Talk:2008 California Proposition 8

Biased article

This article makes it seem like the gay community was harmless in it's response against prop 8. In reality they have shown racist and anti-black opinions among themselves. Why doesn't this article mention this. Here's a sincerely yours a pro-gay activist http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pam-spaulding/the-n-bomb-is-dropped-on_b_142363.html YVNP (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe this article should report on the factual events of the post-election demonstrations. However, I think the above link is more inflammatory than a reputable source. Perhaps a more appropriate document could be found. MrBell (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there is no "reputable" news source that dares to report such disgraceful behavior by a hateful few, fearing that issuing such reports would imply that most gay-marriage activists are racist (which of course they are not). The absence of more "appropriate" sources reporting such events is less a reflection of the unreliability of this source and more a reflection of the timidity of mainstream news sources. Just saying, just because a report is inflammatory doesn't make it untrue, and I see no reason other than that it's "inflammatory" to treat it as disreputable. Peace. Wikibojopayne (talk) 06:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Potentially relevant article: From: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27669478/

'Exit polls in California showed that the gay marriage ban received a majority from black voters, which has prompted some gay leaders to complain that they were abandoned by a minority group that should understand discrimination.'

'Kathryn Kolbert, a black lesbian who is president of People for the American Way, a Washington-based group that monitors the religious right, was so worried about a backlash that she wrote a memo to colleagues, warning it is wrong and self-defeating to blame black voters for the outcome.'

'"It's always easy to scapegoat when you are feeling bitter about a loss," Kolbert said. "What we do in America when we are frustrated is blame the people we always blame."'

MSNBC has reported repeatedly on the apparent racial divide and anti-black/latino/etc. reactions that followed. I think CNN has as well. Awakeandalive1 (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence from the MSNBC article with some distillation of the rest of the quote, could be included, that some gays felt abandoned by African-American groups and that some African-American commentators/supporters felt they were being scapegoated or that the campaign had not been respectful to their concerns. However, delving into specific commentators or the more blatant claims of bigotry and infighting gives it too much importance. Every time there is an issue at all that has to do with race and civil rights it seems that some people are ready to cry racism, or entitlement, etc. That seems like routine squawking of a sort that accompanies every political issue, and is not a special feature of this one. Giving it too much room gives it undue credence. Wikidemon (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The Huffingtonpost is not a reliable source period.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Huffington may be biased towards liberalism but it isn't the only source. I'll try to find some others. YVNP (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

A second note that article uses sources as well. Among them is an article from the New York Times. YVNP (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The 10,000 protesters in NYC is the estimate of the organizers only, who have an undue interest in inflating their numbers from what started as a facebook link-up. The police would not provide any collaborating estimate and the source provided as support is only quoting hearsay from the unnamed organizers themselves. Actual on-site photos show less than a 500 people. The source is too weak and the entire sentence should be removed as unsupportable.

It's also important to point out that Scott Eckern's role of artistic director was largely honorary and the position is being eliminated entirely with his resignation. Richard Lewis, the executive producer of the California Musical Theatre said, "We're not going to worry about having a so-called artistic director. That was a title specific to Scott." http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1393290.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceese (talk • contribs) 23:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Legally, Prop 8 went into effect on November 5th 2008 by the California Constitution.

SEC. 10. (a) An initiative statute or referendum approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If a referendum petition is filed against a part of a statute the remainder shall not be delayed from going into effect. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_2

A link to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_constitution article is needed. It is important to note that "From 1911, the height of the U.S. Progressive Era, to 1986, the California Constitution was amended or revised over 500 times." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_constitution#cite_note-6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceese (talk • contribs) 00:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Redundancy?

Sorry for having no follow through, but I don't have time to verify and vet this. Still, it looks redundant to me:

Still near the top of the article:

Republican party members' support for the measure was still more important to the outcome. An exit poll showed that Republican party members sided in favour of the measure by a ratio of more than 4 to 1. Furthermore, Republican party members made up nearly a third of the voters. [9]

White Republicans' support for the measure was still more important to the outcome. An exit poll showed that white Republicans sided in favour of the measure by a ratio of more than 4 to 1. Furthermore, Republican party members made up nearly a third of the voters. [10]

9 and 10 seemingly link to the same exit polling site.

