Talk:Perry v. Brown/Archive 1

Inaccuracies regarding position of LGBT groups
This contains quite a few inaccuracies about the position of the LGBT legal groups, including some manufactured by the media. I'll work on correcting. Viciouslies (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This had been getting better, but recently had a bunch of quotes cherry-picked from the California Lawyer article added which gave an inaccurate impression that the LGBT groups now think the lawsuit is a good idea. Reading the entire article, it's clear that the groups still think it is NOT a good idea, but since AFER is going to go forward with the case anyway, they don't want it to fail, as the consequences could be disastrous.  Rather than add a bunch of quotes supporting the other POV, I chose to re-write in a neutral, just-the-facts manner to restore NPOV.


 * If other editors feel that adding that info back in and also more quotes to balance the POV, that's obviously fine. But I do wonder if including details like who invited who to lunch (as the last version did) is really appropriate for an article on a court case. Viciouslies (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Breaking "Background" section into several parts
Oy. I got a little sidetracked as I attempted to add some material on the summary judgment, discovery issues and the constitution claims (none of which I have added yet). The background section was organized, more or less, chronologically. While that seems like an obvious organizing principle, Walker's been disposing of motions left and right. It made for a muddled presentation. I've broken up the existing background material into several sections (adding a bit about plaintiffs and defendants). I'll return soon to add some material to the Pretrial Motions and Trial sections. They look a little anemic in their current forms. (Of course, feel free to jump in without me). Wonderbreadsf (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Reading just now, I wonder if the two paragraphs in Background about the disagreement between the LGBT legal groups and the AFER legal team actually belongs in Parties, since the groups eventually moved to become parties to the lawsuit. Having it in Background, then revisiting it in Parties makes it a bit redundant.  Thoughts? Viciouslies (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I was just thinking that too. I believe the conflict and make-up between the two parties belong in parties as opposed to background. The background section should contain more information about how the case was conceived. The California Lawyer does a good job documenting it: --haha169 (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to use a different source
I'd like to suggest using a different source rather than Shannon Minter's blog. I'd suggest instead using the New York Times such as   and. Ms. Minter's blog is written from a clear point-of-view. I'm not arguing that the text of this article is biased but I would argue that it would be better to source the text to a published newspaper known for its fact checking (i.e., a Wikipedia defined reliable source). Using a source that is non-neutral does a disservice to the reader who jumps to the reference for additional detail and would unavoidably give the impression that the article is biased if it depends solely on such a source. Thoughts? &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 22:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. You could change it yourself, you know. WP:BOLD This isn't a controversial issue. :)--haha169 (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather than removing the existing sources, you may want to just add new ones. No need to get rid of sources that we only pull factual information from, no matter how biased the original may be. — what a crazy random happenstance 00:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For me to add the NYT sources, I would need to cross check the article text against it and then incorporate relevant items from the NYT if required for balance/completeness. I'm not a page editor of this article but instead posting an observation/recommendation. Wish I had the time -- recently I've mostly made minor edits to articles I come across due to too many other things dividing my attention. If the NYT references were simply appended, I don't think that would strengthen the article much. The Minter blog should be moved to external links where it would be more appropriate. Possibly at least the link to the NYT "day one" could be added to the external links; I'll go ahead and do that. Not very bold, but alas. ;) &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 04:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone just update it or fix it so it doesn't stop at day 3?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.36.72 (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Already done. --haha169 (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So this article now mentions every witness except Ryan Kendall. Shouldn't we include them all?* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.133.140.5 (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Courage Campaign's Prop 8 Trial Tracker
It looks like the last edit to this page was when Day 3 of the trial took place. Should the Prop 8 trial tracker be given in the page? http://prop8trialtracker.com/ Native94080 (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's already included as a reference; I'm not sure whether it would be legit to also include it as an external link. - Nat Gertler (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

invoked Hollywood productions
Just edited down a claim that Chaucer had invoked Brokeback Mountain, Milk, and Glee to just Brokeback mountain. For one thing, it was the only of the three mentioned in the LA Times source listed. For another, I don't think the other two were accurate. As this blog notes, the was Brokeback, Philadelphia, and Will & Grace. I'm too tired and about to turn in, but if someone else wants to source them (or find source that I'm wrong), please do. - Nat Gertler (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They are two different situations where Hollywood was mentioned. Sorry about the issue with the source, I have been reading lots of media on the issue and chose one at random - which only included Brokeback Mountain. I will retrieve the transcript as the source, which does include Milk and Glee. --haha169 (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Day 11's transcripts aren't up yet. Whatever, just leave it w/ Brokeback. --haha169 (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

POV check
Im seeing alot of one side of the coin and not alot on the defense side of prop 8. Also is the quote by —Ryan Kendall really needed? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's naturally, simply because the order of things in trial - the plaintiff presents his side first, with the witnesses to support their side. We're getting to the other side now, but there has been a lag in documenting the case as it goes on. - Nat Gertler (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The other side is only arguing LGBT people's political strength, so that section could reasonably be expanded. But the problem is that only two witnesses are testifying for the defendants and one of them blundered badly that he technically testified for the plaintiffs. --haha169 (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * At the risk of offense, it seems biased because that was the strength of the arguments presented. Both witnesses for the defense performed rather poorly, despite the claims of some websites to the contrary. Staying neutral doesn't necessarily mean "both sides have to be presented as equally strong" when this is clearly not the case. --wobster109 (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am under that impression as well. One of the defense witnesses was in all intents and purposes, testifying FOR the plaintiffs. The other really didn't know what he was saying. It is hard to present prose out of that. --haha169 (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"Attorney Ted Boutrous said in all his trial experience he had never seen a defendant's witness side again and again with the arguments that the plaintiffs made.

"We saw the most compelling thing I have ever seen in court, a witness paid for by the proponents of Prop 8 admit to a list of facts that proves our case," he said. "Mr. Blankenhorn admitted allowing gay marriage would reduce the divorce rate. It was a stunning moment." - Having read the transcripts (or at least skimmed them), I have to agree with Ted Boutrous. It is impossible to write a summary of the defendant's arguments if they are non-existent. I propose we remove the neutrality tag. --haha169 (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Part of the reason is also that the defence had only 2 witnesses, conducted short cross examinations, and raised few objections.


