Talk:2008 California Proposition 8

Fails to understand the Amendment Process

I guess being from Connecticut, where we can only amend the Constitution through a 2/3 vote of the State Legislature, or through a Constitutional Convention, I don't understand how this process works.

How can the California Constitution have strong provision to protect rights if all it takes is a simple majority to change it????????

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 The last lead I wrote for this article is rather outdated.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)

Current Lead

There have been significant changes to the lead that have not been discussed. I was under the impression that an older version[1] 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)

"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)

Thank you to everyone for their recent edits. I feel it has been constructive. What is the consensus now with regard to the lead? MrBell ^(talk) 00:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that a recent change may need to be altered or at the very least a better citation given to changes made by User:Bhuck. I simply do not understand the way it is written or how the reference #1 now given, suits the statement.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, there were too many changes being made at once to that section. When I was comparing various versions, I overlooked your issue about the possibly confusing interpretation of "has seen"--I agree that your phrasing is better, except I prefer "with" to "within".--Bhuck (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That actualy works for me.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see how the first citation given refers to the statement at all. Could we look into this before I make changes. There must be a true reference as the statement doesn't actualy sound incorrect, but the citation just doesn't seem to work.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure which citation and which statement you are talking about here.--Bhuck (talk) 11:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The following is the first statement in the article and the first citation;

'''Proposition 8''' was a [[California ballot proposition]] in the November 4, 2008, general election. It changed the [[California Constitution|state Constitution]] to restrict the definition of [[marriage]] to [[Heterosexuality|opposite-sex couples]] and eliminated [[same-sex couples]]' [[History_of_marriage_in_California#2008:_California_recognizes_same-sex_marriages|right to marry]], thereby overriding portions of the ruling of ''[[In re Marriage Cases]].''<ref>{{cite news|title=Opponents of same-sex marriage plot their campaign strategy|author=Demian Bulwa|publisher=San Francisco Chronicle|date=May 15, 2008|url= http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/15/BA3G10N42P.DTL&tsp=1}}</ref>

The statement is, of course true and I see nothing wrong with it. However the citation given does not cooborate the statement.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think what the citation is intended to corroborate is "...thereby overriding portions of the ruling..." -- I believe a while back we had people saying that a popular referendum was not a judicial instance of appeal and therefore could not really "overturn" a court ruling. The news article states that Prop 8 proponents believed the ruling would engender "a voter backlash that will quickly undo their decision to allow same-sex marriages". Perhaps this is another case where we could use quotation marks or something to avoid giving the appearance that Wikipedia believes court rulings can be overturned by popular vote.--Bhuck (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That's your edit. Don't you know for sure? I think we are going to need something more substantial for that or placing the citation in a clearer way. It may also need more references. With all due respect.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not really my edit. I just moved it further up in the article. The ref was actually added in one of the very first edits to the article at all by the original author of the article here. Perhaps the simplest thing to do would be just to remove the ref? Or would the statement then appear unsubstantiated?--Bhuck (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the citation needs to be removed and a new one replacing it. It shouldn't be that difficult. I will remove it and endeavor to replace it in the coming days. I am working much slower and finding it to be much more gratifying.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Does, "surpassing every campaign in the country in spending except the presidential contest," mean it surpassed every campaign in history or just in 2009?

Also, based on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Piped links "Intuitivness," I've changed a few of the lead wikilinks. However, I still feel that they truly don't capture what the two sides were fighting for. What other ways might we express "unfair and wrong" and "damage society?" Or do we just abide by WP:NOR and let those generalities stand? MrBell ^(talk) 00:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

With regard to same-sex couple and opposite-sex couple -- I think each phenomenon is equally worthy of discussion. At some point the suggestion arose, of whether to link "opposite-sex couple" to heterosexuality. At this talk page there was an extensive discussion about that. While I believe it is biased to consider only one kind of couple to need an article, while the other kind of couple is either so irrelevant or so standard as to defy description, I can see that it is indeed true that a gay man could marry a lesbian under California law, and they would constitute an opposite-sex couple of the non-heterosexual variety. If we agree to leave the red link here to opposite-sex couple, that is ok. If we write "a union between a man and a woman", that (because of the term "union" implying sexual relations between the two) would be more fairly linked to heterosexuality, but the language seems somewhat more POV. A tricky problem here, I agree. Note that there is also no article about opposite-sex marriage, though there is one about same-sex marriage. I made a start at User:Bhuck/Opposite-sex marriage but got bogged down.

