Talk:2008 California Proposition 8/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Proponents and opponents

I just added, in comment form, the structure of breaking the "opponents" section into "proponents and opponents". It seems unbalanced to announce who has come out in opposition without also saying who is behind and supportive of the measure. That raises another issue, though. Should we have such a section at all? When is it notable to say who supports and opposes proposed ballot initiative? I'm concerned that Ward Connerly's stance has undue weight and may not be of note at all. Why would it matter what he has to say about it? Wikidemo (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to feel that Ward Cannerly's stance is very much relevant given his standing as a long time California politician whose views carry weight in the field of civil rights. His argument comes from a salient constitutional perspective which should not be discounted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.96.32 (talk) 03:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Some consider Ward Connerly a troublemaker and a gadfly. Or more politely, an iconoclast. As a black man who made a political career trying to undo affirmative action and other race-based preferences, he was seen as an anomaly and championed by radical conservatives in California, until they realized he really is marching to his own drummer on things and not specifically a conservative agenda. Anyway, we have lots of characters out on the left coast and each of them has an outspoken opinion on everything. We just got rid of the long discussion of what Michael Savage thinks of Proposition 8. No doubt Jerry Brown has an opinion, not to mention Willie Brown, Arianna Huffington, and Mary Carey. But it gets to be overkill, which is my question. How to decide whose positions are worth reporting? By the time of the election there will be enough sourceable information to fill fifty articles on this so we ought to be selective. Wikidemo (talk) 06:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ward Connerly's views are definitely afforded undue weight in the article as it stands. I'm not sure what to do about proponents and opponents, though. Schwartzenegger's opinions are clearly notable (in part because he's governor and in part because he's a Republican in opposition) but most other people's won't be. Can anyone think of an objective way to distinguish between whose views are notable and whose aren't? — Lincolnite (talk) 11:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I just added a propnent section to this article. Prior to this it was definitely biased against the measure. This section should now provide better balance to the article. Please comment. Thanks! -- Gaytan (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel the article is definitely becoming too biased in favor of the measure. In addtion, the views of Mr. Dobson from the the out of state organization "focus on the family" has received way too much mention. A BRIEF mention of Focus on the Family would perhaps be in order, as it is a radical right lobby group on the national level, IF would believes that this view is relevant and contributes something to the discussion. I believe that these views are already well covered in other sections and by other people. The long quote is totally unhelpful and bloated.

One of the criteria for including the positions should be vies of persons of significant national stature (like presidential candidates) or those of prominant or influential Californians or California-based organisations. Out of state lobbists should not be allowed to use this forum as a soap box for the propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.123.93 (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not terribly familiar with Wikipedia rules and standards but just from an educated reader's perspective, Ward Connerly's opposing statement is persuasive (and compelling) while there is no similarly persuasive perspective given from a proponent, giving this section an unbalanced feel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.100.154 (talk) 04:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The radical left wing agenda is clear on this article. Convincing quotes from supporters of Prop 8 are not appreciated here. We all know that "where California goes, so goes the nation." We also know that many states have voted on this issue already and most states have approved similar or even more stringent amendments. This is a nation wide issue (even a world wide issue) so to limit discussion on this to prominent Californians is ridiculous. We all know that. California politicians are such screaming left-wing radicals, it is nearly impossible to find a notable Californian who has spoken out in support of this issue. The left-wing machine knows this. That is why they are trying to limit this discussion to California only. And to call a group centered on building stronger families ("Focus on the Family") a "radical right lobby group" just demonstrates the clear colors of the left wing machine fighting to keep this article biased in their favor. -Gaytan (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposition 8 (named "Limit on Marriage Amendment"), which would alter the current state of constitutional law in California. Without launching into a full fledged discussion on the sovereign rights reserved to the States in the USA or other federalist concepts, there is virtual universal agreement amongst constitutional scholars that marriage and family law (divorces, adoptions, orphan's matters, child welfare, etc) are the domain of the states. Each State can (and does) regulate such matters by way of statute (ordinary laws) or constitutional provisions. NOTE to Gaytan: This is not a "radical left wing" view at all, but rather a rather accepted basic concept of American federalism.