 * Speaking of the defence's witnesses, I don't see anything in the article about David Blankenhorn's testimony. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Mr. Blankenhorn was kinda repeating everything that the plaintiff's witnesses already stated. I don't think this will help to POV concern at all.--haha169 (talk) 03:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is both right that David Blankenhorn should be concluded - his testimony was a significant portion of the time involved, and from sheer interest level it should be included. But to accurately describe it accurately, one should have a ton of reference, because using just a couple select references may make it look like we're trying to do a heavy POV spin of his work as a train wreck. - Nat Gertler (talk) 05:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice to see some of the other side here; possibly flag this is an opinion piece for the time being. Specifically, a section on Judge Walker's bias would benefit the article a lot as that is the best publicized criticism from the other perspective. Also, there is stunningly little discussion of the law (citations, relevant precedent, etc.) for a law article. --jluptak17 06:22, 07 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jluptak17 (talk • contribs)

Re: << a section on Judge Walker's bias would benefit the article a lot as that is the best publicized criticism from the other perspective. >> (above). But isn't that an alleged bias contended by no reliable souce, and one that has not been legally moved on? If Judge Walker were to be sanctioned or removed from the trial by a higher authority, that would of course be noteworthy. But as it stands now, statements that this judge is "biased" seem more like scattered, unproven "gripes" than anything founded in facts. 4.68.248.65 (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, there is "stunningly little discussion of the law" because this case is in its most EARLIEST stages, having just finished the trial period. The first opinion hasn't even been released yet. There is nothing to work with here. People need to stop expecting that this article be as comprehensive as 50 year old completed cases like Roe v. Wade. Btw, if you are looking for precedents, good luck finding them. This is the first such case in Federal court. --haha169 (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, HaHa169...though as I understand it (unless I missed it in the news???) even the initial "trial period" has not finished. The Judge has taken a break to review all the submitted evidence before reconvening to hear closing arguments from each side. I've read they might reconvene next month (March, 2010)Codenamemary (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right, actually. The judge had delayed closing arguments. --haha169 (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wrong. The United States Supreme Court has actually ruled, albeit in a summary decision, that State Laws that limit marriage to one man and one woman do not violate the Constitution. Baker v. Nelson 409 U.S. 810, (1972), numerous other federal cases have talked the marriage issue to one degree or another. Take a look at Wilson v. Ake from the Middle District of Florida and Smelt v. Orange County, another California Case that was heard in Federal Court. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Dismissed appeals are far different from actual rulings. They do not set any legal precedent in the SCOTUS whatsoever. Those three cases you cited are legal challenges to the federal DOMA. This is a purely constitutional challenge to the state's citizenry's ability to enact initiatives. --haha169 (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Haha169, I won't stray too far into the legal weeds, but Baker v. Nelson is a precedent (the case came to SCOTUS on mandatory appeal, so the dismissal is binding on the courts; discussed in more depth at the Wiki article). Likewise, there have been roughly analogous cases in federal court (CEP v. Bruning is probably the closest case; it's also mentioned in the Baker v. Nelson article if you're curious). The Perry case does have the distinction of being the first trial on the question of whether a state may ban same-sex marriage (other cases were either tangential or decided on summary motions) that I know of federal court. Having said all that, I would agree that the issues before Walker are mostly "open" questions.Wonderbreadsf (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I hadn't noticed that Baker v. Nelson had a trial. Whatever, the main point of this section is the fact that this trial's defendants brought forth only two witnesses who mostly sided with the plaintiffs, if anything else. So it is difficult to glean information from this trial that could fix the POV. I invite people to add cited stuff, though. --haha169 (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the voting map neutral?
It shows the absolute winners of counties, but not all counties are equal in population. The sparsely-populated-but-big-in-area-counties that voted no dominate the map, while a pie chart would show the actually slim margin of the vote. At least, can the shading be changed to show that some counties are vastly more populous than others, so it shows votes not land? Animadversio (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a factual representation. I reworded the caption a bit and added in the voting numbers to show that the physical area does not indicate the volume of support. --Falcorian (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed it altogether. It was unnecessary and merely decorative as it had little to do with the actual subject (the court case), and I agree that it gave off a slight bias when taken out of context as it was here. — what a crazy random happenstance 02:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The New Yorker
Margaret Talbot have written extensively of the case for the New Yorker, see, for example, "A RISKY PROPOSAL (article)" and blog posts.   P. S. Burton  (talk)  20:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage
This article should be addressed in the wiki-article: http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957 Native94080 (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've put a link to it in the External Links section, which sounds about right; it's not to the trial itself, it's to the motivation of a lawyer. It would probably deserve more in-depth coverage in his own article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

New America Foundation
Should this information be included in wiki-article? http://www.newamerica.net/issues/domestic http://newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/1872,1858 Native94080 (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Background Inaccuracies
Statement: California’s electorate adopted Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that restored the opposite-sex limitation on marriage

Issue: Cited source (at the time source number 4 - an LA Times article) does not seem to have any direct statement that the "amendment that restored the opposite-sex limitation on marriage".