As for "unfair and wrong" and "damage society", I can live with the current phrasings and linkings. In a political campaign, one can expect that emotional, POV appeals will be made that might not fit Wikipedia criteria, and it is fair to report such appeals as long as they are properly attributed. It would also be fair to point out that such appeals indeed are not likely to stand up to objective scrutiny or are highly subject to implicit definitions of "fairness" or what constitutes an "undamaged society". Particularly with regard to "damage society" it might be helpful to be more explicit about what kind of society would be damaged--I doubt it means that an egalitarian society which did not base legal status on the gender constellation of couples would be damaged, so clearly the people using that phrase must have had a different (not explicitly specified) vision of society. One could also argue that the opponents of Proposition 8 believed that the Proposition would damage society because their vision of society is less based on such concepts of gender roles in marriage. But documenting implicit assumptions is very difficult.--Bhuck (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

After reading through the second paragraph of the lead I have come to the conclusion that it may be weighted to heavy towards the Proponents argument. I am going to make a few changes and will post them here before editing the actual page.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I am proposing the paragraph be changed to this;

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 California Supreme Court ruling from May 2008 (In re Marriage Cases) 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. Opponents argued that the freedom to marry is fundamental to our society, that the constitution should guarantee the same freedom and rights to everyone and that the proposition mandates one set of rules for gay and lesbian couples and another set for everyone else. They argue that equality under the law is a fundamental constitutional guarantee.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In principle, I have no objection to that. I am somewhat worried that we not make the proponents' argument shorter or longer than the opponents' argument. The proposed change makes the opponents' argument longer. This might mean that we expand the proponents' arguments as well, which would give us space to discuss what "damage society" means at greater length. Also, I think we should perhaps say "the freedom to marry the partner of one's choice" rather than just the freedom to marry, and say "the state constitution should guarantee..." because later on, the principle of "equality under the law" may be a state constitutional guarantee, but more importantly, it is also a federal constitutional guarantee, which restricts the freedom of states to change their constitution willy-nilly. Thus, removing the link to the 14th amendment might not be so good. Also, the proposition does not mandate one set of rules for gay and lesbian couples--the legislature could revoke the domestic partnership act tomorrow without violating the constitution. I think that might need a bit of tinkering to get correctly phrased. I understand that the "separate but equal" argument is what you are aiming at here--it is just a question of phrasing. What do other editors think?--Bhuck (talk) 11:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Great source for the statements. I think a link to the voter guide satisfies my previous concerns about "unfair and wrong" and "damage society." Because if the two sides didn't explain their views well enough in the voter guide, then it's up to the reader to figure out what it all really means.

As for the wording, I agree that a balance should be maintained. Perhaps three statements from each side? I'm be little leery of adding too many analyses of their statements - just a few links and enough statements to clarify the catch phrases and let the reader draw their own conclusions. Overall, great suggestion. MrBell ^(talk) 16:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I felt that editing the wording for the opponents would stir up an argument, so I made NO changes there. I have no problem with the wording but....count the arguments. There are now 4 on each side. The length of each now appears to me to be more balanced. I would argue any change of the wording for the proponents would create a major problem for me as I was VERY careful to lift them almost word for word from the voter guide. To say "the proposition does not mandate one set of rules for gay and lesbian couples" is not my POV, neither are any of the statements of the opponent, but let's be fair, this is about the point of view of each side not ours. While we may have actually voted a certain way (or would have if the other two editors are not from California)the point of the article is not to present or own arguments but to record the point of view of the two sides. We are not sterilizing the opponents wording so we should not do so with the actual argument presented in the guide. Should we simply shorten both and change the opponents argument to also reflect wording from the guide?--Amadscientist (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