174.40.149.131 (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

References 8, 9, and 10 fixed. What would be the best way to describe these two polls? Perhaps the exit poll data should be combined with the pre-election poll data at the end? MrBell (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how useful any of the data is. I just went through the cnn exit polls looking for any yes-votes above two-thirds to include alongside the African-American information already there. The site was not loading very well for me but it did seem to have two separate entries for Republican Party Members and White Republicans, albeit with the same numbers for each.MairAW (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Rearrangement

"Proponents" and "Opponents" sounded like they need their own subsection. Any suggestions on a better title than Campaign Contributors? And where should the ProtectMarriage.com letter be placed? I thought after proponents and after opponents to allow the article to give a good intro to the groups ProtectMarriage.com and EqualityCalifornia in their respective subsections. MrBell (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Should Equality California be defined (with a reference to their website http://www.eqca.org/ in the opponents section) before the ProtectMarriage.com letter, or do we just allow the Eq. Cal. link in the ProtectMarriage.com letter subsection to explain the organization? MrBell (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

On a larger scale (at least in my opinion) it seems out of sequence to me to have the reaction to the vote prior to the details of what the proposition was about. IMHO, the reactions should be at the end, not the beginning of the article. CsikosLo (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

With regard to 2008 prop. articles (California Proposition 1A (2008), Arizona Proposition 102 (2008), etc.) the yes/no results with some percentages are mentioned in the first paragraph and explained in detail near the end (state maps, etc.). I moved the Prop. 8 results because it seemed lost down at the bottom, but feel free to move it back if it looks better that way. MrBell (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is strange to have the order as it currently is, with "Post-election events" following immediately after "Opinion polls", while "Results" comes before "History of the initiative". I understand that for a while, in the period immediately after the election, there was a lot of interest and attention directed at the results, but as this moves more into the realm of history, it would be good to restore the chronological order and move the "Results" section back down to follow "Opinion polls" and precede "post-election events".--Bhuck (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Image Neutrality

Now with the addition of the two protest images and Whoopi, we now urgently require an image of proponents of the proposition in action. Any ideas? --haha169 (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• What about the Saddleback church guy? I'm all for a photo or two of counter-protesters. --David Shankbone 05:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there a link and a proper license? By the way, thanks for releasing the image of Whoopi Goldberg to GDFL, it's quite a nice addition. --haha169 (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Haha. There is supposed to be anti-Proposition 8 rallies in multiple state capitals coming up. I do not think New York City is going to be the place to find counter-protester photos if we need them. I'd encourage anyone to find out the details if there is one going on in their local capital to go out and document it and cook up some good counter-protest photos. We may discover, though, that winners usually stay home after the election, content with the result. In more red-leaning states, if there's a protest there is more likely to be a counter-protest. Anyone in Salt Lake? --David Shankbone 14:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

http://www.kpsplocal2.com/global/video/flash/popupplayer.asp?vt1=v&clipFormat=flv&clipId1=3115942&at1=News&h1=Prop%208%20Rally%20Turns%20Violent%20-%20Live%20Report&rnd=70882418 Maybe there are related pictures on the internet? Awakeandalive1 (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe some can be found on Flickr. I have too many other things I'm working on to put any time in looking, although I had great fun photographing Westboro Baptist Church protesting the Pope--David Shankbone 20:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've checked, but Flickr is full of either very low quality images or a single or group of supporters waving signs before the voting began. Besides, such images may be violation of personality rights. I couldn't find any ones that are equivalent to the the Newsom/Goldstone or State Capitol images. --haha169 (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There are now six images against Prop 8 and one for it. At one point does this become WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, impacting the neutrality of the article? Alanraywiki (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think having a demonstration before the vote rules out including a picture of the demonstration in the article. Since there is not much reason for Prop 8 supporters to take to the streets these days (at least not until and if the courts rule the vote invalid), you probably won't find many pictures of them after 4 November. So in order to fend off charges that the article is biased, put in pictures from before the vote. That would be better than removing good pictures just because the people in the pictures are on the "wrong" side. Surely no one will argue that Wikipedia is biased just because all the pictures of pro-Prop-8 people are fuzzy and out-of-focus. Maybe the people attending the conservative rallies were just too fired up to hold their cameras still...that is not Wikipedia's problem.--Bhuck (talk) 14:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Could we open up a new article on the response to Prop 8? Reaction to the passing should be chronicled, but is best left its own page; this page should deal primarily with the prop itself and offer a link to that article. Peace. Wikibojopayne (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Demographics???