Rationale: The Cal Supreme Court in striking down the Law referred to in this section stated that Californians always had the right to marry same sex partners. As they struck down the law as unconstitutional, the law never "existed" and therefore there was never a "opposite-sex limitation" on marriage. Basically, replacing "restored" with something like "instituted" would be more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.244.214.59 (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * While I can see that as a descriptor of what the court did and how a constitutional system may work, that is not in fact occurred. Not only did the court not make the removal of the ban retroactive (they did not, for example, create recognition of the San Francisco marriages), they did not make it immediate. Furthermore, a ruling on constitutional basis does not mean that something was never legal under the constitution; a constitution itself is a moving target, and the California constitution particularly so. In this particular case, the ruling depended on the existence of the state's domestic partnership law ("Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."), which does not have that long a history. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * While we're picking over this sentence, one quick note, the phrase "the opposite-sex limitation" is just ... well, awkward. Independent of the question of whether the verb is changed, might I suggest a construction like "California’s electorate adopted Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that restored the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples.", or (to my mind even better), "California's electorate adopted Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that limits marriage to opposite-sex couples." But think from a plain ol' "basic understanding" point of view, "restore" is clear and accurate enough.  To the extent that we want to get pedantically accurate we'd have to talk about marriage "validity and recognition", not marriage, too, but at some point overelaborating on detailed legal points in a non-technical article section gets in the way of understanding.  Either way, "opposite-sex limitation" still feels a bit awkward to me. *shrug* --  j &#9883; e decker  talk  15:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "California’s electorate adopted Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that restored the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples." sounds to me like there is some special limitation on marriage when one is getting married to an opposite sex couple. "...that restored restricting marriage exclusively to mixed-sex couples" perhaps? --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I hear your point. Your suggested wording is better, methinks.  --  j &#9883; e decker  talk  17:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I vote for Joe Decker's "California's electorate adopted Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that limits marriage to opposite-sex couples." --Denovo1 (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Citation for Decision listed?
<< Decision: On August 4, 2010, the Court announced its decision in favor of the plaintiffs, thus overturning Prop 8. >> 69.198.205.2 (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to whoever did that! Codenamemary (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Question
I haven't seen a court case article with quite so much information while it is only in its district court stage. In fact, most cases don't even get an article until after a SCOTUS decision. But when this gets appealed to the 9th (and the name may be changed depending on who is appealing and definitely after the gubernatorial election), would it be prudent to create a new article for the 9th Circuit/SCOTUS?

This District Court article has enough information to stand alone as its own article as the case moves forward toward the SCOTUS, especially due to Walker's unique decision to hold a trial. That trial has offered information and events to add to the article that other district court cases aren't offered. This article also gets the benefit of controversy.

I feel as if expanding on this article as it appeals toward the Supreme Court will not only bloat the article (2-3 opinions?) since I feel Walker's decision and definitely the SCOTUS's decision will be very important, plus the oral arguments at the 9th and SCOTUS plus the trial information, not to mention protests and controversy... (my, my sentences are becoming very long and rambly.) But then again, there is no precedent for creating a new article at the next stage of appeal. Thoughts? --haha169 (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, at 47K we're definitely at the size where WP:SIZE suggests forks or other techniques to split content as we continue to grow. So... definitely. I'd think we'd still want some sort of base article to act as parent to everything else, but beyond that, if we can come up with a logical way to split it, and separate sections on the district, appeals and SCOTUS legs of this case definitely seems as reasonable as anything. --  j &#9883; e decker  talk  05:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * >12k of that, however, is citations. I agree that the article has gotten large, in part because of multiple places where it goes into a great deal more detail than necessary. Do we need to recount motions to intervene, for example? As the case progresses, some details become less important in an article like this, as other arise. Until final resolution, however, it's hard to predict what to keep and what we'll eventually calve off. So letting the article get large for a while seems reasonable. Uberhill 15:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberhill (talk • contribs)


 * Request more input, this article is already generating a lot of interest and could easily stand alone as its own article. Most district court cases don't get this much publicity during each phase of the trial (not even the immigration one in Arizona or the DOMA one in MA got this much publicity). When it is appealed, should we update the courtcase infobox accordingly or create a new page according to the (possibly) newly re-arranged case name? --haha169 (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Expand this, I think. It'll still be basically the same case. Shimgray | talk | 20:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking about expansion. Its either split or replace/merge. If it is the latter, how will the organizational structure work? Most SCOTUS case articles only have a few paragraphs if that on the lower legs of the appeal. This is rather unprecedented. --haha169 (talk) 03:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion asked/continued at Wikiproject Law. --haha169 (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Should we add link to Judge Walker's decision?
Here it is. Won't add it myself, as I don't know how to do citations, links, etc. http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/35374462-Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL.pdf Codenamemary (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. However, as it may be used as a source for the article, it will probably disappear from External links, which are supposed to be used only for materials that are not cited in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Neat-o. Thanks. It's important to link to it SOMEWHERE, as so much of the public's confussion about the issues come from not actually reading the legal documents. Thanks again for putting it in there. Codenamemary (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a more authoritative copy, i.e. from the U.S. District Court website? Especially important since American Foundation for Equal Rights was an interested party in the case. If you find that, please update the reference Marriage for "Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals." which is using the same cite. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well there was, but someone replaced it with the equalrightsfoundation one. They are one and the same, but I've replaced it back to the court's copy:. --haha169 (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Perry_v._Schwarzenegger
I started this section, due to the importance of the expert testimony in this case. Bearian (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is an unneeded level of detail; as we recount the relevant testimony of various expert witnesses in the article already, it is clear that they testified in court and thus had been approved as expert witnesses . --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC) Edited to remove claim, as Blankenhorn was allowed to testify but ultimately disallowed as an expert in the ruling. Having said that, building this section looks to add to an already length-troubled article largely to the effect of highlight the Blankenhorn ruling; while some aside about the ultimate reaction to Blankenhorn is appropriate in the article, this section seems to be too much. Information on their status as experts may be appropriate to the articles of the individual witnesses, however. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This section is way too big, and is all based on one source. It is also mostly unnecessary, in my opinion, and rather tedious. It also, at this time, violates WP:MoS for being in an awkward list format that is not compatible with the encyclopedic standard. --haha169 (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be sourced better and shortened, but not eliminated. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Half of the Proponant's second and final expert witnesses to appear, Kenneth P. Miller, was also discredited. "Plaintiffs objected to Miller's qualification as an expert in the areas of discrimination against gays and lesbians and gay and lesbian political power but did not object to his qualification as an expert on initiatives." (decision, p.49) "The cridibility of Miller's opinions relating to gay and lesbian political power is undermined by...." (p.53) "Miller's credibility was further undermined..." (p.53) "For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that Miller's opinions on gay and lesbian political power are entitled to little weight and only to the extent they are amply supported by reliable evidence." (p.54) Don't know if anyone wants to look into that section and use this, somehow....but it seems Blankenhorn was discredited and Miller was half discredited.Codenamemary (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the shortened expert witnesses section is more to-the-point now. Thanks to whoever did that : ) Codenamemary (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

