Talk:2008 California Proposition 8

Good Article?

It is probably still a bit too soon, but in a few days, we might want to re-try for Good Article status. The problem last time was that the article was not stable, with ca. 20 edits a day being made and the final results not having been certified. This has now changed.--Bhuck (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Should we rearrange the sections to show chronological order (e.g. History first, then Contributors, Opinion polls, Results, and Post-election events)? MrBell ^(talk) 17:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

More than the stability as an issue was that the impact of the vote was not readily apparent since the GA nomination was in November. I suggest for this article that one or a few editors go through it and consolidate some of these sections. The 2 - 3 sentence subsections need to be absorbed into other sections. The Table of Contents is unwieldy right now. Some of it needs to be summarized such as the Overall section in CNN Poll, and the article should be restructured. Why is Results at the top instead of after the introduction of the initiative? It seems as if the article is a collection of facts, where it should be rather a story told about the political process relating to the proposition. Take a look at other GA level Legal articles as a basis for comparison. Certainly, any part of the article that is questionable in terms of copyright violations needs to be fixed immediately. --Moni3 (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What about the length of certain sections, such as the ProtectMarriage.com letter, the CNN exit poll, and Post-election events (mostly Demonstrations)? Should we consider creating new articles or merging some info with other articles. I see there is considerable debate over at Protests against Proposition 8 supporters, and that might affect editing of Prop 8. Would thinning out the Demonstrations section be a worthy pursuit? MrBell ^(talk) 01:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the CNN exit poll section is important because it is the only indication as to which groups supported and opposed the proposition. Part of the reason it is so long is that the question of support among African-Americans is such a touchy issue--the other part is that, aside from ethnicity, it is difficult to reach a consensus on just which issues (support of Bush, the Iraq War, gun ownership, religious practices, etc.) are relevant and which are not, so there is a tendency to state as many facts as possible, rather than doing the analysis of separating relevant from irrelevant facts. Simply shortening it without addressing these underlying issues will probably not be much of a stable improvement.

I also think we need to include the text of the amendment in the article, particularly because various people writing on the discussion page seem to not recognize which words, if any, were added to the California constitution.--Bhuck (talk) 07:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The best rule of thumb in deciding how much information should be included in an article, and of what nature, is to measure what reliable sources have said about the topic. Of all the sources listed as references, how much weight do they put on the CNN poll? The protests afterward? The constitutionality of the proposition? Some will put more weight on some issues than others and some sources will be better than others, so you'll have to take them all into account. If you find that some information is somewhat valuable, but there is no way to place it in text, such as how I imagine the CNN poll is treated, consider a footnote section, similar to this. --Moni3 (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

How about the CNN poll section now? In the notes section, I changed some refs to external links (it wouldn't work otherwise) and removed the in-line citations that referenced the poll but added that ref to the first sentence of the "CNN exit poll" section. Comments and suggestions? MrBell ^(talk) 18:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Renewed discussion

How about a renewal of the GA assessment discussion?

• What are the guidelines for tables of content? Is Prop 8's table of contents still too unruly? If so, should we change the subsections headings to bold titles only (e.g. ====Political figures==== to '''Political figures''')?
• What about the lead? Is it an appropriate indepedent summary?
• What about those longer sections, such as ProtectMarriage.com letter to Equality California donors and Demonstrations? Could they be shortened/moved to other articles?
• Any other suggestions for improvement? MrBell ^(talk) 16:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the lead, the final paragraph should be reduced from eight to three sentences or so. Otherwise it seems ok. As for the "longer sections", I think sections about specific actions/activities of the campaign (like the letter to donors) should probably be presented in a more general context without a header of their own.--Bhuck (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the lead's final paragraph, what about something simple?:

"After the election, demonstrations and protests occurred across the state and nation. The California Supreme Court has seen numerous lawsuits to overturn Proposition 8 from gay couples and government entities, challenging the proposition's validity and effect on previously administered same-sex marriages. The Supreme Court accepted the lawsuit and is expected to reach a ruling during 2009."

I left out the and claims of hate crimes because they're explained later in the article.

Do you mean "general context" as in reduce the size of the letter to donors subsection or just remove the header?

Lastly, concerning the subsection California Proposition 8 (2008)#Election results, what do you think about removing some statements in the first and second paragraphs discussing the release of the results? Also, the third paragraph seems out of place. I hesitate to remove it but think it might not add much to the article itself. It's appears to be more of an encouragement than an encyclopedic fact. MrBell ^(talk) 00:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Your suggested lead sounds fine to me.

With regard to the Protectmarriage.com letter, I would say combine that with the section about campaign spending and retitle it something about campaign finance or so. It might also be good to incorporate some reference to the subsequent boycotts of donors (even though they did not start until after the election, whereas protectmarriage.com made its threats before the election, I still see some parallels that might be worth pointing out).