However, it would be outragous and repugnant to both federalism and democracy itself, if citizens of other States and / or countries were to be overly involved in the political process of writing or altering the California constitution. Government by the consent of those governed demands that those participating in the law making process also be those who will eventually be governed by the process. Therefore, Californians are truely the only ones who have a role to play in the process, as they will be mostly directly affected by the measure. People in Texas, New York, Norway, or anywhere else are not part of the California electorate and should respect the rights of Californians to self determination. This is very basic tenant of democracy. Therefore, I plead to allow this discussion and article to reflect those views which matter the most, those of prominant Californians who play a significant role of value in public life. Again, obviously the views of people of international or national stature with a politcal role could be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.84.185 (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Would it not be appropriate to limit the "views" of organizations and their spokespeople who are obviously single issue organizations. As often expressed here, I think limiting the discussion to prominant Californians and leading national politicians would be a good guideline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.123.167 (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

To unsigned - I am a believer of federalism, or soveriegnty of the state. I also believe that government is "of the people, by the people, for the people" Therefore, when the people CHOOSE to amend their state constitutions, they should have all the right to do so (as in this upcoming election with Prop 8). Judges overturning the will of the people (15 MAY 2008 overturning of Prop 22) and those Wiki editors here who push this POV (and that of the opponents) into this article, are those with whom I fervently disagree. I have removed much of this POV already. Just take a look at the history of this article to find the left-wing machine I alone seem to be up against. Wikidemo removes what he perceives as my POV. Since Wikidemo reveres nuetrality over balance, we will have a very short article, indeed. Gaytan (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That pretty much sums up that this editor is pushing an agenda. Although federalism is a legitimate legal concept (in addition to being a banner for conservative/libertarian political advocacy), Constitutional law is also the lay of the land. Advocating that judges who rule based on the constitution are overturning The tension between the "will of the people" expressed in the constitution they adopt and form of government they set up and the "will of the people" expressed in the laws they pass and votes they hold from time to time is a fundamental fact of all constitutional democracies.means overturning several hundred years of legal tradition that is a bedrock legal principal, and would more or less render our treatment of a broad area of American law and legal topics to be incomprehensible. I'll likely revert any fringe POV I see creeping in, as well as any attempt to slant the article just for the sake of slanting. Wikipedia does not seek balance for its own sake - neutrality is the core principal. California has decided, through its legal process, that the law against gay marriage was unconstitutional; the attempt to change the constitution to permit prohibitions on same sex marriage does not look as if it will pass. Those are the simple facts. Going beyond that to try to achieve a parity or balance is POV. Note - refactoring to encourage cooperation; despite the disagreement on principles I think Gaytan's recent edits as reigned back somewhat were an overall improvement to the article so no need to antagonize. Wikidemo (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The location of proponents and opponents is pretty irrelevant. Many of the organizations on both sides of the issue likely have a sizable amount of Californians as members, so their comments are appropriate (IMO). Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Gallagherof's comments should be eliminated for several reasons. Firstly, she has no connection to California. More importantly, the quote says nothing about Proposition 8 or the debate in California. The quote is generally and very broadly directed at same sex marriage as a concept in general. The quote adds nothing to the discussion of Proposition 8 to change the CALIFORNIA constitution. Her comments are as relevant as Mr. Savage's comemnts, as she is an upstate New York writer whose comments add nothing to the issue at hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.108.185 (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Addition of external links to information and/or organizations who are related to this issue, does not compromise the neutrality of the article. Andurr (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andurrr (talk • contribs) 20:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my previous statement and will continue to add information, and undo censorship, that I believe is relevant to the article in terms of external links. Forgive me if I don't defer to anyone else to help me make up my mind for what I consider relevant.(talk

My thought on external links is that there should be only one link on either side of the issue (or two on each side, etc.). This would have the appearance of being more neutral. I would be interested in hearing other thoughts. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC).