POV check II
I have placed the tag there just for good measure I want to make sure that since this is a delecate new current event that it is written fairly. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What? Pick a passage that is slanted and provide an alternative way to word it. Don't tag articles "for good measure". There's no good measure. That's abstract and the POV tag is intended to fix concrete issues. --Moni3 (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's a problem of omission. I shouldn't have to say that I voted against prop 8, but this article explains thoroughly the plaintiffs side and very nothing of what was said in the defense.  Consider the size of the "Trial section."  Below, I reproduce as much as I can which represents the defense position:
 * History of marriage
 * Cott was then cross-examined by David Thompson for the defendants, who quoted books and articles she had written and "asked if she agreed with them".[55]
 * The defendants argued that marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman because it provided a stable unit for procreation and child rearing.[57][58]
 * Discrimination
 * (nothing)
 * Psychological Effects
 * Defendant witness David Blankenhorn, under cross-examination, concurred that the well-being of children raised by same-sex couples would improve should they be allowed to marry.[51]
 * Economics
 * (nothing)
 * Political Strength
 * The defense called up Professor Kenneth P. Miller from Claremont McKenna College to testify that LGBT people had strong political and social support within California. He argued that all the major newspapers, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and a majority of state politicians all strongly opposed Proposition 8.[71]
 * During cross-examination of George Chauncey, the defense claimed that LGBT people have enjoyed increased political and social clout, with increased acceptance by society as exemplified by films such as Brokeback Mountain. Chauncey also admitted that employers in California are required to ban discrimination.[72]
 * As you can see, very little. From what I understand, the defense presented only two witnesses who ended up doing as much if not more harm than good for the defense.  But this lop-sidedness isn't presented in the article.  As a result, it gives the appearance that the gay-sympathizing authors at wikipedia endorsed the plaintiffs view who made this stellar case while the the simpering fools of the defense (who the gay-sympathizing authors at wikipedia despise) won't even be mentioned except when it supports the plaintiff's case.  My suggestion: combine discrimination and political strength together (don't they speak to the same issue?) and show a list of witnesses divided by plaintiff and defense and maybe the range of topics about which each witness spoke.  That may provide enough context to demonstrate the defense strategy and why the sheer volume of information comes from the plaintiffs.

138.163.0.44 (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Legal Analysis section lists several respected lawyers and professors who note the lopsidedness of the trial and the defendant's poor showing. It doesn't matter what biased people think of the article as long as the article itself presents itself with only facts in a proportional way. --haha169 (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Proponents' standing to appeal?
Should this be added? There's been a lot of discussion online as to whether they even have standing to appeal, since there seem to be some nuances from some judicial precedent about defendent-intervenor's ability to do so. 68.227.169.133 (talk) 08:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Since what we have at this point is merely an untested claim by prosecution in a filing that's not even meant to stop an appeal but merely to end the stay, I don't think it needs too much depth (in part because depth would largely be recitation of the filing material, which is biased), but I have added a note on the making of the claim and the impact it would have as the starter stuff for an Appeals section. Good catch, I'd not even seen that being discussed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Context
This article is about a legal case, so detailing prop 8 beyond what's needed for context doesn't seem helpful. Also, prop 8 is wikilinked. So I don't find this change to the opening paragraphs to be helpful. Why would the ruling on the case be omitted from the opening? And, if something addresses what's taken place "on or after" a certain date, it's redundant to say that it doesn't address what occured before that date. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless you know about the Prop how are you going to have any understanding of the legal case? Active Banana (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure it's not because I, an editor you have consistent disputes with, made the edit? And can't you simply improve it?  I'll try to address your criticisms.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I did improve it. What part of my explanation do you think isn't reasonable that you would make that kind of accusation? Prop 8 seemed to be adequately explained (and wikilinked). Feel free to address my other points. The parties in the case might also be worth noting and seems relevant. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean they should be noted in the lede section, earlier than the "parties", "plaintiffs" and "defendants" sections? Or were those created in response to your post? Codenamemary (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was talking about the opening paragraphs. It notes recognition from Time magazine that the plantiff lawyers got, but not who the plantiffs are or who the case is named for (Ahnold?). I think it should be expanded to reflect the article contents better. The key issue is what, assertions that the proposition discriminates and violates equal protection against arguments that marriage is between a man and a woman, states rights, and that legal gay marraige would undermine "traditional marraige"? Lazy peeps like myself don't always want to wade through the whole article to get the key bits. :) Anyway, I think the court's ruling should be included up front. Freakshownerd (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Well, when the lede is on my computer screen, I can still see the box below that lists the next section "Plaintiffs" right there, so one can click on that immediately and not really have to wade through anything. With 4 plaintiffs to name, I think listing them immediately risks bogging down the opening. But maybe it can still be tightened up to this:


 * Kristin M. Perry v. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a federal lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the federal constitutionality of Proposition 8, a 2008 ballot initiative that amended the California Constitution to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages performed on or after November 5, 2008. The suit sought to have the federal courts strike down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional. On August 4, 2010 the court ruled that Proposition 8 indeed violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.


 * (The above replaces "challenges" with "challenged", as the challenge was achieved.....and at this point, that's the latest decision. Also substituting "The suit saught to" for "The plaintiffs in Perry sought to" trims a few words, and brings us closer to the ruling at the end. Personally, I would set that final sentence apart as it's own paragraph, to emphasize the outcome. It would be more reader-friendly...but I have never fashioned a lede before so don't know how they usually go. I won't make these changes as this has been a sometimes contentious article...but do others think those trims would add or detract?)Codenamemary (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