Boycotting activity (not just threats) against supporters of Prop 8 actually began long before the election, predating the ProtectMarriage.com letter. See [1]BlueDigDog (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the election results subsection of the "Post-election events" section, I would say we could get rid of that entirely. Perhaps a fact or two that is worth saving could be moved to the "results" section. Also, with regard to the "CNN exit poll" section of the results, I think we finally have enough data that we could expand that section to include other indications of demographic correlations to voting behavior: see here, where there is a link to the .pdf of the study results.--Bhuck (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• One more thing: a bot just deleted an image, so the article now (again) has a severe imagery imbalance (5 anti, 1 pro). —EqualRights (talk)

Too bad about the deleted image. I thought it was a good balance to the discussions about imagery balance. I'll look for another one, but I'm not too good at finding stuff like that. Any thoughts were I could look?

How about this for a ProtectMarriage.com letter:

ProtectMarriage.com reportedly sent letters requesting that previous contributors to Equality California make similar donations to ProtectMarriage.com, stating, "It is only fair for Proposition 8 supporters to know which companies and organizations oppose traditional marriage." A ProtectMarriage.com spokeswoman estimated that 36 companies were targeted for the letter.

It's missing something with regard to the intent to publish names/blacklist and what Bhuck said about the subsequent boycotts. Suggestions?

I made some edits to the election results subsection. Is itAre the edits suitable?

Great links to the info for the CNN exit poll section. Any suggestions how it should be incorporated? MrBell ^(talk) 16:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed and moved the ProtectMarriage.com letter per Bhuck's suggestions above. FYI: While I didn't initially add the ProtectMarriage.com letter, months ago I expanded it greatly to better illustrate both points-of-view (but made it excessively large on purpose, which was a mistake). MrBell ^(talk) 16:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Probably the bot deleting the images is biased and opposed to Proposition 8.</sarcasm> I added a sentence relating the use of contributors' names before the election to the use of such names after the election. Otherwise, I think things look pretty good. Will have to give more thought to how to include the additional demographic information--that's not something I can do when there are a lot of other things on my plate as well--but no need to monopolize the information in case there are others out there with more time on their hands.--Bhuck (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposition 8 did not "change" the California Constitution

The opening line is wrong. The California Constitution never allowed heterosexual marriage, so nothing was "changed" by passing Prop 8. The California Supreme Court did say it was ok in an "opinion," but it was never in the language of the California Constitution. Proposition 8 therefore "added" language to the California Consitution, but did not "change" it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmw888 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"Amending the California Constitution by voter initiative requires a simple majority to be enacted. A constitutional amendment passed by the electorate takes effect the day after the election."

Knowledgekid87 21:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding words to the constitution is a change.--Bhuck (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposition 8 either amended or revised the constitution. Both amendments and revisions constitute "changes" to the constitution. However, the idea that the Judicial Branch is somehow subordinate to the Executive or Legislative branches seems a common enough misconception that perhaps details about how U.S. government works should be explicitly stated in the article. Prior to Proposition 8, whether or not the constitution contained a right for gay and lesbians to marry depended upon the constitution's interpretation. The branch of government responsible for making that interpretation is the judicial branch. The courts found there was, indeed, a constitutional right for gays and lesbians to marry. Therefore, the only recourse for marriage opponents was to change the constitution via the amendment/revision process. Rangergordon (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe the court used language in the CA Constitution as the basis for its ruling. Therefore, the court basically said that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage. If this was true (and the court held that it was), then Prop. 8 did change the Constitution. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The court must have used the California Constitution as the basis for its ruling. What other basis could it use? Proposition 8 explicitly changed the constitution. It had no other purpose. Rangergordon (talk) 09:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The court might have used language from the U.S. federal constitution, such as the 14th amendment, as a basis, since the federal constitution also counts as valid law in each of the states, including California. In some cases, in fact, states are limited in what they can have in their own constitutions by the federal constitution, though perhaps it would be up to a federal court to determine this.--Bhuck (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

But in this case the Court did use the CA Constitution. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The state supreme court is reviewing whether the proposition is an amendment or a revision. The article should remain neutral on the law and use "altered" or "changed" until the state supreme court has rendered its opinion. Jordan 20:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstandings Regarding the Role of the Judicial Branch in U.S. Constitutional Government

There seem to be enough misunderstanding on the talk page regarding the In re Marriage Cases decision that I'm wondering whether the article needs to include a short primer on how government works in the U.S.? Such a primer might include that there are three branches of government: the Legislative Branch, which enacts laws; the Executive Branch, which upholds laws; and the Judicial Branch, which interprets laws.