Pardon my ignorance of proper Wikipedia terminology, but there is self-evident bias in the selective nature of information provided in the 'Demographics' section of the article that compromises Wikipedia's ideal of encyclopedic neutrality. The Bush supporter and Republican demographics in particular are obviously intended to associate prop 8 support with unpopular names. If the intent of the article was to provide demographic information in an unbiased way, data would have been provided for non-Bush supporters and Independent and Democratic demographics, for example. A defense of the currently listed demographic info as unbiased would be entertaining to read, but futile.

On the other hand, it's no big surprise to find bias emanating from Wikipedia, even an article that is 'locked down' to prevent such bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibojopayne (talk • contribs) 06:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Just want to say, 10 days after that initial post, I now LOVE the current Demographics section, especially since folks are not only putting up with, but now defending the edits I suggested. Peace. Wikibojopayne (talk) 07:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, never mind. Peace. 98.203.153.154 (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It does seem as though the demographics list only those groups that sided strongly on the yes side, and info for strong support on the no side would be good to include as well. However, coming here with an attitude is rather unhelpful and simply shows a bias you have against wikipedia. Do you have any specific numbers you'd like to see up there? and maybe some references for them. Though the article may be locked, changes can always be suggested on the talk page. Cheers. RobHar (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

yes, the section could become something more than "who passed prop 8?". we could also add other strong prop8 voters such as iraq-war supporters, gun-owners (mentioned elsewhereon Talk). we could add strong no voters: young folk, jews, obama voters. It may be worth emphasizing in the section that the exit polls are a fairly inaccurate judge of actual voter demographics anyway (eg, http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=5689) even if they are all the info we have. There was only one polling organisation this year (http://www.exit-poll.net/). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MairAW (talk • contribs) 10:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

As balance between Yes and No voter demographics is essential to maintain the appearance of unbias, I heartily agree with MairAW here. My compliments to RobHar, and yes, I do have a few specific numbers and words I would like added to the article, listed just below (btw, data from CNN poll, website given next to signature below):

"Religious attendance and affiliation were strongly correlated with voting habits. 84% of weekly religious attenders voted Yes, while 54% of occasional and 83% of 'never' attenders voted No. Also, 64% of Catholics, 65% of Protestants and 81% of White Evangelicals voted Yes, while 90% of the 'none' religion category voted No. 'Other' and Jewish voter samples were too small to be statistically significant, but the data suggests they, too, leaned strongly No.

"Marriage and children also shared a strong correlation with vote choice. 60% of those married voted Yes, while 62% of those unmarried voted No. Further, 64% of those with children under 18 years old voted Yes, while 56% of those without children under 18 voted No."

"Racial results had African Americans voting Yes at an exceptionally high rate, 70%. Other races split the vote nearly evenly: Latinos voted Yes 53% and 'Other' leaned Yes by 51%, while Whites and Asians voted No by 51%."

(CNN poll numbers found at: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p2). Peace. Wikibojopayne (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Further suggested changes, with data from same CNN exit poll:

"Party ID and ideology also bore a significant correlation to the vote. While 82% of Republicans voted Yes, 54% of Independents and 64% of Democrats voted No. Likewise, 85% of Conservatives voted Yes, while 53% of Moderates and 78% of Liberals voted No.

"Gender and income differences shared virtually no correlation with the vote."

