User talk:BradfordGWU

Do you go to George Washington University? --Golbez 17:10, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

..

Yes, I am employed by the George Washington University. The term same-sex "marriage" is more appropriate in context, as same-sex marriage exists in Massachusetts alone. Rather, the Democratic Party is divided on partnerships that may or may not come to be called same sex "marriages." This term also causes some offense to members of the party who feel that these partnerships should be limited or termed otherwise, and, no doubt, to conservatives, factions of the Republican Party, and other Americans. In that respect, same-sex "marriage" is accurate and should appear in the United States Democratic Party article, while same-sex marriage is accurate for use in articles associated with same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

Perhaps less important, the term's inclusion as part of the civil rights subheading is misleading as it implies that the United States Democratic Party is not, or should not, actively seek its inclusion as a civil right. It's exclusion by the majority is precisely what is gaining increasing support among progressives and throughout the party.


 * The scare quotes won't fly, though. If I don't revert you, someone else will. What do you do at GWU? I was class of 2000. --Golbez 17:34, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest, then, that an entirely different term needs to be used. How else do you think it can be described? I would have expected you, as an administrator, to uphold the accurate term over the inaccurate term which might be viewed as politically motivated either to misrepresent the Democratic Party or to insite anti-homosexual sentiments from the right.

I am a teaching assistant in the Law School and a PhD candidate in the Elliott School.


 * There is nothing accurate about saying "same-sex 'marriage'" without explaining why. You yourself said it's not the right term, so use the proper one instead of confusing with quotes. Using quotes might not invite anti-homosexual sentiments from the right - though I disagree - but it will invite criticism from the left as well. The most NPOV option is to use the term without any qualifiers. People can click the link if they want to learn more. --Golbez 17:47, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I continue to disagree. The term is inaccurate because same-sex marriage only exists in Massachusetts and no initiative favoring same-sex marriage/"marriage" has been endorsed by the party.


 * Aha, well there we go. Specify that it's not a national priority then. That can be done without quotes. --Golbez 17:56, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I now agree with your position that the term same-sex 'marriage' could insite said reaction from groups within our party as well. Consider then the inclusion, not of a disclaimer, but of the second section making it distinct from civil rights, which certainly seems more in keeping with the platform of the party, that should also include comment re: its wide support for acceptance as a part of the greater civil rights concerns of the party, and also that it is making headway among the states and has been recognized as same-sex marriage (no quotes) in Massachusetts.

I would like to go ahead and write it that way unless you disagree strongly or wish to arrange it yourself.


 * Go for it. My objection was only to the quotes. I can't judge it til I see it. --Golbez 18:05, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I've done it. Hopefully future edits will improve this content rather than revert to the versions that were inaccurate or objectionable to several audiences.

What did you study while at GWU and with what professors? I'm impressed with the undergrad body here. They're much more actively and show an impressive maturity of political behavior than at my BS and JD alma maters (Tufts and William & Mary).


 * active