For introduction/summary purposes, is it critical for the opening to explain that Prop 8 was a 2008 ballot initiative or simply what it does: "...Proposition 8, which prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriages performed on or after November 5, 2008." And now I'm wondering if that is entirely accurate: what about Massachusetts same-sex marriages performed before or after that date? And isn't it enough that it's a federal lawsuit? How critical is it that the reader learn "in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California" in the very first sentence? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I was bold and added my changes described above. So sue me. Or just revert back : ) Codenamemary (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I dunno, shouldn't it say something about it having "eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry," since that's what it said on the ballot? And they don't recognize out-of-state marriages as marriages if they took place after Prop 8, just btw.  your change wasn't really inaccurate, though.  68.227.169.133 (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing is, legal stuff has to be phrased in a very specific way for it to be accurate. Lots of good editors have worked on that lede, which does state what the case was/is about, in its bare legal bones. There really isn't a short, quick snapshot of a legal issue like this. If people really want to understand it, they will simply have to read the complete article. I'm sure the whole thing will continue to be fine tuned, though.Codenamemary (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Suspect class
Question for those familiar with the equal protection jurisprudence: is this the first time a federal court has held that sexual orientation is a suspect class? If so, it should be noted here, and if not, please edit my addition to suspect classification. --Padraic 14:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know as a matter of US federal law, but it seems the california supreme court held that sexual orientation was a suspect class in 2008 (prior to the Prop 8 amendment to the Calif. Constitution)--Milowent • talkblp-r 17:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I know that California and Iowa (and perhaps MA?) have held sexual orientation as suspect class, and still do. (Prop 8 only overruled the marriage part of In re Marriage Cases. Everything else is still intact) As for federal courts, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez was awfully close in doing so. --haha169 (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that the court "held" that sexual orientation is a suspect class. Walker alluded to his opinion that sexual orientation would likely be a suspect class, but ultimately decided that it was not necessary to reach that conclusion, as Prop 8 did not satisfy rational basis review.  Viciouslies (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Suspect class" classification (is that the terminology used in California and Iowa?) from a State Supreme Court referring to state law is distinct from a federal holding. While in some cases a state court would be in the position to make that determination, state appeals courts, like state supreme courts, are probably deciding issues of state jurisprudence, not federal. Shadowjams (talk) 09:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * State courts in California and Iowa have "held" that sexual orientation is a suspect class. Federal precedent can only lead to Christian Legal Society, and that ruling is iffy. So Walker's ruling is the first time a federal court held that sexual orientation is a suspect class; if he did?--haha169 (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Walker held that sexual orientation is a suspect classification, which would afford sexual orientation a classification of greater protection and greater rights than those who are classified based on sex, disability, age, veteran status or religion. The challenge to proposition 8 was an equal protection claim of classification based on sex and sexual orientation.  Walker held that the evidence would support striking the clause from the California Constitution under Rational Basis Review as well as under Strict Scrutiny.  Precedent did not support his strict scrutiny holding, but in so ruling, it became part of the basis for appeal.  This ruling is noteworthy because it conflicts with Kennedy's holding in Romer v. Evans which held that the classification based on sexual orientation would be afforded Rational Basis Review.  CLS v. Martinez did not come awfully close.  That was not an Equal Protection case, but a First Amendment case.  The Supreme Court can't change the standard in an equal protection claim when that issue is not properly before the court.  They may remark, but it becomes obiter dicta and is not binding on future courts.  Even if the court had come out and said, "sexual orientation is to be afforded strict scrutiny review," no court would have been required to follow it.  Walker's case is different.  His opinion could be cited at the Federal level as ratio decidendi.  I was surprised that I did not find the part of the Walker ruling on the standard of review in the wikipedia article because it conflicts with Kennedy's ruling in Romer, "Its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests."  (emphasis added).  This part of the Walker ruling should be included with a comment that it went beyond or conflicts with Supreme Court precedent.  Kennedy also held, "A statute is presumed constitutional and the burden is on the one attacking the legislative arrangement to negative every conceivable basis which might support it, whether or not the basis has a foundation in the record" which is why the Walker opinion is somewhat confusing.  The Walker opinion focuses on the record as developed by the defendants, not the plaintiffs.  Rational Basis review places the burden on the plaintiffs attacking the statute.  Of course, if the standard of review is strict scrutiny, then the defender of the statute has the burden of proof.  I'm not sure why Walker repeatedly held that the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence, because they are not required to under Supreme Court precedent.  That could be a basis of appeal, and it is noteworthy but not yet mentioned in the article.   Gx872op (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Walker did not hold that gays are a suspect class. He said that "strict scrutiny is unnecessary [because] Proposition 8 fails to survive even rational basis review." Nor does Perry conflict with Romer because Romer, too, did not reach the question but also applied rational basis review. Any court holding that gays are a suspect class will analyze the issue, as was done by the California Supreme Court in the Marriage Cases. I don't think any of this confusing, legalistic discussion belongs in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Walker specifically states that gays are a suspect class. "The trial record shows that strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review to apply to legislative classifications based on sexual orientation."  (emphasis added) Romer specifically states that gays are not a suspect class.  "We have attempted to reconcile the principle with the reality by stating that, if a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will uphold the legislative classification so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end.  Amendment 2 fails, indeed defies, even this conventional inquiry." (emphasis added).  Walker and Kennedy differ in their opinions in that Kennedy does not say that "strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review."  I believe that legal analysis does belong in an aritcle concerning a court case. Gx872op (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I disagree. With respect to Romer, I saw the sentence you quote, but, in my view, it's too cursory to reasonably infer that the S.Ct. has ruled that gays are part of a suspect class. Not that there aren't people out there who would want to construe it as a holding, but because the Colorado amendment didn't pass muster under rational basis, what Kennedy said is better thought of as dicta. I also saw the Walker line and feel precisely the same way. Walker didn't find it necessary to apply strict scrutiny. Therefore, his one line is unnecessary to the reasoning or the outcome of the case. Similar to Romer, there's no in-depth analysis of the issue. I don't think any of this belongs in the article, partly because it's too sketchy, partly because it's too complicated, and partly because reasonable legal minds will differ on what it all means. The only way I can see it coming in is through a sourced, balanced commentary by scholars (as opposed to us), and even then I think it's more the kind of thing that lawyers like to argue about than is really notable in an encyclopedia article, even one on a legal subject.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Walker opinion goes beyond Romer by identifying sexual orientation as a suspect class and citing the case law necessary to come to this conclusion. You are correct to say that Romer is not as clear, and I believe you misread my statement above.  Erwin Chermerinsky places Romer in his Conlaw book with those other rational basis test cases that seem to give a greater level of scrutiny such as Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.  Constitutional law scholars call these cases "rational basis with teeth" or "rational basis with bite."  A google search of the later term turns up numerous articles written by law school professors.  The Walker decision is not a rational basis with bite case in that sense.  It is different in that Walker identified sexual orientation as a suspect class, which is a greater status than that enjoyed by quasi-suspect classes.  As far as your claims of notability, the issue of rational basis with bite is incredibly notable.  Dozens of scholarly articles have been written on the subject.  Indeed lawyers may like to argue about a particular subject more than those who are not versed in the subject.  Wikipedia articles on high level mathematics, theoretical physics, and chemistry show a degree of sophisitication that is highly useful to a college student with more than a basic understanding.  