I hope it's not too dry; if anyone wants to spice up those stats, feel free. Peace. Wikibojopayne (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at WP:AGF, which is a good principle to work by, rather than to assume that people are pushing a political agenda. The two groups most strongly and interestingly (and therefore notably) in favor of the measure are African-Americans and the Mormon Church. Other than that is it any surprise (and therefore, is it worth highlighting) that Jews, liberals, young people, democrats, and gay people are opposed, that church-goers are generally more in favor, and that most racial groups other than African-Americans don't break strongly one way or the other? That's just repeating that some segments are more liberal than others on social issues, something that would be redundant to repeat in every article where it comes up. That African-Americans support the measure tells us something about culture in America; that the Mormon Church and some Catholic groups chose to take a stand tells us something about religious politics. If you look at the discussion history you can see how this came about. Before the vote we did have a long laundry list of supporters and poll results. But that itself is politically divisive because it pigeonholes people, and it's not really too relevant because in the end the main thing that matters is that it passed. Wikidemon (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The wording in the demographics article currently reads "X was important to... ". Would it be better to rephrase it to highlight some _interesting_ demographics as you've phrased it above; "The two groups most strongly and interestingly (and therefore notably) in favor of the measure are African-Americans and the Mormon Church. " (plus numbers + refs of course). I know there's been some discussion already on the phrasing, but the section could include an introduction ("as well as the expected demographics, exit polling indicated some interesting ... somethings: "), and then let the paras be reduced to "X group, who make up Y% of the voter base, voted strongly (Z%) for/against the measure" and leave the reader to decide how "important" that is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MairAW (talk • contribs) 01:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that makes a lot of sense. It's usually best to avoid essay-like statements like "importantly", "interestingly", "surprisingly", and even "notably" (because that implies something on Wikipedia). Wikidemon (talk) 01:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Point taken about WP:AGF. Still, to point out that Bush supporters and Republicans were leaning Yes is just as obvious as young people tending to vote No; the latter group is more socially liberal, the former more socially conservative. And while some find the African-American vote for both Obama and Yes to be paradoxical, it's no big secret that African Americans tend to vote Democrat and are also tend to be socially conservative. LDS folks are more socially conservative and leaned heavily Yes, too - again, no big surprise there.

But speaking of religious politics, which no one seems to think unworthy of note, some data here struck me as very under-noticed. According to CNN exit polls, above, Catholics and Protestants - 30% and 43% of the electorate, respectively - voted 64% and 65% Yes, respectively. Almost identically. Combine the two, that's a little less than two thirds of 73% of the population, which means the remaining quarter or so of the electorate voted overwhelmingly no - 90% of the 'none' religion group, for example. So while the African-American yes vote was lopsided - about 2 to 1 - it was roughly equal to the overwhelming Catholic-Protestant majority's overwhelming yes vote. What I think interesting is that the no vote relied so heavily upon 'other' and 'none' religious votes, and that those votes were even more lopsided than either African-American or Protestant-Catholic votes. I'm not trying to be biased, please remember WP:AGF; so pardon the long post, I just find this disparity extremely interesting and terribly under-noticed.Wikibojopayne (talk) 09:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon and MairAR - come to think of it, I believe the point of a "Demographics" section is not to highlight what you or I think is particularly curious about the demographics, but to highlight significant correlations in voting patterns! In the racial category, as you noted, the African American vote is exceptionally strongly tied to the Yes vote; yet other categories are strong indicators of voting behavior, and therefore deserving to be in the article, but are conspicuously absent: ideology, family stats, etc. In any case, I see no compelling reason why a demographics section should lack so much of the data strongly correlated to the vote! And why not a spectrum of data in each of these categories? I have some suggested changes a few comments up, see what you think of them. Peace. Wikibojopayne (talk) 07:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me or that the "Demographics" section isn't really about the demographic? Right now, it's more like "Measure 8 passed because" instead of a breakdown of demographic. It doesn't mention how many democrats supported 8. And it clumps all church goers together. Whereas evanglicals, catholics, and protestants voted differently. I dont know where SFGate got its numbers from. But here are some quotes from the article.

"Prop. 8 found support among 81 percent of white evangelicals, 65 percent of white Protestants, 64 percent of Catholics and 84 percent of weekly worshipers."

"61 percent of those older than 65 voted for it, while 61 percent of those younger than 30 voted against it."

"Eighty-two percent of Republicans supported Prop. 8. Only 36 percent of Democrats supported the measure"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/16/MN5R1435T4.DTL

Elsonlam1 (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Elsonlam1; the "Demographics" section needs to include more demographics to avoid the impression of undue selectivity. Particularly, I'd like the major No leaning groups to get equal attention with the Yes leaners. Peace. Wikibojopayne (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Arizona polls showed race, party and religion were not big factors. Age and income were. Prop 102 failed in Pima County (Tucson region, University of Arizona), mostly because the republicans in the foothills voted no.