This might clear up such misconceptions as:

1. Proposition 8's purpose was to reject a California Supreme Court decision, not to change the constitution. (In fact, it explicitly amended, and possibly revised, the California Constitution.)
2. The court routinely arrogates the ability to "make up" or propose new rights out of the blue as it sees fit, so any such rights are merely preliminary and subject to general referendum. (In fact, the court has no mechanism by which to propose or change any law. It is, however, required by the Constitution to interpret existing laws. Any law not having undergone judicial scrutiny may be considered "untested.")
3. The California Supreme Court unilaterally "changed" California law and "proposed" a right to marriage for gay and lesbian couples. (In fact, the court upheld its responsibility to invalidate a class of laws found unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.) Rangergordon (talk) 08:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think these are all misunderstandings of the way government works. The first misconception is factually off because the court hadn't made the decision at that time - it may be accurate to say that the purpose of the constitutional amendment was to preempt the court's decision, though. The second point would be as you say, especially if someone says the court's decisions are somehow subject to referendum in a way the legislature's aren't. The third point, however, is a valid one - a standard conservative view of the courts would say that the court exceeded its authority in unilaterally changing the constitution and imposing gay marriage on the state just as a standard liberal view of the courts would say that the court had a responsibility to make its decision. For that last point, either of the statements is irredeemably POV on its own. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 09:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I support the idea of very briefly explaining just how the three branches of California's government work. I believe people might come to this article, having heard unfounded legal arguments, to verify if those arguments were true. Surely there are lots of pages on popular legal websites explaining this stuff.

As I understand it, the fact is that the California Supreme Court, as well as any other high court in the US, cannot by definition "legislate from the bench" even if it wanted to, because it simply does not have legislative power, so any claims that they are in fact "legislating from the bench" seem to have no basis in fact. The California government's judicial branch merely interprets what the Constitution says, by considering precedent and all legal arguments presented to it. And in fact, the judicial branch is the only authority that has this power. Not Governor Schwarzenegger, not the state legislature, not the people. The legislature and the people propose and either enact or reject changes to the document, while the court interprets what the document says, and the proposed changes are bound by provisions in that document whose exact meaning and breadth is determined by the the court.

Also, I agree that it could be argued that "the purpose of the constitutional amendment was to preempt the court's decision". But I do also believe it shows a misunderstanding of how the government works to claim "Proposition 8's purpose was to reject a California Supreme Court decision", and that all such decisions "are merely preliminary and subject to general referendum". Court decisions are not automatically referred to the people. Proposition 8 was placed on the ballot by initiative petition. And court decisions are not by any stretch of the imagination preliminary. From mid-June until at least November 5, there was a very clear, very real legal right of same-sex couples to marry; that's why many of them did! :)

If for any reason my understanding of the California government doesn't jive with the actual fact (which is possible; I'm an Oregonian), then that's more reason to me to add the aforementioned bit about how the government works. — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 09:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note that my bullet list above is of common misconceptions regarding the "way government works"—not my own personal convictions or arguments. That is, I'm well aware that Proposition 8 was proposed before the In re Marriage Cases decision, so it is obviously impossible that the purpose of Proposition 8 was to reject that court decision. I'm saying it might be worthwhile to clear up these common misconceptions, and I ask the other editors to kindly read those bullet points in that spirit.

The idea of "legislating from the bench" is certainly a standard political criticism of certain judicial decisions. Just about any judicial decision can be expected to generate such criticisms. However, if there is a citable basis--for some "standard conservative view" of the judiciary which holds certain decisions, such as In re Marriage Cases, to be less valid than certain other surprising and notable decisions, I cannot find it. (Descriptive passages in such sources as Black's Law Dictionary are often improperly cited as prescriptive.) Unless such a basis can be found, these arguments fall into the realm of political opinion, not legal review, and should be regarded as such.

The need for this proposed section is exemplified by the claim that In re Marriage Cases somehow changed the California Constitution--which is factually incorrect. The court, in its interpretation of California statutory law, did not—and could not—change the language of the California Constitution. It determined that a statutory law violated the California Constitution, thereby upholding the inviolability of that Constitution. A court may—actually must—strike down laws it deems unconstitutional, but there exists no legal mechanism whereby a court may ever hope to insert language into a constitution, or enact a law, as argued by those who claim "judicial activism."