From a neutral standpoint, this article is the same as all other legal articles on a legal subject.  For a couple of article with a slightly greater degree of sophistication, see United States v. Morrison, Lochner v. New York.  At a minimum, the article could identify the part of Walker's opinion that identifies sexual orientation as a suspect class and note that binding 9th Circuit precedent in High Tech Gays v. Defense Indus. Sec. Clearance Office 895 F.2d 563 (9th Cir. Cal. 1990) declared that sexual orientation is not a suspect classification. (also cited in dissenting opinion of In Re Marriage Cases).  Walker took evidence on the issue and ruled, "All classifications based on sexual orientation appear suspect, as the evidence shows that California would rarely, if ever, have a reason to categorize individuals based on their sexual orientation."  He had an entire section devoted to analyzing the standard of review and took evidence to support his finding of suspect classification.  It was hardly dicta and significantly different from Kennedy's treatment of the subject.  Commentary or someone's opinion on the matter is not necessary.  Direct quotations are enough to demonstrate Walker's ruling that "all classifications based on sexual orientation appear suspect." Gx872op (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the long explanation, but I disagree with the conclusion. Walker didn't decide the case based on heightened scrutiny. His one line is insufficient to make it notable, particularly because it is a lower court opinion now on appeal. Also, what citations are you talking about? I don't see any after his one line.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI this is not a chatpage. Discussions NOT directly related to how we can improve the article will be deleted per WP:TPG. Active Banana   ( bananaphone  18:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll have to give an example of what you consider "chatting." We are discussing whether to add information to the article, whether it's notable, whether it can be properly sourced, etc. There's nothing in the nature of a chat.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion appears to be two editors talking about the law and not editors talking about what third parties have published about this case.Active Banana   ( bananaphone  18:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a legal article. We are not discussing the law in some abstract sense but with the objective of deciding whether adding something to the article is appropriate. Even a more extended discussion on this issue should not be considered chatting. I might add that the policy you cite does not permit the removal of our comments without our permission except in delineated circumstances, none of which applies here.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We are having a civil discussion on whether to include the section on suspect classification in the Walker opinion in the article. It directly applies to the article.  The opinion is a primary source.  The question is whether a certain part of a primary source should be included in the article given that there are currently no secondary sources subject to peer review (the earliest would be next spring's law reviews).  There is plenty of 3rd party commentary on law blogs concerning this issue, but blogs are typically not a good source of information for an encyclopedia.  The article currently has a one sentence mention of Walker's conclusion, but it does not have as much attention to the Equal Protection claim as to the Substantive Due Process Claim.  My argument is that a subsection for Equal Protection should be made with a few points. 1) Evidence was taken on the proper standarded of review 2) The opinion states that the evidence indicated that the proper standard should be suspect classification 3) The opinion saw no need to conduct a strict scrutiny test given that the court found a violation of Equal Protection under rational basis review.  My secondary argument is that there are three additional points that could be made.  1) The opinion conducts an analysis of the defendant's evidence in its rational basis test 2) Supreme Court precedent states that the burden is on the plaintiff not the defendant under rational basis review. 3) The 9th Circuit, 11th Circuit, DC Circuit, and US Supreme Court have all held that rational basis review is the correct standard for classifications based on sexual orientation.  The overarching question is whether a secondary source is necessary to put any of this in there.  I would say not because there are currently no secondary scholarly sources on this article, yet the article exists.  There are no law review articles, additions to American Law Reports, or surveys on the law.  All that exists are newspaper articles and blogs, which do not have the same scholarly reputation as other sources.  The problem with blogs and newspapers is that they often have their objective perspectives tinged with political opinion.  The tone of an article is slightly different when it is subject to peer review. Gx872op (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * General comments by an uninvolved editor. First, this does not appear to be idle chit-chat, but a discussion on the inclusion of the "suspect class" it a legal article.  This is a content discussion, nothing more.  Second, as to sourcing:  WP:MOSLAW states that while both secondary and primary sources should be cited, if there is a conflict, editors should use the primary source (court opinion).  You are fine using just the opinions as sources since there are not any current secondary sources.  Third, as to "suspect class" - the District Court opinion clearly states that this involves a suspect class and that should be included, however, this has no value as a precedent - it is a District Court.  It is also irrelevant since the case was decided on a rational review standard.  SCOTUS has only referred to the homosexual/suspect class issue three times, as dicta in Romer, and in a dissent in Bowers v. Hardwick, et al., 478 U.S. 186 (1986), citing a dissent in Rowland v. Mad River Local School Dist., 470 U.S. 1009 (1985).  There is no SCOTUS precedent as yet, although that appears the way they are going.  While the "suspect class" comment should be included, it must be very clear that it is not binding on any other court.   GregJackP   Boomer!   19:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. Gx872op and I were getting lonely hashing this out. This line is already in the article: "He noted that gays and lesbians are exactly the type of minority that strict scrutiny was designed to protect." The source for the sentence is the opinion itself. I think that's enough because strict scrutiny wouldn't apply unless gays were classified as a suspect class. However, even if we were to tweak the assertion, perhaps quoting the opinion itself, adding language about it not being precedential would be injecting our opinion, no matter how accurate it is. In other words, we'd have to find some generalized source that explains precedent. That means adding even more detail into the article about an issue that I really don't think is notable for all the reasons I've already expressed.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur, sort of. You don't really need a source, just state that as a trial court, it is not binding precedent and link to the stub article on precedent, or link to Stare decisis.  I don't see a need for refs and a lengthy explanation of it, just send them to the wikilink.   GregJackP   Boomer!   21:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The binding precedent article is pretty lame as it cites no sources for what it says - so, we'd be linking to an unsourced article as a source. :-) The concept of stare decisis does not really apply, although the article on stare decisis, as you say, does discuss the issue of binding precedent, happily linking to the same unsourced binding precedent article. It reminds me of a legal opinion (#2) that says something and cites to another legal opinion (#1) in support of the statement, but when you look, #1 doesn't say that. Then, a third legal opinion comes along and cites to #2. I won't even talk about #4, #5, etc., but it snowballs, all because #2 stated a false premise.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * True, it would be to an unsourced stub - but better there, where sources could be added, than to an individual article on a separate issue. And you're right about both stare decisis and the snowball effect (which is why I suggested binding precedent first).  Anyway, those were just my thoughts.  I really don't have a dog in this hunt.  Regards,  GregJackP   Boomer!   01:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Appeal or Notice
Imperial has filed a Notice of Appeal. Is it proper to describe that as "an appeal"? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * LA Times blog, a reasonable RS, describes them as having "filed an appeal". --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The short answer is yes. Now the long answer. The first step in an appeal is to file a notice of appeal in the district court. The district court electronically notifies the Ninth Circuit, which then opens a case. For the defendant-intervenors, the notice of appeal was filed in the district court on 8/4/10, docketed in the district court on 8/5/10, and transmitted to the circuit on 8/5/10. The case was first docketed in the circuit on 8/5/10.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Entire circuit court
The Los Angeles Times released an article where they say "If the panel permits gay marriages to resume at 5 p.m. Wednesday, attorneys for Proposition 8 said they would seek a permanent hold from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, the jurist assigned to hear such matters from the West. Kennedy, considered a swing vote on gay rights issues, could refer the matter to the entire court." By "entire court", are they referring to the 29-member Ninth Circuit (a real en banc hearing then) or up to the 9-member Supreme Court? Also, the issue and threat itself seems significant enough to be in the article, particularly considering that it's Kennedy who would deal with the issue, but I don't really know how or where to place it. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

