Talk:Special rights/Archive 4

Mediation request
Due to repeated abuses by Alienus and Bhuck, I'm requesting mediation. DavidBailey 02:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if mediation counts as a "special right". Al 03:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How's that request coming along? CovenantD 14:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently, I made the initial request incorrectly. I think I have fixed this, and hope to have a response soon. DavidBailey 03:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

OK I took the case Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-09 Special rights. First a little background. I've never had any particular interest in civil rights issues one way or the other. I'm straight, married w/ kid. I'm not a social conservative and I guess I'm middle of the road for mid 30's guy living in the NorthEast USA on gay rights, so I'm fairly neutral. jbolden1517Talk

First thing I'd like to do is figure out who wants to be involved. Put yes or no next to your name. If you want to be involved and aren't on the list add yourself with a yes.


 * yes
 * yes
 * yes
 * yes
 * - yes I don't appreciate someone else speaking for me. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * - I have been following the discussion and page history for a while, so may chip in at some stage


 * CovenantD asked, by what criteria was my name included?.  I listed you as an option because of your frequent edits to the article.  jbolden1517Talk  11:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll play along, but I don't think two edits the article and one to the talk page (at the time mediation was listed here) qualify as "frequent edits." CovenantD 14:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Bhuck asked what does involvement entail? presumably I already am involved in one way or another--does it make a difference if I explicitly say yes here, and if I do, am I agreeing to anything?. The answer is you are agreeing to a mediated conversation that attempts to resolve your underlying dispute.  That means I'm going to direct the topics to some extent but more importantly I'm going to direct the culture of communication.  You may make content shifts (which will generally be by agreement) and those are binding on you as long as you are in the mediation.  You have the right to refuse mediation at any point and then depending on where we are the in process
 * I'm just another editor
 * You temporarily pull back from those sections under mediation
 * After the mediation concludes there will be a short period where I try and stabalize the agreement. After that I won't even notice.
 * jbolden1517Talk 17:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What form do the contested sections take during the time that they are under mediation? I think if I am going to agree to not edit them, I would want to know that in advance.--Bhuck 21:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know. Its going to come out during the mediation.   jbolden1517Talk  22:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we are misunderstanding each other here. If I agree to refrain from editing contested sections during mediation, then the form they have at the point in time when I enter the mediation process is what I am asking about.  Thus the answer to my question cannot be the result of the mediation process, since that will not have yet occurred.--Bhuck 07:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I can edit them and they'll get edited during the process. The form they will start in will be essentially random.  Since you all seem to agree pretty much on structure and its just specific wording that's a problem I'll probably do something like 1 to one side 1 to the other.   This is a pretty easy mediation so its not going to take that long, but yes you may have to live with a sentence in a form you don't like for a few weeks rather than having it be in a form you don't like for many months half the time.  jbolden1517Talk  11:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, ok, then. Since the article has been in what is to me an acceptable form for quite a while now (hours, even days?), I suppose I don't have much to risk.  If it gets put into an "unacceptable" form, I can always pull out of the mediation if I find the form too unacceptable or if I decide that it is being left in that form for too long.  I certainly have nothing against having you participate in, and even structure, the discussion--au contraire.--Bhuck 13:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If possible, I like to join the mediation on the inclusion of Libertarianism as a co-supporter of the term Special Rights. See the discussion on this page below. Franklin Moore 05:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Opening paragraph
Bhuck, this edit, not only includes the Libertarian text, but you keep adding the section equating "gay rights" and "equal rights". This is debatable and not neutral. Your paragraph:
 * Special rights is a political term originally used by libertarians to refer to laws granting rights to one or more groups which are not extended to other groups, such as affirmative action or hate crime legislation with regard to ethnic or religious minorities. More recently, social conservatives have begun to use the term to refer to laws that guarantee equal rights for minority groups that already exist for the majority, almost always with reference to sexual minorities (e.g. prohibitions of discrimination based on sexual orientation, same sex marriage, etc.).''

Here is my recommended edit to remove the POV wording.
 * Special rights is a political term originally used by libertarians to refer to laws granting rights to one or more groups which are not extended to other groups, such as affirmative action or hate crime legislation with regard to ethnic or religious minorities. More recently, social conservatives have used the term to refer to laws that extend rights homosexuals, such as same sex marriage, or legal recognition of homosexuals as a minority group that should be protected from discrimination.