How about using quotation marks to make it clear to the readers that the phrasing represents what the voters' guide said and not what Wikipedia feels is necessarily a rational and objective phrasing?--Bhuck (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That's actualy a pretty good idea. It makes it clear to the reader that the article is quoting a particular POV of the subject by another party. You're really earning that Barnstar Bhuck.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Very good idea indeed. This way the voter guide is quoted and the article can provide a little explanation/clarification (e.g. link to 14th Amendment, etc.) without pushing original research. Also, what's up with the possible Good Article status? Is the article getting close? MrBell ^(talk) 19:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

May not be seen as stable by Wiki standards untill after outcome of court cases and article chnages beome minimal. Howevr it may be worth reapplying.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

To take up my suggestion that we use quotes would require a few changes to the proposed text.

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 [[2008 presidential election|presidential contest]]. The proponents argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of [[society]]", that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay", and that gays would "redefine marriage for everyone else." Opponents argued that "the freedom to marry is fundamental to our society", that the California constitution "should guarantee the same freedom and rights to everyone" and that the proposition "mandates one set of rules for gay and lesbian couples and another set for everyone else." They also argued that "equality under the law is a fundamental constitutional guarantee" (see [[Equal Protection Clause]]).<ref>{{Cite web | url=http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/argu-rebut/argu-rebutt8.htm| title=California General Election Tuesday November 4th Voter Information Guide| accessdate=2009-15-01| publisher=www.sos.ca.gov.}}</ref>

There is still the question of whether, if we present four opponents' quotes, we should also present four quotes from proponents. Also, the arguments presented in television advertising might have differed from those presented in the voters' guide.--Bhuck (talk) 08:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think your version is appropriate and presents the facts well. Perhaps there could be a forth statement added, but if that's the gist from the voter guide, then we're just presenting the facts, right?

Also, what's the opinion on the TV ads? If factual statements could be gleaned from the TV ads, then great. However, my opinion is to be hesitant to add statements other than the voter guide (TV, radio, etc.) from either side because they could be more geared toward sensationalism than facts. Thoughts? MrBell ^(talk) 17:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The television ads of both sides may not be appropriate for the lead. A section may be a good idea but may only lengthen the introduction needlessly in that spot.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Bhucks wording seems well done but I would say the last sentence is no longer needed and by dropping it would be more balanced. The new version now incorporates the statement of "exclusively heterosexual marriage" along with the arguent about teachings in school and makes it a single argument. I think we can now add the section.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I do think that the television spots and other forms of advertising may have been more influential in determining the outcome of the vote and the way voters made up their minds than the official voters' guide itself, so I am not sure that restricting ourselves to just the quotes from the voters' guide is such a good idea, but it is the easy way out and gives us a status quo we can all agree on until someone has a brilliant idea about how to document which other arguments may have played a role. I think, for example, that the proponents' arguments about freedom of religion were certainly a major part of the public discourse about this subject, even though they don't show up in the voters' guide. And if you google "proposition 8" "unfair and wrong", you will see just how frequently this phrase appeared as part of opponents' argumentation.--Bhuck (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I am more concerned with keeping the article encyclopedic than to determine what caused the outcome. Of course television advertising played a great deal in how people voted but to go into to much detail without solid citations will only creat more problems, besides it is very much POV to say what actualy influenced Califonians into decideing.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the voter guide is the easy way out, and that doing so would keep things encyclopedic. I also agree that the TV ads played an enourmous role in the outcome of the prop., but adding our analysis might be considered original research. It sounds like, in the end, we might not be able to accurately incorportate all of the arguments in the lead. What if we create a new section to contain such arguments, and limit the lead to a brief summary that the prop. was highly contentious and the arguments many? If they exists, analyses of the effect of TV ads, radio ads, printed media, etc. could also be included.