They mean the entire Supreme Court. I don't think this chain of if statements needs to be explained in the entry, just the next step. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I can't be more specific, but maybe they're refering to the option by which the vote on the stay can be refered to half the 9th Circuit judges to vote on in one sitting, rather than having it heard and voted on by the traditional 3-judge pannel. (They do that 1/2 because all the judges can't fit in one room.) I'll look for where I saw this referenced, just for our own edification.Codenamemary (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that it doesn't belong in the article. Also, the LA Times shouldn't use the phrase "permanent hold." Assuming the ninth circuit denies their motion, the defendant-intervenors would be seeking the same relief in the supreme court, namely a stay pending appeal. Even if Kennedy refers the matter to the entire court, it would not result in a "permanent hold." Things will happen quickly enough next week. It's not helpful to speculate about complex scenarios before they happen.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

State defense
The Orange County Register released an article where they hypothesize how the case may continue if the Ninth Circuit decides that the intervenors cannot replace the defendants and if Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown continue to refuse defending Prop 8. This includes if Meg Whitman and Steve Cooley trump Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris for the governor and/or attorney general's seats, assuming it isn't too long after the appeal ruling, or if Olson and Boies decide to fight the case on merits and standing. Can someone more knowledgeable in the law inset these into the article? Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't believe it belongs in the article. It's way too complicated and speculative. If this happens and if this happens and if this happens. Not only do you have to explain all the ifs, but you then have to explain all the different opinions on the different ifs by the various legal commentators.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree this isn't needed, but here's another way to handle it. Instead of detailing the speculation, just report its outlines. Here's a draft of what I mean: "The many possible outcomes of the appellate process, its timeline, and the anticipated replacement of some of the named defendants in the November 2010 election have prompted observers to speculate about a wide range of possible scenarios and outcomes." Add a citation to at least 3 quality articles and let the interested reader go to them to explore the possibilities. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That sounds too vague to be useful. Rather, if there's a cogent analysis from someone who is particularly respectable, that should be dropped into the External Links section. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Video tape out in public
The supreme court ruled that the trial should not be video taped, because it would lead to discrimination and harassment for the prop 8 side and prevent them from calling up witnesses and defending themselves adequately. The order http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2009cv02292/215270/672/ The response from the defence. http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2009cv02292/215270/696/ The dissent. http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2009cv02292/215270/698/

Judge Walker video recorded the trial, despite the supreme court ruling, for his personal use. He then distributed the videos to the prosecution. After the trial ended, the prosecution refused to return the videos, citing that they might still have some use for them, and that due to the protective order the videos were safe.

You just know that 'somehow' they're gonna mysteriously end up on youtube. Interesting way to violate a supreme court ruling. This can't have been accidental. He must have been planning this from the start.

Makes a mockery of the judge's closing argument that the team "“failed to make any effort to call their witnesses after the potential for public broadcast in the case had been eliminated.”" now that the videos are destined for public viewing.

Could someone do their wikimagic on this? I suck at format, but it's a fun conclusion to the video taping saga.Ytaker (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, because you provided no evidence of all of this. -- kur  ykh   05:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the claims can be sourced to this National Review Online article. However, the claim at the header that the tapes are out in public is false, even the NRO doesn't claim that, just that they are in the hands of the prosecution. The supposition that they will end up online is just that, a supposition, not a fact. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Was it not the case that it was proposed to record the trial anyway, despite the ruling prohibiting its broadcast, but that the proposal was successfully appealed? Exploding Boy (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I presume you didn't read the three document I cited for evidence, then. I casually commented on the issue, based on information not in the national review page. My main paragraph for inclusion is this.

"Judge Walker video recorded the trial, despite the supreme court ruling, for his personal use. He then distributed the videos to the (prosecution) plantiffs. After the trial ended, the (prosecution) plantiffs refused to return the videos, citing that they might still have some use for them, and that due to the protective order the videos were safe."

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2009cv02292/215270/696/

"And even with this Court’s requirement that all copies of the trial video be “maintain[ed] as strictly confidential,” Doc #672 at 2, it cannot be denied that dissemination beyond the confines of the Court has increased the possibility of accidental public disclosure."

It's notable because the defence said it would increase the chance of the information going public, and cause irreperable harm. Irreperable harm is interesting, and worthy of wikipedia. It also helps explain why they had such weak expert testimony, as noted elsewhere in the wiki page- their fear of something like this happening.

"The supposition that they will end up online is just that, a supposition, not a fact."

Actually no, it's a probability claim made in the documents by the defence.