…the more affluent and educated voters were, the more likely they were to vote against the measure. CNN found that 69 percent of Arizona voters making less than $100,000 voted to ban gay marriage. In contrast, 57 percent of people making more than $100,000 voted no. University of Arizona sociology instructor Jason Crockett cautioned against jumping to conclusions based on exit polls but said the higher incomes likely mirror education levels."With higher education, you have people who are exposed to lots of different cultures," said Crockett, explaining why that group would be more likely to oppose the ban.

http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/266630.php The local paper did a precinct-by-precinct count. Exit polling matched their data. I'm looking for the FL, CA and AR election data. It would be interesting to find out stats on civil rights and educational level, esp relating to interracial marriage. I have collected a mass of data, but written nothing. The proponents and their tactics are interesting enough to be in an encyclopedia. Romanfall (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)romanfall

Generally, I think Wikibojopayne's suggestions (imbedded at an earlier point in this discussion, and dated 06:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)) are quite reasonable--it is good to point out statistical anomalies on both sides of the vote. I might quibble somewhat with the details of just which categories are presented and how, but the high level of opposition among non-churchgoers is sufficiently remarkable to warrant mention, just as the high level of support among African-Americans and among gun-owners is remarkable. With regard to the statistic about Protestants, this is potentially misleading if we also add the statistic about Evangelicals, since Evangelicals are a subset of Protestants. If we mention Evangelicals, then we should only mention "non-evangelical Protestants", and we don't have a statistic for them. Since the statistic for Protestants as a whole was 65%, if we assume that half of Protestants are white evangelicals, and they voted 81% in favor, then the other half of Protestants must have been only 49% in favor. Unfortunately, this starts to drift off into the realm of speculation or original research. But the statistic for white evangelicals is much more impressive and meaningful than the statistic for Protestants in general. Mainline Protestant denominations, such as the United Methodist Church or the Episcopal Church (United States), either did not take a position on the ballot initiative or even opposed it.--Bhuck (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Bhuck. Yeah, I agree that the Evangelical information is oddly put the way I suggested; just thought it should be in there somehow. I agree that estimating the non-Evangelical Protestant vote looks like would be quite valuable, but would sadly stray into original research. It is worth noting about a quarter of Evangelicals ((17% Evan.) - (13% Prot. Evan.) = 4%, or <25% of 17%) did not identify as Protestant - probably Catholic and 'Other'. Also, less than a third of Protestants are Evangelical: (43% Prot.) - (13% Prot. Evan.) = (30% non-Evan. Prot.) Remember, only 29% of the population is White Prot., whereas 42% of the population is Prot. All that to say, even without the Evan. vote, the Prot. vote would have leaned Yes, though much less so. Alas! if only we had more demographic info. (*Note: 'population' here refers to voters on prop 8, not population in general.*) Here's a suggested rearrangement the Evan. info so the religion part of the suggested edit reads:

"Religious attendance and affiliation were strongly correlated with voting habits. 84% of weekly religious attenders voted Yes, while 54% of occasional and 83% of 'never' attenders voted No. Also, 64% of Catholics and 65% of Protestants voted Yes, while 90% of the 'none' religion category voted No. In addition, White Evangelical/Born Agains, the overwhelming majority of whom made up about a little less than a third of the Protestant camp, voted 81% Yes. 'Other' and Jewish voter samples were too small to be statistically significant, but the data suggests they, too, leaned strongly No."

I'm still not totally satisfied with this rearrangement of Evangelical info, but it's a little better than before. Peace. Wikibojopayne (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, heck - since there's no data for the White non-Evangelical Protestants, let's just leave the White Evangelical Protestant numbers out of it. Peace. Wikibojopayne (talk) 05:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Prop 8 Backlash?

I have a feeling this section I just added will not last very long. But I thought it was important since the current bias of the article is clearly against Prop 8 and even large newspapers are reporting the coincidence that opponents of Prop 8 have demonstrated at these same locations. Perhaps this paragraph could go in the first section of the article that describes the aftermath of the passing of Prop 8 but I chose to include it just after the report about the Prop 8 supporters' foul play against businesses who opposed Prop 8, for balance. Gaytan (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in a huge rush to remove this (and as above, I'd ask that folks discuss before doing so), but I'm concerned about the key statement "However, the FBI cautioned late Thursday there is no evidence to link the threats to Prop. 8 opponents." Correlation does not imply causation, so having this section in this article may be inappropriate synthesis - wouldn't it more appropriately be noted on the Mormon page (if it isn't already)? —EqualRights (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I just did a few minor fixes CTJF83Talk 23:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Domestic Partnerships

The following was removed from the article:

This did not affect domestic partnerships which affords all of the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law.