The bare bones of the matter is any claim that In re Marriage Cases "changed the constitution" should be backed up with citations of the specific changes in constitutional language imposed by that decision. Since there are none, such claims go far beyond POV into the realm of misinformation. Rangergordon (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It's my understanding that the only deletions of law made by the decision in In Re Marriage were sections 300 and and 308.5 the California Family Code, which if I recall correctly are not themselves parts of the Constitution. "In Re Marriage Cases" changed the law, and the guides the interpretation of the COnstitution, but did not change the Constitution, as I understand it. --Joe Decker (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Right: statutory, not constitutional, language. (Nice job, BTW, on identifying the affected statutes!) Rangergordon (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Joe Decker (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Athelwulf's opinion that "people might come to this article, having heard unfounded legal arguments, to verify if those arguments were true." I concur that this article needs a "short primer on how government works." I'd also side with Rangergordon that claims of "judicial activism" must be cited (just a newspaper criticism or two would suffice). Perhaps just the short primer with a few links to activism, restraint, and something describing the role of justices vs. legislators? As long as it's not too long and contentious, I'm all for it. (No more bouts of name-calling from unregistered IPs when the block comes off, please.) MrBell ^(talk) 17:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope I don't sound rude, but the first misunderstanding is in the title of this section. The Proposition 8 cases, at least for now, are dealing solely with California Constitutional Government. The role of the judiciary laid out in the U.S. Constitution applies ONLY to the federal government of the United States. The role of the judiciary in California Constitutional Government is very similar to the federal role, but it is NOT identical. There are things the California Supreme Court can do that the U.S. Supreme Court cannot; and vice-versa. (Of course, the really big departure from the federal model is the Louisiana judiciary, in which the principle of stare decisis does not apply because it's based on French code law instead of English common law.)

Our nation is *not* Canada, where the federal constitution assigns some powers to the federal government and assigns other powers to provincial governments. We are the opposite from Canada. The U.S. Constitution assigns powers ONLY to the United States Government. States are not allowed to exercise powers assigned to the federal government, either explicitly or implicitly; but they derive the state governemnt powers they have from their own constitutions - NOT from the U.S. Constitution. Signficantly, whereas the United States (federal) cannot exercise any power that is not at least implicitly assigned to it by the U.S. Constitution (i.e., the doctrine of limited sovereignty), the individual states are free to exercise any sovereign power that is not prohibited to them by their own constitution or the U.S. Constitution.

Since this is a California-specific item, any discussion on the role of the judiciary should be specific to its role within California. Among other differences with the federal state and most of the unitary states, though it's not particularly relevant to the discussion envisioned, is the fact California has in common with Lousiana that they are the only two states with two de facto capital cities. The Louisiana judiciary is headquartered in New Orleans while the rest of that state's government is in Baton Rouge; and while the legislative and executive branches of California government are located in the constitutionally-designated capital city of Sacramento, the California Supreme Court and judicial branch generally are headquartered in San Francisco. In fact, the California judiciary has never been headquarted in the same city as the rest of California state government (at least not since California was transferred to the United States of America in 1848, from the United States of Mexico; the capital of Mexican California having been Monterey).—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:98.210.168.158 (contribs) 23:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[2]

"Calif. AG urges court to void gay marriage ban"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081220/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_lawsuits

Attorney General Jerry Brown has changed his position on the constitutionality of Prop 8. Should this be included in the article? — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 08:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Um yes, definitely. Feel free to be bold Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, great news article. The AG's position, the Yes on 8 brief discussing the "fight in court to undo those unions that already exist," and Ken Starr's comments are all worthy additions. I'd like to read what the AG office said ("to submit its own brief to the court Friday").

When should we start a new article focused solely on the Supreme Court case(s)? MrBell ^(talk) 06:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue for starting such an article ASAP. Right now, the current lawsuits are described in this article in a disorganized way, and a new article will provide a good place for both arranging that information and allowing us to synopsize and clarify the information in this article. Moreover, I think there's more than enough potential for what such an article could contain (what lawsuits are there? Who filed them? What legal arguments are used, how do those arguments compare and contrast? What's the procedural history)..... --Joe Decker (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Lead is not comprehensive enough. I remember writing one before, but it seems to have been shortened dramatically by supposed improvements and reverts. So I want to bring the issue here.

I think that the lead needs what it currently has, but it misses these important factors:

• The fact that Yes beat No,
• The fact that No is holding protests,
• The supreme court case.

Currently, the lead does not explain the article any further than Chapter 3, and that needs to be changed. --haha169 (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think your "important factors" are definitely valid and would do a better job that what's there now (I'm not a fan of the arguments taking up so much space in the lead). I think a lot of people have tried to make headway but got tripped up over a few words (like you said, supposed improvements and reverts). Do you have anything written that needs some feedback? MrBell ^(talk) 06:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Not at the moment. The last lead I wrote for this article is rather outdated. I'll start writing one, though. --haha169 (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a start here:

Proposition 8 was a California ballot proposition that changed the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman and eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry. The proposition did not affect domestic partnerships in California.

The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 raised $35.8 million and $37.6 million, respectively, becoming the highest-funded campaign on any state ballot that day and surpassing every campaign in the country in spending except the presidential contest. The proponents argued for exclusively heterosexual marriage and claimed that failure to reverse a Supreme Court ruling from May 2008 that recognized a right of same-sex couples to marry would damage society, require changes to a school curriculum to discuss same-sex marriage, and threaten the free exercise of religion. The opponents argued that eliminating the rights of any Californian and mandating that one group of people be treated differently from everyone else was unfair and wrong.