To the below person- fun legal terminology, and why should the article cite irrelevent facts? I don't think you're really arguing against inclusion. It's a political article making a point, but the above articles speak for themselves. Indeed, you could easily make a paragraph simply by quoting them. Ytaker (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is largely much ado about nothing. First, the S.Ct. prohibited the live broadcast of the trial, not the recording of the trial. Second, Whelan's editorial is misleading. For example, he says that Walker authorized the plaintiffs (they are NOT called the prosecution) to retain their copies of the recording. That's incomplete. He authorized all the parties to retain any recordings of the proceeding, not just the plaintiffs. He also sealed the recording. None of this belongs in the article. It's not notable.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Responding to the update above by Ytaker. Even if we didn't cite the article but only the papers filed by defendant-intervenors, it still wouldn't be notable. Whether Whelan or the parties speculate, it's still speculation and it's not of any real importance to the article, which is about the overall import of the case, not about the motion practice in the case. We've gone beyond reporting on the daily activities of the case. The case is on appeal. We don't need to go back and dig up speculative argument, by any party.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you saying speculation by the defence is irrelevent? You seem to be saying speculation by political bloggers is irrelevent, which no one contests, but saying speculation by the defence is irrelevent is a more questionable argument.


 * If the defendent speculates about the issue, it's quite relevant. Especially if their speculation explains why they did not call forward experts- because they "were extremely concerned about their personal safety" . It is irrelevent to the article what political bloggers say, but somebody citing a political blogger does not make the point irrelevent. It helps resolve a mystery, as to why they did not call forward more expert mysteries.


 * Further, the simple fact that the judge continued to record the trial is certainly relevent. Numerous people are no doubt curious about what happened in the trial, and the knowledge that tapes exist somewhere, and that there's a potential for leaks is quite noteworthy.


 * It enhances "Evaluation of expert witnesses" and "Broadcast and online coverage"91.109.228.47 (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue is whether something is noteworthy, not whether it is relevant. Speculation by either party is not notable. To a large extent, argument by either party is not notable at this point, and the defense's "explanation" as to why they didn't call more experts is argument.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe all court proceedings are recorded, not always video, but always at least audio. But please post youtube links if they exist!!!11--Milowent • talkblp-r  15:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * First, not all court proceedings are recorded. Second, when they are recorded, they are generally recorded stenographically (as was done in Perry), from which written transcripts are created. Finally, some proceedings may be aurally recorded. For example, some proceedings in some federal courts are aurally recorded using electronic equipment. Also, some administrative proceedings are recorded using very old-fashioned tape-recording equipment. Regardless, those recordings too would result in written transcripts. It is probably not typical for videorecordings to be made by a judge for the judge's and the parties' use, but I've never seen any statistics on the question, and I doubt there's any rule against doing so. A party would have to object to it and preserve the issue for appeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox update?
Since the case is now pending the 9th should the court and image in the infobox be updated or is that only done when the higher court issues its opinion? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we should leave it alone until the 9th circuit issues a decision and its mandate (meaning decision is final). Just so it's clear, I didn't research the issue to see what the Wikipedia practice is, if any, that's just my view. It certainly doesn't make sense now because the article focuses on the trial court decision. Other than procedural issues in the 9th circuit, nothing else has been decided.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't wait for the appellate mandate to issue before rolling the infobox over. Any time in November would seem to make sense (the reply brief is due in early November and the oral argument is the first week in December). That way, when the next round of "news" hits after oral argument, the infobox will show what people are expecting, e.g., "Ninth Circuit heard oral argument today in ..." Wonderbreadsf (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've added the two appeals to the subsequent actions parameter of the infobox. I've also added the federal supplement case citation.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Amicus brief
The content in the "History of Marriage" section is sourced to an amicus brief. Several problems with this: Lionel (talk) 00:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) This was not introduced as evidence thus the court has no opinion on its veracity
 * 2) It is a legal document, not published in the traditional way, and fails WP:RS
 * 3) Putting it in the "Trial" section is misleading since it was not part of the trial
 * 4) Amicus briefs, i.e. friends of the court, have no legal standing in any event
 * The material Lionel is referring to has been removed by Lionel. I reverted the change asking him to take it here, but he saw fit to revert my reversion and then take it here. An amicus brief may be filed only with permission of the court. Permission of the court to file the various briefs was given by the court in this instance. It is as published as anything that is publicly available, which it is. The brief is well-supported by citations to treatises and other documents. However, I would favor eliminating the second sentence of the quote from the brief as it is nothing more than legal argument, whereas the first sentence relates to evidence, or at least an absence of evidence. I also agree that the paragraph doesn't belong in the Trial section, although I'm not sure where it would go otherwise. And it is directly relevant to the preceding sentence involving defense counsel's argument.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I may have been a little WP:BOLD in removing it the 2nd time, but all's well that ends well. This brief is merely an opinion which was not introduced as evidence and not considered by the court. We have an abundance of high quality material to cite such as evidence which was presented and evaluated by the court, expert testimony, arguments made by the defense and plaintiff, why include a brief? Lionel (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

American Foundation for Equal Rights
This is a new group founded specifically to litigate this lawsuit. Little is known about them compared to other longer established organizations involved. The source refers to them as "Hollywood activists." Reiner's page refers to him as "liberal." The article would improved by adding a brief description i.e. "Hollywood liberals" to the article. Lionel (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Reiner's page also shows he has a beard. Would that make it appropriate to describe the group as "bearded Hollywood folks"? Of course not. One member does not define the group. In this case, we've got a group whose advisory board includes Margaret Hoover and Robert A. Levy --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the source refers to them as "Hollywood activists." Reiner and Cohen factor prominently in the references re Perry, and Cohen is a Hollywood producer. Hey, this is not OR, this thread is suggested by the source (not literally of course). Lionel (talk) 02:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on. You should know better than this. If you want to stress the point that one side is backed by what a source calls "Hollywood liberals", then make the point in the same paragraph that states the opposition received funding from the LDS church and other religious organizations. If there is no paragraph that states such a thing, then add it. That's neutrality. --Moni3 (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, actually,  the source does not refer to AFER as "Hollywood activists." They specify a few people and show that they created AFER, but that doesn't mean that they are the organization. The Scouts are not Barons, even though Baden Powell was. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Article semiprotected for three months
Due to excessive vandalism/sock puppetry. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 22:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)