Please comment or accept. DavidBailey 17:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with you that that was POV wording, but I think your suggestion has certain other improvements which make it worth consideration--the question of anti-discrimination legislation is tricky, since that is a "special right" in the libertarian usage, and while libertarians question applying it to any group, social conservatives seem to only question applying it to sexual minorities. The "legal recognition" to which you refer is not really "as a minority group" but "as a group that should be protected".  But I find it extremely unwieldy to discuss edits this way, so I will first make your edit, and then I will edit your edit, and that should make things clearer, I think.  If there is something unclear about my motivations, just ask.  Generally, I think it is preferable to follow the AP style guide and write "gays and lesbians" instead of "homosexuals", though there are certain contexts in which I would deviate from that principle.  This is not one of them, however.--Bhuck 11:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with gays and lesbians vs. homosexuals. Trying to find neutral wording in this area is rather challenging at times. DavidBailey 10:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason why editing in the discussion vs. editing in the article is desired is that the alternative to discussion and consensus between editors who disagree is to edit war. By refraining from making edits to the disputed section, it allows both sides to retreat from the warring and agree to not make edits until a consensus is agreed upon. Suggestions about what the disputed section can be read and commented on "in-line" within the discussion page. Once the consensus is agreed upon, users can put their name into the discussion under the consensus paragraph stating they will support the text as it is edited. This can be referred to at a later date when future edit wars may start. This is why I would greatly prefer that you insert your text here, where it can be commented on and where new revisions can be suggested, rather than editing the article and then discussing it here. DavidBailey 10:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro Sentence
OK well I guess the intro remains. Lets do this sentence


 * David
 * More recently, social conservatives have used the term to refer to proposed laws that extend specific rights to gays and lesbians, such as same sex marriage or extend anti-discrimination protections which have traditionally referred to Constitutionally-protected minorities, such as race or gender, to include sexual minorities.


 * Al and Bhuck
 * More recently, social conservatives have used the term to refer to laws that either extend rights that already exist for heterosexuals to gays and lesbians, such as same sex marriage, or extend anti-discrimination protections that exist for other minority groups to sexual minorities as well.


 * Issues
 * proposed laws vs. laws (I don't understand why there is passion here, could someone explain?) jbolden1517Talk 11:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, this is just me trying to be more accurate. It is partially a problem of laws that have been passed, and partially an issue related to discussions of laws that should pass. There is probably a better way to state this. I'm trying to both be accurate and keep it terse and succinct. DavidBailey 10:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * constitutional protected jbolden1517Talk 11:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This one I do understand. Al, what non constitutionally protected minority (retarded, children, refuges) rights do you believe are being aimed for?  In other words what is factually incorrect about David's clarification as to the nature of the rights?


