. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I see what may be what is being asked by KWW. If only section 3 has been struck down, then DOMA as a whole has not. What the court has ruled on today is strictly what the Federal government cannot do to its own federal workers or to any state that recognizes same sex marriage. In short, DOMA was not struck down in whole, disallowing the individual states the right to recognize or NOT recognize the marriage from another state as defined by their own laws.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Lyle Denniston article that was linked has some very good insight to the laws and implications that may not have been the actual purpose of the opinion. He states that regardless of the individual states right to recognize a marriage or not...same sex couple that are legally married that move to a state that does not recognize the marriage still qualify for federal benefits. Interesting perspective and analysis of the opinions that seems to show the full scope of what was and was not done today.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as noted above, section 3 was the only provision before the Court, and it was the only provision of DOMA ruled to be unconstitutional. There are places in the Court's opinion where the Court states things like this: "This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution." See slip op., page 25. That reference to "DOMA", however, is really a reference to section 3 of DOMA. You have to read the entire opinion to know that the Court is referring only to the provision before the Court, which is section 3 (codified at 1 USC section 7).

Unfortunately for normal people (meaning, non-lawyers), most court opinions are written in a technical way for the purpose of being understood by -- you guessed it: lawyers and judges. Even a new lawyer just out of law school will have already studied the verbatim re-prints of literally thousands of texts of federal and state court opinions. A normal person just doesn't have that training. Lawyers know how to distill the holdings of the court, to separate holdings from dicta, etc. It's dangerous to take a specific statement from the text of a court opinion and over-generalize or infer a lot from that one statement. Same goes for other legal materials such as statutes, regulations, etc. Famspear (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

What section 3 of DOMA did
I added some clarifying language in the lead (or the "lede" if you will). Section 3 of DOMA itself did not bar any federal benefits at all. It simply defined the term "marriage." It is more correct to say that section 3 of DOMA, in conjunction with varous other statutes, "effectively" barred the benefits. Famspear (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

DOMA declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS June 26, 2013
http://sfist.com/2013/06/26/doma_overturned.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.210.66 (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * DOMA as a whole was not struck down. Just section three, a pretty big part, however as you see above in the discussion, it isn't accurate to say that DOMA was declared unconstitutional. Just the section that was presented to the court.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * We may need to watch and see whether the incorrect shorthand for the ruling (DOMA is unconstutional) continues to be the way the story is reported past current events status. It might, at that point, be worth a note to explain that "while the decision was generally reported to declare DOMA unconstitutional, only section 3 was affected by the ruling". We have language that states the latter, but not in the context of the incorrect reporting on it.204.65.34.238 (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This shouldn't be too difficult from all the available sources. This has to have been discussed in detail in many of the major media outlets and I am certain that a number of academic sources are available to reference these claims.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Most do explain that Section 3 was struck down. Teammm  $talk email$ 20:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

DOMA and the US Supreme Court decision.....not referenced?
Am I correct in my reading of the article that the actual ruling from the Supreme Court that came out yesterday.......is not referenced in any way? There seems to be a single, simple line that mentions the ruling in the section "Politcal debate" under the subsection;"Obama administration" and a larger mention (seems odd) in the lede which as well has no source, reference or inline citation of any kind. I assume this is because it is considered unquestionable fact that requires no reference, however I have to ask if the additional information in lede belongs there without a source and if it should as well be mentioned in the body of the article per policy and guidelines? Here is everything I find on the actual Supreme Court decision:

and in the lede:

However, the lede goes further to claim (perhaps correctly):

Should any of these statements have a reference? My own opinion is that such legal information and its summary here on Wikipedia should contain sources as to be sure there is something to verify against. Is the wording correct. Is there a question of the states having their own "Version" of DOMA or is that not a fully accurate statement? How do we know? How does the reader know? How does the next editor know? Thoughts?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Amadscientist: I have added more specific references to the Windsor decision. I don't see the reference to Section 2 of DOMA that you mentioned. Maybe it's been removed from the article, or maybe I just missed it. Famspear (talk) 03:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If no one said anything I was going to be bold and add them, but since I wasn't clear why there were no references I figured I should ask before I did anything myself, just in case.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Removing the "current related" template
Carrying a discussion forward from my own talk page: Yellowdesk (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't really mind if that template is removed, but we should probably discuss it at the talk page. There seems to be some confusion as to why the template was placed there and, of course, it shouldn't be there forever or even past this weekend, but we should be sure there is consensus for it. I would support the removal if discussed on the grounds that the article seems to have been edited adequately for clarity and any confusion of the event should be clear after a few days and that seems to have past.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * At this time, there's no point in having the current related tag on the article. There has not been an edit on the article for 24+ hours, and the tag fails to indicate what supposedly current event the article is related to--which the guide for use of the template indicates "Use of this template without indicating the topic or article that it is related to may result in prompt removal of this template."