Also, I'm unsure what the statement, "surpassing every campaign in the country in spending except the presidential contest," means? Did it surpass every campaign in history (including ballot, congressional, gubernatorial, etc.) or just the races in 2009? MrBell ^(talk) 17:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the impact on domestic partnership changes back to the consensus text. The new text referenced Michigan and what has happened in other states, but the cites made no mention of Prop 8. Michigan's constitutional amendment wording was unique and given than Prop 22 was litigated and found to not impact domestic partnerships, it is unlikely that Prop 8, with identical language, would have an effect on domestic partnerships. The consensus language should stand, unless there are legal authorities that comment specifically on Prop 8's impact on domestic partnerships. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your revert. The idea that domestic partnerships weren't impacted by Prop. 8 was an argument made by the proponents of this legislation. Either it be clarified that the proponents were the ones who said this primarily as an argument in favor of the measure or it be removed entirely, since it clearly makes the lead paragraph lean in favor of the proponents' position. I reverse the burden to you to point out legal authorities that specificially comment that Prop. 8 will not affect domestic partnerships. Here is an article in the San Diego Tribune that says that it very well might: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20081013/news_1n13partners.html Schwanone (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you reverted? The revert accomplishes neither of your stated objectives.

Your wording uses a flawed legal analysis, California is not Michigan and the wording of the two constitutional amendments isn't even close to being the same. No California constitutional scholars have said Prop 8 will impact domestic partnerships, mainly because Prop 22 had the same wording as Prop 8 and it was litigated and the California Supreme Court found that Prop 22 did not impact domestic partnerships. So if the proponents say Prop 8 doesn't impact domestic partnerships, and the opponents say Prop 8 doesn't impact domestic partnerships, and the AG says Prop 8 doesn't impact domestic partnerships and the California Supreme Court says Prop 8 doesn't impact domestic partnerships, how can it be POV to say that Prop 8 doesn't impact domestic partnerships?

As to your Tribune article, you miss the point of the article entirely, it was about if Prop 8 fails, are domestic partnerships still needed. To quote from your own article:

Proposition 8 would overturn a state Supreme Court ruling in May that legalized same-sex marriage in California. The proposed constitutional amendment would not affect domestic partners.

EmeryvilleEric (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well then. Cite a source or delete that portion of the lead. Until then, the claim made in that section is unverifiable and a matter of dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwanone (talk • contribs) 01:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to propose removing the domestic partnership reference in the first paragraph in the lead. I believe it is generally factual and verifiable, and suspect that a RS can be found if one has not already been found, but I think that misses the point. I believe that we could equally say "Proposition 8 would not decriminalize marijuana," or, perhaps, more to the point, "Proposition 8 would not force churches to marry same-sex couples." The question in my mind is one of relevance, and of campaigning. Explaining every possible misconception of Proposition 8 in the opening sentence is clearly too bulky a solution, explaining only one comes across as campaigning and giving undue weight. Thus, I propose deleting it, and leave the elimination of all popular misconceptions of the Proposition to the bulk of the article text. --Joe Decker (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I second Joe's proposal. As seen in the discussions above, there are some details that need clarification and should be discussed in the bulk of the article text. Thoughts? MrBell ^(talk) 16:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm changing the wording in the lead from "right to marry" to "ability to marry." I feel this is less biased because the original wording implies that everyone has the inalienable right to marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejnogarb (talk • contribs) 19:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The Lead of this article is NOT balanced