After the election, the California State Supreme Court saw numerous lawsuits from gay couples, as well as governmental entities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, and the County of Santa Clara. The lawsuits claimed that revoking the right of same-sex couples to marry was a constitutional revision rather than an amendment, which requires the prior approval of 2/3 of each house of the California State Legislature. Campaign for California Families and ProtectMarriage.com have seeked to intervene and defend the Proposition. The Supreme Court accepted the lawsuit, expecting to reach a ruling during 2009.

Despite the legal battle taking place in the Supreme Court, November 15, 2008 saw mass protests across the state and nation. The headquarters of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City, Utah was surrounded, and Times Square hosted demonstrations. Domestically, local police were forced to close parts of Hollywood, Sacramento, and San Francisco, as well as San Deigo Temple and Oakland Temple. Accusations of hate crimes have arisen from these incidents, citing the burning of a Book of Mormon, and vandalism of religious buildings.

The first two paragraphs is word-for-word from the article, and I added the second two. --haha169 (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Good, but it feels like this needs some work: "The headquarters of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City, Utah was surrounded, and Times Square hosted demonstrations."

"surrounded" feels like it was a siege, and "hosted" implies some sort of assistance. Unfortunately I don't have any better suggestions. tedder (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that "surrounded" and "hosted" are a bit problematic. How about "Thousands of demonstrators gathered at the headquarters of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City, Utah and at Times Square in New York City. Within California, local police closed parts of Hollywood, Sacramento and San Francisco on account of the protests, which also took place at the San Diego Temple and Oakland Temple."?

Also, the word-for-word bit from the first two paragraphs should do something to fix the in-line objection about a singular school curriculum. Perhaps "The proponents argued for exclusively heterosexual marriage and claimed that failure to reverse a Supreme Court ruling from May 2008 that recognized a right of same-sex couples to marry would damage society, require changes to what was taught in schools about marriage, and threaten the free exercise of religion."?--Bhuck (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the third paragraph is a positive addition. I've added it to the lead. I think Bhuck's fourth-paragraph wording is well-written. Regarding the second paragraph, the phrases "damage society" and "unfair and wrong" are too vague. Without doing original research, is there any way how to better interpret what these phrases actually mean? MrBell ^(talk) 17:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The second paragraph already exists in the article, so it would have to be changed from there. I copied the first two directly; the second two are mine. --haha169 (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Btw, I liked the addition of campaigning in the lead. I accidentally forgot about that important subject. :P --haha169 (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I implemented the draft version as discussed with the exception of the third paragraph, which Mr Bell had already implemented. Regarding his concerns that "damage society" and "unfair and wrong" are too vague--I agree that "damage society" is vague, which is why, way back when, I made a wikilink to society, so that it would be a bit clearer just what was being damaged. Maybe if we wikilink to decadence we will have captured that which is meant by "damaging"? Of course, even then it will be vague, and I don't personally believe the claims of the prop 8 supporters, so it will probably be the case that I find their claims here to be vague, and that is just the way life is. With regard to "unfair and wrong" -- here, way back when, I had made a monster link to the 14th amendment. I think the concept of "equality under the law" and "not treating one group especially disadvantageously" are what is at issue here. So maybe having shifted the wikilink to be just about "mandating that one group of people be treated differently" (which is NOT what the 14th amendment does--the amendment says that this is "unfair and wrong" or at least "illegal and unconstitutional") created this vagueness.--Bhuck (talk) 09:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what Bhuck proposed with decadence: "In a society, it describes corrosive decline due to a perceived erosion of necessary moral traditions." It's all about perception from both sides of the issue, right? Subsequent statements in that article declare that perceptions vary and decadence is debatable, which passes the responsibility to the decadence article to prove what it really means. Would that permit the reader the chance to make up their own mind about what decadence is and if it applies? (We're not trying to prove that society is decadent, just that Yes on 8 claims decadence.)