 * As to the claim that the reason that the template was added is a matter of confusion, this edit, at 14:50, June 26, 2013 by editor Moncrief, without edit summary, is the source of the addition. The lack of edit summary indicates to me that the template's addition is weekly supported by any rationale. For the above reasons I have removed the template today. Yellowdesk (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox: proper reporting of SCOTUS declaration of unconstitutionality
I am the original editor who added the following to the infobox:

When I attempted to do the same in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 article, it was, with the comment: "constitutional interpretations are not legislative amendments". That prompted an ongoing discussion at Template talk:Infobox U.S. legislation, about the proper way to use the infobox to report such circumstances. While the discussion is not yet concluded, the one resounding consensus is that I was wrong to use amendments to record this fact.

Accordingly, I just changed the infobox in this article, moving the above information to the SCOTUS cases parameter, as follows:

which was also promptly, this time with the comment, "How does that discussion at another article or location mean consensus on this article?"

I give up. (and anyone else), your input is welcome at that page. If you'd like to have a tug-of-war over the matter, have at it, but I refuse to be the rope. Thanks. — Groll &tau;ech  ( talk ) 02:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Using the SCOTUS case parameter makes sense to me. Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * , however the consensus decides is fine, but the discussion really needs to be on this page if the change is being made to this article.-- Mark  Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 02:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Grolltech: I agree. Using the term "amendment" to refer to an action by a court of law ruling a statute unconstitutional is idiosyncratic. Lawyers, judges and legal scholars don't use the term in that way in textbooks, articles, legal briefs, memoranda, or court decisions, and I don't see that it's the role of Wikipedia to use Wikipedia's own terminology in this way. I changed the article accordingly. Famspear (talk) 02:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: The box was actually misleading in another way as well. A new reader might well have interpreted the box to say that section 3 was not only ruled unconstitutional but that section 3 itself was an "amendment" to the Act. Section 3 itself was not an "amendment" to the Act. In the box, the use of the term "amendment" should be restricted to describe actual amendments. A piece of legislation, a statute, is amended by a subsequent (or, on rare occasions, simultaneous) act of the legislature that enacted the legislation -- not by a court decision ruling the legislation unconstitutional. Famspear (talk) 02:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds more than reasonable. This whole section 3 issue is getting a little mixed up.-- Mark  Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 02:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Famspear, Mark Miller, Hot Stop, thanks for that... just a heads-up that I'm fighting a battle on the template talk page about whether it should be mentioned at all in the infobox, so this isn't over yet...  — Groll &tau;ech  ( talk ) 03:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Bogus spam blacklist result
Some bot has posted a header claiming that two links here match the spam blacklist. I am not an expert at dealingwith those lists, but I sure cannot find metroweekly or glad.org on them. Neither link looks inappropriate. Anyone with knowledge/power here to clear those links so we can get rid of the notice? --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Similar header now at Sevcik v. Sandoval for 2 URLs that should be ok. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 10:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And Scouts for Equality. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 10:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have found the problematic trigger (it is flagging everything with "petition" in URL) and raised the issue at the spam filter page; discussion is now leaning toward fixing the problem. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

section 2 still stands
the main article fails to make clear that section 2 of the DOMA still stands, that states that do not recognize same-sex marriage do not have to recognize such marriages preformed elsewhere, including in states that do allow them.

2601:18A:8100:9BDA:696E:D89E:E7E7:9A06 (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Michael Christian

Obergefell and Section 2
Just to clarify, Obergefell did not rule on Section 2. Obergefell was a group of lawsuits against states and their state bans on recognizing out of state same-sex marriage. You can't just cite the opinion. The defendants were the states of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee not the federal government. Section 2 technically still exists, but has no legal value or ability to be enforced. You can read through, or search, through the opinion to find it has nothing to do with section 2. Do not add it. Gabe (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The article you posted as a citation does not say Obergefell repealed Section 2. It said it "overrides" it.  That is a confusing wording to put it.  Overrides is not the same as overturning.  Technically the law still stands and is on the books, it is just not enforceable.  That is different.  Please understand, it is in the Obergefell ruling, the ruling was against the state.  It even says the law(s) are a violation of the 14th Amendment.  The 14th amendment ONLY controls state laws.  The ruling itself is a primary source and you can search and read through all of Obergefell, it is not against the federal government or DOMA Section 2 or mentions them.  The case was against Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee.  The federal government was not a party.