 * David do you have any evidence that it is constitutional rights (like right to vote, equal protection) that are being debate rather than state statute (right to marry, right to survival benefits..)? jbolden1517Talk 11:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'm not sure what you're asking here. I don't know that those that claim "gay rights" can claim any constitutional category, unless they claim the equal protection clause, which, to my knowledge, has never been used in this way before, and therefore it would be a new reading of it. There are certain groups which are protected in the Constitution (and amendments) in certain ways. Gays and lesbians are not one of these categories. DavidBailey 10:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Then the question becomes why insist on mentioning constitutional rights vs. Bhuck and Al's version which focus on rights granted by statute?  jbolden1517Talk  00:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Any other issues you all want to bring up? jbolden1517Talk 11:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In a US context, it is true that the Constitution protects against racial discrimination (at least by the State...not clear how much the Constitution can apply to whether private people discriminate, for example by refusing to rent to Navajos). The Constitution does not guarantee the equality of women with men, only the right for both sexes to vote.  The Constitution forbids the State to establish a religion, but does not forbid religious discrimination on the part of third parties.  And the Constitution does not even mention sexual orientation.  Outside the purely US context (and there are anti-discrimination regulations (and the accompanying discussions) in the EU, for example), the Constitution is not particularly relevant.  I am not sure why we should use the term "Constitutionally-protected" in the first sentence, in which we are being very general, have not established that we are only talking about the US context (which, as far as the whole article is concerned, we are not, though we might want a subsection on the US situation), etc.  With regard to "laws" vs. "proposed laws", I have suggested a more general term, which should hopefully form the basis for a consensus.--Bhuck 10:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * We can't use these terms and these ideas. Virtually every paragraph becomes a problem (for example for most of the world the "right to bear arms" is not a civil right).  Is there anybody participating in this who is not from the USA?  I don't think we can do this for other countries.  Luckly this is about an English language term but that still doesn't shrink scope enough; I mean we can probably wing it for English or Australia but what about  Belize, Liberia?  Is there anybody participating in this who understands European, Asian, African... law?  jbolden1517Talk  14:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am a German citizen and resident (native speaker of English, though), who has closely followed the debate on anti-discrimination legislation here. EU legislation also applies in the United Kingdom, which is known to be English-speaking.  The general lines of the conflict (whether you call them "Sonderrechte" or "special rights" just depends on what language you're speaking) are not confined by linguistic boundaries, though of course the strength of the various parties to the debate will vary from one society to the next.  The German constitution does, for example, guarantee the equality of men and women, though the ERA in the US was rejected in the 1970s.--Bhuck 14:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I had thought about the issue of internationalism as well, but frankly, I don't feel qualified to discuss it in such terms. Also, it appears that a great deal of the debate is being carried out in the United States, but that may also be that I am uninformed about the debate around the world. DavidBailey 10:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is the primary problem I have with the current paragraph. These phrases are POV-biased. They are editorializing a hotly contested point. They are "extend rights that already exist for heterosexuals" and "extend anti-discrimination protections that exist for other minority groups". The point is this- There is debate about whether heterosexuals have rights the gays do not. There is also debate about whether minority groups have the kinds of protections that homosexuals argue they need, and whether homosexuals should constitute a legally-protected minority group, and what protections they should receive. In any case, I feel these phrases can be dropped without causing confusion or being vague about what is being covered, so why are they in there if not to express a political view of the editor, which is inappropriate? DavidBailey 10:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there really debate about whether heterosexuals have the right to marry a partner to whom they are sexually attracted? I wasn't aware that these rights did not exist for heterosexuals--I always thought that they did.  Extending this right to homosexuals is something that social conservatives see as "special rights", if I am correctly informed, but if gay marriage is not considered a special right, then we can drop its mention from the article.  I also fail to see any legitimate debate about whether ethnic minorities are protected from discrimination (see the Public Accomodations clauses of US civil rights legislation, or EU Guideline 2000/43) -- I think it is quite clear that they are.  Are you saying that homosexuals are not arguing that they also need this protection?  You are certainly correct to point out that there is debate over the question of whether homosexuals should consitute a legally-protected minority group, but I don't see that my suggested phrasing denies that this debate exists--indeed that is exactly what it does say: it is about extending the legal protections to a group which does not currently enjoy them.--Bhuck 12:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, yes. That is framing the debate in a way suitable to pro-gay activists views. Marriage has long been both a religious and legal tradition within society dating back many, many years, at least to biblical times. Check out all the rules that the Old Testiment had regarding marriage. It's a lot more than just "you can marry anyone you want". For instance, even heterosexuals sometimes cannot marry a first cousin or immediate family member, have to be a specific age, and have to be of the opposite sex. By reducing this to a brief sentence leading off that this whole debate is about rights that homosexuals want that heterosexuals have, you are conveniently side-stepping this whole issue, but it is over-simplifying and is quite gay-centric-POV. While it can be discussed in the article, it cannot be NPOV and be stated as it is in the opening paragraph. DavidBailey 11:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The old testaments has lots of rules involving marriage that they don't believe apply, mamzer for example. Now wukk everyone will agree that heterosexual couples have rights that homosexual couples do not?  I'm thinking that might offer a way around the problem.  jbolden1517Talk  22:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Heterosexual couples can marry. Homosexual ones, with one limited exception, cannot.  Looks like the former have an extra right.  Actually an extra few thousand, since marriage comes up again and again in the law, bringing with it many additional rights and responsibilities.  Al  00:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, I was just illustrating that marriage is a complex topic that doesn't really fit the mold of Bhuck's assertion that heterosexuals can marry anyone they're sexually attracted to. DavidBailey 00:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Your argument appears to assume that the Christianity owns the concept of marriage. I would consider this inapplicable to this article, do you concur Al  16:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC) edited for tone jbolden1517Talk  21:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Al, try and be polite in your responses. I'm rephrasing.  There is a question above you still need to answer.  jbolden1517Talk  21:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe your rephrasing was at all necessary, as my comment was polite and civil, despite being blunt. Al  00:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Al, Christianity does not own the concept of marriage, but from a historical perspective, Judaism and Christianity have a long history of both marriage tradition and law. DavidBailey 00:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's one tradition out of many. Good thing we're not bound by religious tradition when making civil law, eh?  Al  00:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a lack of respect for religious and societal traditions that throws society into chaos. The result is disease and moral decay, and a lack of civility or respect for the sacred. I find it saddening. DavidBailey 02:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What a deeply conservative POV! Progress is not moral decay. I'm glad that society is getting over some of its old bigotries and moving forward. Human rights are much more sacred than tradition. Anyhow, your statements do explain your highly POV edits, but do not excuse them. Al 04:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What you call progress, I call a degradation of morals. However, regardless of the fact that you enjoy calling names, at least I'm willing to admit that I have a POV. You claim your POVs to be NPOV. I find that amusing. DavidBailey 04:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I insist that my edits and yours be NPOV, regardless of our respective POV's. You just have to work on keeping your POV under control, which is a real problem for you. Al 04:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you cannot see your own POV-bias and apparently make no effort to. Instead, you claim that everyone else's POV conform to yours. I can at least admit to a POV-bias and compromise. This is something I have not seen you do. DavidBailey 11:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please comment on content and not the contributor. Remember to assume good faith and be civil. Ideogram 13:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, I tend to get overly heated at times. Thanks for the reminder. I apologize if I offended or agitated you Alienus. DavidBailey 22:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. As Ideogram suggests, let's keep our focus on the content, not the people. Al 04:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