The article currently has no mention of California Domestic parnership laws, so this information should be included in the article somewhere. Bytebear (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

No, that is clearly POV and is in fact not accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.35 (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bytebear. The existence of California Domestic Partnerships should be mentioned.

To 207.69.137.35 -- what about Bytebear statement isn't true?

On Nolo.com( http://www.nolo.com/support/detail.cfm/ObjectID/5F8413D8-61FC-417A-B2F09CDC406ABB2F )

it states that:

Under AB 205, registered domestic partners are now entitled to the same legal treatment as spouses in most areas of state law:

And then the only state right it mentions that one doesn't get under domestic partnership is joint filling of state income taxes.

Do you know of other state rights that are left out? Hoping To Help (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A relevant question at this point would be: in what section should domestic partnerships be mentioned? Surely not "Results" of the election, or "opinion polling"? They are indirectly mentioned in the history section with its cross-reference to History of marriage in California. I think in order to clarify this point we need to understand what the connection is between domestic partnership laws and Proposition 8. Proposition 8 does not mention domestic partnership laws at all, nor does it mention any number of other things, such as property tax rates, legislative re-districting, or the treatment of farm animals.--Bhuck (talk) 08:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that the article is incomplete without a statement to the effect that Prop 8 does not affect domestic partnerships. For one thing, many (most?) marriage amendments across the country do impact civil unions, domestic partnerships and the like, so it's worth noting the occasional marriage amendment such as this one that doesn't. For another, the question of whether the identically worded Prop 22 did or did not affect domestic partnerships was the subject of significant controversy and legislation in years past. So with all due respect to property tax rates, legislative redistricting and farm animals, Bhuck's point is not taken. Xrlq (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Prop 8 was only 14 words and it only mentioned marriage. The problem with expanding the article to cover domestic partnerships is that mentioning domestic partnerships implies that they are equivalent to marriage. To be NPOV, the article would then have to explain that they are not equivalent and get into the differences between marriage and domestic partnerships. That is a lot of material to cover for a topic tangentially related to Prop 8. There are other articles that focus on domestic partnerships in California, maybe adding domestic partnerships to the "See also" section would be sufficient? EmeryvilleEric (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

While Xrlq might not take my point about farm animals, the question of where such a comment about domestic partnership should be added remains open. If the reason we are to mention it is that many other state referenda did include domestic partnerships in what was being banned, and California did not, then maybe we should include such a statement in the section where Proposition 8 is compared to referenda in other states. At the moment, however, we have no such section, though I am not fundamentally opposed to adding one.--Bhuck (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Might it be helpful for non-Americans (maybe even non-Californians) to mention Domestic Partnerships in the conext of this article. I looked up Proposition 8 because I wasn't clear what it was. it wasn't until I got to the Talk page that it became clear that DPs were not part of prop 8. In my country DPs have been introduced but not gay marriage. I havn't heard a lot of pressure for this to be changed (either way).--nick keighley (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that the article is incomplete. Without the mention of domestic partnership rights, the reader is left thinking there are no rights given to gay couples. This is POV and needs to be clarified. Bytebear (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As noted in the archived discussion on this topic, the Official Voter Guide under External links shows under Arguments and Rebuttals that both sides address the issue of domestic partnerships. Alanraywiki (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree the article should include mention of DPs, but it's very difficult to avoid bias in stating anything about them. However, their exclusion also implies bias, in my opinion. Perhaps an addition some where at the beginning of the article could read something like: "The proposition did not affect extant laws regarding domestic partnerships, though both side of the debate addressed those laws in their arguments." Peace. Wikibojopayne (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I see the change now in the intro section, and I agree with it 100%. It avoids bias and includes DPs. Thanks, whoever did the edit! PeaceWikibojopayne (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The current language needs some major changes, 1) domestic partnerships are not an "issue", they are law; 2)it's not differences might exist, differences do exist, the Supreme Court and the Legislature have pointed them out; 3) when did domestic partnerships become an institution? EmeryvilleEric (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

EmeryvilleEric, my suggested edit avoids all three of your objections. 1) calls DPs law, not an issue; 2) doesn't mention similarities or differences between marriage, just says Prop 8 doesn't affect DP law; 3) doesn't call DPs an institution. So, would you prefer my suggested edit in place of the existing sentence? If so, I'd be behind that. (My suggested edit is a just few posts up.) Peace. Wikibojopayne (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes

Please change "Mormon Temples" to "LDS Temples"

Greenlief1 (talk) 05:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Thank you

Done. --Joe Decker (talk) 07:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional List of Supporters/Detractors of Prop 8

I think a section should be broken out to make it a bit clearer who funded both sides Prop 8. The LDS is one famous example, but here is an example of an organization who contributed a noticeable sum... the foundation for John Templeton (of Franklin-Templeton Investments). The Templeton Foundation is just outside Philadelphia, and has been a financier of some rather controversial issues on both sides of the political spectrum:

Templeton Invests $1MM for Prop 8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.31.184 (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

ETA: Could the PRO/CON Prop 8 financial backers be more clearly shown in a table or side-by-side list so they're easier to see? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.31.184 (talk) 04:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:California Proposition 8 (2008)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

To be designated as a Good Article , an article must be stable (see #5 on the criteria list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria). This article is not yet stable, with constantly evolving content, and would undergo even more content change were it not semi-protected. This designation seems quite premature. BlueDigDog (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

On hold: this article is awaiting improvements before it is passed or failed. BlueDigDog (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this opinion, as someone who has not edited the article but has experience with article assessment. I'm watching this article as it goes through daily changes. Although I commend the editors for adding to this article in an admirable show of community and compromise, there is no way to know if the article is comprehensive since the events are ongoing and the impact has yet to be assessed. --Moni3 (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Since the opinions of these two reviews agree, I will fail the article based on the article's instability at this time. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd beg to differ, since there have only been 24 edits this entire day (16 of November); one for each hour. That hardly counts as unstable. But since this has already been resolved - I'll just take the time to re-revise the article and ship it to GAN again. --haha169 (talk) 06:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Just by looking at the leed paragraph one can see it is not a complete story. The current leed reads like a news bulletin, not like an encyclopedic article. Therefore it should not be submitted as a GA until a long, long time down the pike. Yours, 03:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC) added by User:GeorgeLouis

24 edits in a single day.......is unstable. That does not mean it is wrong to edit so many times in a day....but, since this is a current event it does not qualify as stable untill after it stops having information added and changed daily. There are simply to many problems with this article. Too much POV (I took much of it out) incorrect information, images that were used that had no part in the prose and images that were in the wrong sections...as well as section headers that were in the wrong place. (also fixed) Mainly the problem with this article to qualify for GA candidacy would be....outcome. We simply do not know if this amendment will stand. Once all legal challenges have made their way through the courts, the article will be more stable. One way or another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.35 (talk) 10:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've had an article pass FAC with over 50 edits a day on average. --haha169 (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

WOW. What article is that? Peace.Wikibojopayne (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

SSBB --haha169 (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Just by the way, our edits per day are down substantially now. I think maybe after the final results are announced in ten days, and the "current events" label is removed from that section, we could perhaps give it another go.--Bhuck (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

After the results come out, could the court case (were they all consolidated?) be started as a separate article, thereby "stabilizing" the Prop. 8 article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrBell (talk • contribs) 18:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Uncertainty and challenges section

The Uncertainty and challenges section is getting large. Would it read better broken up into post-election legal uncertainty and challenges and demonstration sections? EmeryvilleEric (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I see it's already been done so you can chalk that up as a post-facto endorsement. However, I do see that both sections are getting quite long. They suffer a bit from recentivism. If the legal challenges succeed or fail, then like the measure itself the final result will be the main thing and the process by which that happened will be relatively less important. The demonstrations will die down eventually of course, so years from now it may seem like a very minor thing compared to the amendment itself. On the other hand they are getting a lot of press for now. We can keep an eye on it, and maybe adjust the weight after everything settles. Wikidemon (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well said regarding recentivism. Also, maybe someone should consider thinning out the proponents/opponents section? It seems a bit too much like a "look-who-I've-got-on-my-team" battle. Perhaps the religious or political groups can be grouped under some generic term, or even omitted altogether. MrBell (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Link to In re Marriage Cases

There should be a link to In re Marriage Cases, probably in the intro of the article. The prose already refers to the decision without linking to it. I'd just do it, but the note at the top of the talk page suggests we discuss it here. Gentgeen (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Compatibility with Equal Rights article in State Constitution

Please add: On November 19, the California Supreme Court has agreed to review whether Proposition 8 is a constitutional revision rather than an amendment but has not commented on whether Proposition 8 is compatible with Article 1, Section 7(b) of the California State Constitution, which states:

A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.