 * Wrong, wrong, wrong. The opinion reads, "The Fourteenth Amendment requires States to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed out of State."  This is in DIRECT opposition to the language of DOMA. Fullmetal2887 (discuss me) 22:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Defense of Marriage Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131113173549/http://www.domawatch.org/cases/9thcircuit/InreKanduBkrDecision.pdf to http://www.domawatch.org/cases/9thcircuit/InreKanduBkrDecision.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100620145355/http://www.boston.com:80/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2007/08/27/reunite_this_family/ to http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2007/08/27/reunite_this_family/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Misunderstanding effect
An IP editor has repeatedly added in an analysis of the word "effect" in the Constitution "(Note: This is, in fact, a misunderstanding of the noun "effect" as used in Article IV's "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution. The correct meaning of the word in this context is "appearance" or "material," essentially identical to the usage employed in Amendment Four: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...." The meaning is that Congress has the power to prescribe the appearance and/or type of material — the "effect" — upon which official state documents may be recorded or printed. This authority might need to be invoked in order to make documents more legible, more durable, more easily recognizable and transferable between states, or to foil counterfeiters, for example. To read the word "effect" using Barr's interpretation; i.e., "result," makes no sense. The "result" of a state document is self-evident and does not need to be defined (and indeed should not be altered) by Congress. For example, a state driver's license delivers that "effect" through its own name and wording. To expand, diminish or otherwise alter the license's "effect" in a way not intended by the issuing state would provide Congress a route to negating State authority not intended, as well as provide a method for evading the very "full faith and credit" between states which the clause explicitly demands, making the entire Article self-contradictory on its face.) ''"

This analysis is unsourced, which is a problem with any analysis. Analysis on the "correct" way to interpret the US Constitution is always suspect (and differences of interpretation serve as the base of many political disagreements in this country.) Even if there were source for the "correct" way to interpret the word "effect", applying it to the speaker's statement without a source specifically noting the speaker would be WP:SYNTH. As such, I am deleting this text a second time, and ask that the editor not reinsert it without achieving consensus to do so here on the Talk page first. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Rybner1 edits
If anyone get confused looking at the recent edits by, he's just been restoring the article to its state after this edit, where he inserted inappropriate POV material. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 one external links on Defense of Marriage Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120617190007/http://www.metroweekly.com:80/poliglot/2012/06/former-ags-meese-ashcroft-call.html to http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/06/former-ags-meese-ashcroft-call.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612043147/http://metroweekly.com:80/poliglot/2011/06/house-gop-leadership-defends-t.html to http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/06/house-gop-leadership-defends-t.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110703040825/http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/07/doj-court-should-not-dismiss-k.html to http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/07/doj-court-should-not-dismiss-k.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120223010011/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/02/domas-federal-definition-of-ma.html to http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/02/domas-federal-definition-of-ma.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120704043440/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/07/breaking-doj-asks-supreme-court-to-take-two-doma-c.html to http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/07/breaking-doj-asks-supreme-court-to-take-two-doma-c.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710021212/http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/07/us-trustee-withdraws-appeal-of.html to http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/07/us-trustee-withdraws-appeal-of.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110401043538/http://metroweekly.com:80/poliglot/2011/03/immigration-official-the-hold.html to http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/03/immigration-official-the-hold.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110326164945/http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegrams/telegrams_1414.html to http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegrams/telegrams_1414.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120621040500/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/06/mote-than-a-year-ago.html to http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/06/mote-than-a-year-ago.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Defense of Marriage Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217232401/http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf to http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/06/former-ags-meese-ashcroft-call.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110712092758/http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny08_nadler/DOMA20090915.html to http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny08_nadler/DOMA20090915.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/06/house-gop-leadership-defends-t.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120507103259/http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/Golinski-MtDMemorandum-BLAG.pdf to http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/Golinski-MtDMemorandum-BLAG.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120507112757/http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/DOJ-OppToBLAGMtD.pdf to http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/DOJ-OppToBLAGMtD.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120405041721/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/04/federal-appeals-judges-consider-whether-doma-is.html to http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/04/federal-appeals-judges-consider-whether-doma-is.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120601081149/http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=10-2204P.01A to http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=10-2204P.01A
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130108041134/http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/436f323b-5e40-411a-9026-98fa59ffb645/1/doc/12-2335_complete_opn.pdf to http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/436f323b-5e40-411a-9026-98fa59ffb645/1/doc/12-2335_complete_opn.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/03/immigration-official-the-hold.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Homophobia
I have a problem with Category:Homophobia being included with this article. This implies that all opposition to same-sex marriage is homophobic. This is something that only liberals would agree with. Thus it is a POV violation. For that reason, I have removed the category from the article. Apparently, a consensus that states that this category is appropriate exists somewhere. I am not aware of such a consensus existing. Could somebody link me to it?Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It certainly doesn't. It isn't mentioned in the article, and there is no reliable source describing it in those terms. StAnselm (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)