I think "equality under the law" with a link to the 14th Amendment is a better fit than "unfair and wrong." (The phrase sounds too charged, like it's coming from your 3rd grade teacher for hiding a frog in someone's desk.) Illegal and unconstitutional might work too if linked properly (to 14th Amendment? In re Marriage Cases court interpretation?). MrBell ^(talk) 16:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

How would folks feel about me modifying "The Constitution, as proposed by the measure, would include a new section (Section 7.5) to Article I, placing it between the state Equal Protection clause and nondiscrimination in business and the professions" to use something more present tense? With that change and with an attempt to simplify the sentence structure, I propose "The measure added a new section (7.5) to Article I, placing it between the state Equal Protection Clause and nondiscrimination in business and the professions". Also, do we need the last clause, starting with placing...? I'm wondering if it's important enough to rate a first paragraph location. --Joe Decker (talk) 07:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Present tense is the correct way to go. As for the statement "placing it between..." I'm not sure, but I'm leaning toward its removal. The statement doesn't appear to add much to where Section 7.5 was placed, so you might be right about just needing the first paragraph location. Also, the mention of the "Equal Protection clause and nondiscrimination" feels like a ploy to get both sides riled up about the issue, even though both sides are already biting and clawing. (But that's just my POV.) MrBell ^(talk) 16:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I'll make the tense change right away, and give the deletion of the clause another day or so for folks to respond to here, just in case that deletion is controversial. I agree with your sense that the clause has a POV feel. --Joe Decker (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The California Supreme Court has seen numerous lawsuits to overturn Proposition 8 from gay couples and government entities

Is that statement correct? Has the Supreme Court actualy seen these cases. That leads the reader to believe there has been actual court time to make a decision. Is it possible that the wording is just incorrect. Should that not read; Numerous lawsuits have been filed within the California Supreme Court by gay couples and government entities challenging the proposition's validity and effect on previously administered same-sex marriages. The court has yet to rule on these suits.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Sounds good to me. Anyone else? MrBell ^(talk) 16:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Supreme Court

Is it possible to create City and County of San Francisco, The County of Santa Clara, and The City of Los Angeles, et al. v. MARK D. HORTON using http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1633_pdf_of_city_and_county.pdf as the main cite, or should we wait for the case to conclude or begin hearings? I'm really bad with court case articles, since they have more complicated citing schemes, but if anyone is interested... --haha169 (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Or can we just call it In re Proposition 8 and someone can move it to whatever court title it later assumes? MrBell ^(talk) 06:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The official court title is already named: City and County of San Francisco, The County of Santa Clara, and The City of Los Angeles, et al. v. MARK D. HORTON. But I don't know what to do with the body of the article... Is it OK to combine with In re Marriage Cases, at least temporarily? --haha169 (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible cites

• http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/letter-support-s1680xx-multi.pdf
• http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/s168078-letter-pacjust-denial.pdf
• http://news.lp.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/election2008/20081105-sf-la-prop8-petition.pdf
• http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/pres/pdfs/n1633_pdf_of_city_and_county.pdf

--haha169 (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that since you've done all the research you get to make the decision. I kinda leaning toward your original " Cities et al. v. MARK D. HORTON." However, I'll support either an article creation (of whatever title you choose) or a temporary addition to In re Marriage Cases. In my opinion, there's a good group of editors working on this page (thanks to the anon IP block, too). Just let us know and I'm sure we'll all pitch in. MrBell ^(talk) 17:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mrbell it's your call, but if you want an opinion, I lean towards "new article", I think this case is less related to "In Re Marriage Cases" directly than both are to Prop. 8 more generally. --Joe Decker (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what to call it. Cities et. al v. Mark D. Horton is rather long... and I also learned from my research that there are 3 total lawsuits (although the city one is most publicized). It could go either way, In re Proposition 8 Cases or Cities et al., v. Mark Horton. --haha169 (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

At the California Supreme Court site, the documents the CA SC uses to talk about essentially responding to the three cases together, rather than apart, actually start with the Strauss lawsuit, then the Tyler, then the Cities. ( http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/s1680x-supreme-order.pdf ) I'll also note that there were additional lawsuits that were denied but responded to with suggestions from the court that those petitioners write amici letters and/or briefs to the existing cases. I'm half-tempted, knowing absolutely nothing about Wikipedia precedent on the subject, to either suggest "Strauss et al v. Horton", or to simply title it something more generic such as "Lawsuits Challenging California Proposition 8". Actually, if you want an opinion from me, I like just guessing it's going to be something like "In re Proposition 8 Cases" and working from there, I think there's a very good chance that by the end of this there will be a catch-all name used by the court. However, I don't believe it's necessary to wait for the perfect name, I've renamed articles before, it's not so bad.  :) --Joe Decker (talk) 04:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Text of amendment

No one seems to have responded one way or another to the suggestion that the text of the constitutional amendment/revision be included in the article. Since I don't know the wording, I cannot add it myself, but it seems like a logical thing to do, since the article on the 14th amendment to the US constitution also includes the text of the amendment, and since it would clear up the issue about whether or not the constitution was actually changed.--Bhuck (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Such texts would be too long to add to an already congested article. Wikisource would be the way to go. --haha169 (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just read the text of the Proposition in its entirety, and its already in the article:

• Sec.1: Title (California Marriage Protection Act)
• Sec.2: Added to the State Constitution to read: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