It's compatible. The law says any man may marry any woman, and any woman may marry any man. Gays have the same right to do so as normal people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EighthProposition (talk • contribs) 17:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to argue that people with homosexual tendencies are as normal as anybody with a propensity to act abnormally. --ElderHap (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

While EighthProposition has an interesting legal argument, the normality or abnormality of those with homosexual tendencies is not salient. Before changing his stance on the issue, I believed the Governator himself endorsed that legal argument when he said, "I think gay marriage should be between a man and a woman." http://politicalhumor.about.com/cs/schwarzenegger/a/aa080703.htm. Peace. Wikibojopayne (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The logic of the argument is valid, but the CA supreme court said, "In our view, it is sophistic to suggest that this conclusion is avoidable by reason of the circumstance that the marriage statutes permit a gay man or a lesbian to marry someone of the opposite sex, because making such a choice would require the negation of the person’s sexual orientation. Just as a statute that restricted marriage only to couples of the same sex would discriminate against heterosexual persons on the basis of their heterosexual orientation, the current California statutes realistically must be viewed as discriminating against gay persons on the basis of their homosexual orientation." But, then the people spoke. Reference the preamble to the constitution, "We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union..." The article might be improved by including the information, but there's a specific link to both the Preamble and the court case. In the court's opinion, the behavioral quality of sexual orientation is a suspect class. But the logic behind that argument fails because it assumes that discrimination on the basis of behavioral qualities by which people express deeply felt needs is wrong. Some people express deeply felt needs in other ways that are currently illegal, e.g. rape. The court's rationale rationalizes the notion that laws authorizing imprisonment of rapists are discriminatory. --ElderHap (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I missed the part where the court got into the behavioral quality of sexual orientation, could you point it out? EmeryvilleEric (talk) 02:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of us straight men out there would argue that marriage, as currently defined, discriminates against our nature to be promiscuous. Making the choice to marry a single woman also requires the negation of our sexual orientation. If Prop 8 overturns, it gives us men the precedent we need to marry multiple partners!68.46.183.96 (talk) 03:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.

I wonder if this applies to rich/poor. If I can't afford some "privilege" like driving across the bridge, is that unconstitutional? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.130.129 (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is the CNN exit poll included in the Prop 8 article without comments on its validity?

Why is the CNN exit poll considered valid or trustworthy and included in the prop 8 article when they do not release the locations of their interviews and present numbers where virtually all eligible African-Americans voted and Asian-Americans voted well below their numbers? Pointing out problems in exit polls is no more performing new research than correcting an article that says 1+1=4. Cydelin (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but I know from PoliSci courses back in the day that a survey comparing demographic data with 800 participants is statistically significant and tends to be strikingly accurate. Since this exit poll had well over 2200 participants and factors dozens of categories, I consider that a survey of stunning depth and breadth. That said, your polling location criticism sounds legitimate to me, but you still need to cite a source - any source.

My suggestion: just make some mention of exit polls being imperfect and link to Wiki article on exit polls. Peace. Wikibojopayne (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

To accurately state the results of a poll, one should mention the error. Something like +-5%, 19 times out of 20. As the article stands, this poll does not seem scientific. I also haven't come across any of these error terms on the web. I think one can easily argue that the way the results are currently stated in the article is incomplete because of the lack of error. RobHar (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Demographics??? 2

The Demographics section has clearly gotten way out of control, likely due to strong feelings about the black vote being given unduly high attention. Frankly, I agree that the black vote should not be the focal point of the Demographics section; that's why I fought for a more data-inclusive section. I tried to keep edits consistent with the existing shape of the article, however, and opted to keep it as clean and small as reasonably possible. Now there is just anarchy. So I'm making a big retaliatory edit to restore a sense of order; if you have a problem with it please let's talk about it here before making more radical and destabilizing edits. Peace. Wikibojopayne (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

btw, MrBell's latest additions are great. Peace. 98.203.153.154 (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Does the demographics section really need to be so big? Especially since the exit poll data reliability has been called into question. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)