This is not propaganda for those against gay marriage. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.180.178 (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the lead is perfectly balanced and rather neutral. It provides a stance on both sides of the argument and takes no side. Of course, if you think otherwise, be bold and fix it. Or at least suggest comments on the talk page. --haha169 (talk) 05:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no mention of "propaganda" anymore. But the sentence "It changed the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples and eliminated same-sex couples' right to marry..." isn't exactly neutral. Specifically, the "right to marry" bit. But I wouldn't be exactly sure on what to change it to. Littelbro14 (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it does not sound neutral as the proposition did not specifically "eliminate same-sex couples right to marry". It did "restrict the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples" which had the effect of eliminating the same-sex couples right to marry but that is not the same thing. Whilst people can argue about the intentions of those that put the proposition forward, it was not actually worded that way, it didn't need to be to have that effect. Maybe the sentence should say "It changed the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, thereby eliminating same-sex couples' right to marry..." Mfield (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you are correct to say that it was not the intent or purpose of the amendment to eliminate the right to marry, since the amendment was initiated before the right existed. However, because the right did exist at the time of the vote, it did have the effect of eliminating the right. Therefore, the current wording is ok, since "It...eliminated same-sx couples' right to marry" ... note that the "to..." clause applies only to "to restrict" and does not go on to say "...and to eliminate same-sex couples' right..." -- instead the verb there is "eliminated", meaning that no intention is being implied. The alternative wording is also ok, but I just don't see the difference in meaning between the two choices.--Bhuck (talk) 08:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If you believe there is no inherent right for homosexuals to marry, and that there was never a valid civil right either, then there is a difference. Not to mention the connotations that certain words carry, and what-not.71.59.191.66 (talk) 05:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Prop 8 supporters protest during Oscar Night

Should we mention the protest that the supporters staged during Oscar Night? So far, the entire article has been protests by opponents, so this may work to balance things out. The speeches made by the winners from Milk could be mentioned as well. --haha169 (talk) 08:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, if the protest was "notable" - do you have a reference? (I googled without success) —EqualRights (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

[2] - Oscar winner condemns the protests at Kodak theater that night. [3] - A more in-depth of the Oscar winner's view of the protests. [4] - some interesting extras, though not sure if completely related to Prop 8. I couldn't find any information about what the supporters of Proposition 8 found about the event, except for a few responses from a pastor: [5]. --haha169 (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The articles barely mention the protest in passing, with no detail as to their size/scope, so it seems non-notable —EqualRights (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've found another link from the Catholic News Agency/ ([6]). But you're right - there really aren't much mention about the protests themselves...it seems that they have been overshadowed by what happened with the Oscars. Perhaps that deserves a sentence or two since the Academy Awards is so widely broadcast and visible? --haha169 (talk) 04:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Political figures

I've expanded the political figures section for those opposed to the proposition in order to more fully convey President Obama's public statements on the subject. If you think it should be revised let me know. SpeedyLA (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Result percentages

The results section percentages should reflect the percentages as published by the California Secretary of State and cited in the article. Ballot initiative percentages are calculated from the total number of votes cast for or against divided by the sum of votes cast for and against the initiative. Invalid and blank votes do not factor into the percentages for or against an initiative. A ballot initiative passes if the number of votes for the initiative exceed the number of votes against the initiative. Percentages derived by other calculations are OR without a cite. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

New Demonstrations pertaining to Court hearing

[7], when these have gone and completed, where in the article should it be documented? The demonstrations section has grown incredibly long... --haha169 (talk) 06:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is heavily biased towards the Gay Agenda and needs to stop assuming which side of the debate is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.143.59 (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the Gay Agenda? I am agog. --Moni3 (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice to meet you Agog. The Gay Agenda is the opposite side of the Conservative Agenda on this issue. Conservatives want to maintain the status quo, and have marriage defined by it's traditional and standing definition. The Gay Agenda is that the rest of the population be forced to accept (not just tolerate) Gay Marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.143.59 (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

From How to initiate an NPOV debate:

"Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article."

You have neither explained the exact NPOV issue nor made suggestions. —EqualRights (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I, too, do not understand just how the article is supporting the gay agenda. Should we not mention that the proposition got a majority or what?--Bhuck (talk) 08:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope that recent events will not put emotion into this article where it is not needed. This article has been fine for awhile, dont let it slide. Knowledgekid87 16:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This article has mostly been buffered by recent events. The lawsuit article is in serious need of work, though, so any help would be appreciated. --haha169 (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

anti-defamation league

They played a role in the anti-prop 8 campaign, but they are only mentioned in passing. As well, the link citing the only statement on them leads to a 404 not found. 129.120.177.60 (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed dead link by removing citation altogether, which was redundant with the just-previous reference. Regarding the weighting, the article was much larger in the past and "both sides" agreed to trim it down to minimal lists of notable supporters/opponents... —EqualRights (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)