That's it. --haha169 (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right. I guess "History" is not where I was expecting to find such information. I have moved it to the lead, as I think that is more appropriate.--Bhuck (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If there are no other revisions made by the amendment, then it looks like Haha169 has done it! (I'm not sure where the idea that the entire text of the state constitution would need to be included came from.) However, since the intent of the amendment is likely to have such a broad impact, can we be sure that there are no other passages that were revised other than one addressing marriage? Rangergordon (talk) 07:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The CA Constitution probably did not significantly address marriage before. This amendment would probably be considered to be an amendment to the part upon which the Court based its decision earlier this year, which I believe is the part that has to do with liberty and rights. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 13:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

should we signficantly trim "Protests against Proposition 8 supporters" section?

The point of moving material to subarticles like the one made for this section, and "Lawsuits to Overturn Proposition 8", is in part making the parent article a more readable and manageable creature, it also helps cut down on excessive duplication between parent and child articles. So, it's my intuition that this 4-paragraph section might need to be cut down, and perhaps signficantly revised to previde more of an overview intro to the "Protests against..." subarticle. Whaddaya'all think? --Joe Decker (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to see some trimming in paragraph four and perhaps three of the lead, focusing it on the Proposition itself, and letting various post-election events not dominate the story as those items are largely being spun off into separate articles. I'm hesitant to take a whack at this particular part of the problem without more discussion because it's a big change and could easily be seen as POV pushing, the POV I'm trying to push is trimming the article size.  ;) --Joe Decker (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Great ideas, I say go for it (or post it to talk first, then do it). Someone could trim the Demonstrations section too. (By the way, good work on the Lawsuits article.) MrBell ^(talk) 23:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! How about something like this to replace the fourth paragraph to push a bit of emphasis back to the Proposition itself?

Passage of the Proposition was met with numerous responses, including several lawsuits to overturn Proposition 8, mass demonstrations across California and the United States, as well as incidents of targeted protests, boycotts and vandalism against supporters of the Proposition.

I've didn't write up, but of course can provide a few references for the comments there.--Joe Decker (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds ok to me.--Bhuck (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I changed this small sections title to Boycott against Proposition 8 donors as there is nothing in the section about protests just boycotts. I also removed the "Main Article" under the title becuase the main article that section comes from is the California Musical Theatre article.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Description of Roman Catholic and Mormon position

I have reverted a change by Mr Bell. I believe the discussions of the Roman Catholic position should not be chopped into separate bits, separated from each other in the article. The comparison between the LDS church and the RC church is useful here, because in both cases the leadership of the church took the same position, but in the case of the LDS, the follow-through by the grass roots was much more unified, while in the case of the RC church, like with positions on birth control, etc, there are many people further down in the hierarchy who choose to act differently than their hierarchy tells them to do. When considering the reactions following the election, and why the LDS church gets more attention, it is important that such a comparison be apparent. Especially in the case of the RC church, it is sort of an ecclesiological question we are dealing with here: what is the nature of the Church? Is it the teachings propagated by the bishops, or is it the community of the faithful (i.e. also the laity and clergy who disagree)? Simply ignoring the fact (or pushing it into a separate section) that the bishops' recommendations did not get unanimous applause throughout the entire membership is misleading.--Bhuck (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I didn't think about the fragmentation. Should there be links (or {{seealso}} at the start of each paragraph) to the religous positions that would better illustrate the comparison (such as Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, or Christianity and homosexuality)?

On a different note, what does everyone think of the statement "the website MormonsFor8.com claims that LDS "wards and stakes" tracked donations from LDS members and were assigned donation goals by the church?" Is there a more reputable source for that claim (the current link appears to be a blog)? MrBell ^(talk) 19:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the links. In general, the links describe the churches' official position (Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholicism#Dissent_from_official_position is an exception). The difference between the two churches is that in the LDS, there seems to have been widespread grassroots support, while with the RCC the bishops said their bit, but whether or not people responded to it was a matter between them and their confessor (who may have privately held a different opinion himself as well). I don't think the comparison can be particularly well illustrated, other than the fact that if you look at the lists of who gave time and money, it does not seem to be proportionate to "market share" of church membership.