heterosexual couples
Tell me if the following compromise phrase could be inserted and represents everyone's opinions fairly:
 * More recently, social conservatives have used the term to refer to laws that either extend rights that already exist for heterosexuals couples to homosexual couples in particular same sex marriage

jbolden1517Talk 11:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that "either extend rights", or what? The sentence needs some editing. DavidBailey 11:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's just the opening phrase, it would continue with or extend anti-discrimination protections and we have to mediate from then on. jbolden1517Talk  12:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

RfC: Alienus
For anyone who is interested in assisting, I am gathering information related to an RfC for Alienus. If you are interested in participating, you can do so here. Thanks. DavidBailey 11:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Leaving wikipedia
I've decided to leave wikipedia User:Jbolden1517. You may need to find another mediator. Good luck in resolving this and remember try and be nice to each other and build up general principles from easily resolvable facts. jbolden1517<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Talk 21:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry to see you go. Take care. DavidBailey 01:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV war in opening paragraph
Would someone please explain why the phrase "extend rights that already exist for heterosexuals to gays and lesbians" is appropriate in the article when this is the issue under debate? It doesn't seem NPOV to me, although I'm sure the gay rights activists love it. DavidBailey 21:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Meow. Is it always pretty editorialize-y in this talk page?  I'm new here.  I agree that it's slightly prejudicial use of language.  Do you have a suggested rephrasing?  What's a neutral way to describe what's going on with rights in the gay marriage issue, for example? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the paragraph I've been trying to insert and keeps getting reverted is the following. I'm aware it may not be 100% NPOV, but it's better than what is there now.
 * Special rights is a political term originally used by libertarians to refer to laws granting rights to one or more groups which are not extended to other groups, such as affirmative action or hate crime legislation with regard to ethnic, religious or sexual minorities. More recently, social conservatives have used the term to refer to measures that extend specific rights to gays and lesbians, such as same sex marriage, or that extend anti-discrimination protections to sexual minorities. This term is used internationally, for example "Sonderrechte" in Germany.
 * Thanks. DavidBailey 22:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't mind I added the italics there. The clause in question seems to be:


 * measures that extend specific rights to gays and lesbians, such as same sex marriage
 * vs
 * measures that ... extend rights that already exist for heterosexuals to gays and lesbians, such as same sex marriage
 * vs
 * measures that ... mirror rights for gays and lesbians that already exist for heterosexuals, such as in the case of same sex marriage


 * ...the last of which is a bit awkwardly worded, having just been written by me. (The ellipses (...) replace the word either in both cases.)  I guess what's at stake is expressing that the specific rights in question have precedent as traditional rights enjoyed by heterosexuals, without affirming that they're actually the same rights.  Is that the lay of the land, roughly? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is also another part that is similar that is also under dispute, the part about discrimination. The issue at hand is that GRA (gay rights activists) state that they are fighting for equal rights. Some (most?) SC (social conservatives) would say that they have the same rights (IE- they can choose to associate, set up power of attorney, put each other in each other's wills), and that they can do what the heterosexuals can do as far as rights go within society. GRA would state that they want to be able to marry someone of the same sex and have it legally recognized as marriage, but SC would state that they can already associate and that they are just trying to change the definition of marriage, which they see as a religious and social tradition which is merely recognized by law. The problem is the way the paragraph states it "social conservatives have used the term to refer to measures that either mirror rights for gays and lesbians that already exist for heterosexuals, such as in the case of same sex marriage, or extend anti-discrimination protections that exist for other minority groups to sexual minorities as well." That is not at all accurate. Social conservatives would NEVER accept that phrasing. As such, it is very GRA POV as it states it from their perspective. I hope that's cogent enough to get the drift. DavidBailey 00:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As a practical matter, it is impossible to obtain by civil law contract what can be obtained by marriage. This is because the rights associated with marriage are not merely created by mutual agreement of the partners, but also granted by society in recognition of the legitimacy of the family thus formed. For this reason, GRA's see marriage as something denied to them.
 * We can't state conservative views in conservative terminology except in direct quotes, because taking their POV would be, well, POV. We have to remain neutral, even when neutrality appears to favor one side over another because of verifiable facts.
 * Thank you for understanding. Al  02:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)