Members of the LDS church did not unanimously support Prop 8. The official church response to the outcome of the election states that the leadership expected this in advance. See [3]. For a perhaps notable example see [4]. The idea that everyone marches in line is inaccurate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueDigDog (talk • contribs)

I don't know if there is a better source for the statement made by the Mormon blog, but is anyone really disputing that claim?--Bhuck (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well said, we'll keep the links out. As for the claim, I guess I'm disputing it. It's a blog with an agenda. MrBell ^(talk) 23:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

When I get a free moment I'll see if I can find an appropriate RS. You are correct to keep the "wards and stakes" line out of the article short of a more reliable source--and it's my fault the line was in there. --Joe Decker (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, without having looked at the blog, I had assumed from the name that it was a blog coming from within the Mormon community. After reading this (which explicitly rebuts the charge of having an agenda--other than being informative--but self-testimony is not always as credible as others' claims), I have come to a different conclusion. Still, I would think that the subject is one about which it would be strange if NO reliable information existed (were the Mormons keeping all this a secret?).--Bhuck (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This is also a blog, but one which seems to be genuinely from within the Mormon community, and it has links to a letter from the First Presidency, which unfortunately is couched only in very general terms. Still, it is a start.--Bhuck (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is an article from The Advocate, which, although one cannot claim that it is a voice from within the Mormon community, at least it is not a blog.--Bhuck (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Great research, Bhuck. I guess I don't have any qualms about stating the fact that the First Presidency issued a letter[5] and bishops spoke from pulpits encouraging participation. I am a bit concerned about statements claiming there were monetary goals or bishops asked for specific donations based on previous tithing records (see the Advocate article, 3rd paragraph[6]). If that really is the case, by all means state the facts. Based on the explanation above, I agree that if secrets are being kept we should be suspicious (which fuels the Prop 8#FPPC Complaint allegations). But like with everything, "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information."[[7]] MrBell ^(talk) 21:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

We could claim without qualms something along the lines of "Media within the gay and lesbian community have reported that bishops and stake presidents set specific monetary goals for their membership, in order to fulfill the call made by the First Presidency to 'do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time'." That could then be supported by a link to the Advocate article and a link to the First Presidency letter itself. There is the danger that we are being overly limiting when we say that it is just media within the gay and lesbian community which has reported this--perhaps other media have as well, but at the moment, we do not have any evidence for this, so Wikipedia:BURDEN would seem to imply that such a limitation is in order until additional evidence of such reporting surfaces.--Bhuck (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your explanation. If the consensus is that it's noteworthy then feel free to add the statement. Hopefully it doesn't incite another anon IP POVs barrage. A few questions I've been looking to answer (assuming the monetary goals do exist):

• Were the goals issued from Utah or just decided upon by local congregations?
• Did all bishops/stake presidents have/set goals (did congregations in liberal areas have the same goals as those in more conservative areas)?
• Much like the Roman Catholic church discussion above, did the congregations have disagreements with the hierarchy? MrBell ^(talk) 23:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the reference to the First Presidency letter was already there, though without a link, so I just added the bit about what gay and lesbian media reported in that regard. As for the questions you pose, I am afraid that they will be very difficult to answer. My impression is that it was local leaders deciding on the goals. In the blog-o-sphere, I have seen comments that some members were upset with the position, and so they refrained from going to church until after the election, so as not to subject themselves to unwanted pressure. I doubt that anyone with any position of authority took a stand against the position of the hierarchy, and that even those without much authority did not do so publicly. Probably the goal-setting did not occur everywhere--again the blog-o-sphere contains reports that one bishop was not aware that there was a letter to be read aloud until a congregant pointed this out to him; upon verifying the information, the bishop read the letter. Another blogger reported that he thought it would be good if people outside the state of California also got the letter read to them because their money could help, too, but seemed to think that the First Presidency had not been clear about whether the letter was to be read worldwide, or just in California. Probably the goals that were set would differ more based on the prosperity of the area than on the liberalness or conservativeness, particularly since the Mormon Church might not be representative of the surrounding political climate to begin with. But those are just educated guesses--I don't think we have many published sources in this regard.--Bhuck (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Current Lead

There have been significant changes to the lead that have not been discussed. I was under the impression that an older version[8] was sufficient, but apparently not. Per Wikipedia:Lead section guidelines: "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." It appears to me that some of the recent edits are beginning to stray from that recommendation. What should be included in the lead? I opine the following:

• The first sentence should state in definite terms what the Prop was and did: amended (or another term) the CA Constitution to restrict/limit definition of marriage (or just marriage) to man and woman and eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry (official ballot guide)
• Stmt about highly politicized, funding, etc.
• Demonstrations after election
• Now in Supreme Court

Anything else? The lead shouldn't be too intense; let the article handle the details. We can wikify after we get a wording consensus (e.g. [[heterosexuality|man and woman]] or whatever). MrBell ^(talk) 01:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The lead is arranged more or less the way you proposed, but in more detail:

• a paragraph about the initiative itself
• a paragraph about the campaigns/arguments for and againt
• a paragraph about the aftermath and future of the prop

Perhaps we could trim it back to two paragraphs, but I think this deserves more than one given the huge amount of attention it received (and confusion it caused) even before it appeared on the ballot. I'm probably on your side when it comes to semantics like [[same-sex couples|opposite-sex couples]] as we have in the current version. Thompsontough (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)