My thoughts still stand, but I just added another external link to show balance on the issue. Alanraywiki (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Or zero, preferably. Neutrality and balance are not the same thing, and I think our policy is neutrality. That suggests we don't add or subtract to try to achieve any specific preferred level of negativity or support for the subject of an article - and also that we don't play dueling sides. The link to the bill's sponsors makes sense because that is objectively an official site. If there is a single clear, leading, preeminent proponent or opponent, or two, on either side or both, then it might make sense to include those links. But not random groups we find that are supporting or opposing. When things get too political I try to think of this as I would a completely non-political article, like (say) a film or an automobile that about half the people like and the other half don't. If it were a film we would put the link to the studio / official site, maybe the official or leading fan club, and then objective neutral meta-sites like IMBD and metacritic. We wouldn't pick and choose the specific reviewers who like and don't like the film. I think that should be the same for political initiatives - the official sponsor, the official government site, a couple nonpartisan voter information groups if there really are any of the same level of prominence in their field as IMDB has for films, the text of the resolution, and anything else that's official. Wikidemo (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I can appreciate that view and I self-reverted a link I added because it was not an official site. I believe the www.noonprop8.com should stay but the www.loveover8.com should probably be deleted from the article. Alanraywiki (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's just stick by the one link for support and one link for oppose. Which link it is can be changed, but the repeated adding of links by Andurrr is what got him blocked. Maddie ^talk 17:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with one link for support, one for oppose. But each time I add a link to noonprop8.com it gets deleted, thus compromising the neutrality of the article. Please stop deleting this link. ess2489 (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

In what way is McClintock's or 20 other republican legislators involvement significant? They may be proponents, but have any of them appeared in any of the Proposition 8 press over the last few months? None of them were sponsors of the ballot initiative, nor do they appear in any of the ballot Proposition information. Is the statement more than marketing for the McClintock campaign?EmeryvilleEric (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If Newt wants to weigh in on protecting marriage, isn't it worth noting that he is an admitted adulterer and two time divorcee? He also needs a California civics lesson, the California Supreme Court is not a bunch of unelected imperialist judges. They have all gone through an election cycle and been retained by the voters.EmeryvilleEric (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on adding the following: According to the LA Times on September 22nd, proponents where to have put up one million signs in yards around the state at 7:00am, but the signs, some of them outsourced overseas, didn't all arrive in time for the September event. According to Gena Downey, producer of the film God's Army, "[t]he YES on Prop 8 yard signs have been delayed in route from China." Ali Bay, spokeswoman for Equality California, which is coordinating the No on 8 campaign, said that her side has so far distributed about 60,000 lawn signs, all purchased "from a union shop in Kansas."EmeryvilleEric (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, I do not think articles on signs are important to the article nor to the proposition itself. In addition, I don't see how signs coming from China are different from those coming from Kansas (except neither are coming from California printers). For some people, coming from a union shop may be a negative, depending on your POV. Alanraywiki (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The Seventh-day Adventist church should be added to the supporters section. http://www.pacificunionrecorder.com/108/10/36742.html This link is an official publication of the Church in Northern California. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.255.2 (talk) 03:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

About the candidates and Democrats: Please notice that I have stated that the Yes on 8 campaign is using the quotes of the candidates and other Democrats to indicate their support of traditional marriage and with it, their support of the principles of Proposition 8. All of my additions include:

"The Yes on 8 campaign is using..." "...the Yes on 8 campaign has released..." "ProtectMarriage.com also claims..."

Please also note that all of information has been cited. I have just added to the document the claims made by the Yes on 8 campaign, with appropriate citations; therefore, the additions have been justified with appropriate evidence. Gambit2392 (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify the purpose of your addition? Most of the individuals have explicitly commented on Proposition 8, re-characterizing general statements about same-sex marriage, cited or not, as their positions on Proposition 8 is misleading. Your addition may better belong in a section on Proposition 8 fact checking, where what you have added can be compared to what the individuals have explicitly said about Proposition 8. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 05:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Why remove it before a discussion? No one other than the campaign for the proposition is "presuming proponents or opponents." I simply inserted and cited the information of the campaign. Obama is the only candidate who specifically opposed the measure, and that quote is already in the opponents section. According to his running mate, Joe Biden, however, he and Obama do not support the redefinition of marriage. And so, his position is misleading, not the facts being presented. He also stated he opposed federal measures regarding same-sex marriage and believes that the issue should be left to the states to decide. California, a state, is deciding same-sex marriage through Proposition 8; in other words, it is exactly how Obama believes same-sex marriage should be settled.

The addition reveals the Yes on 8 campaign's presumed supporters by pulling on the candidates' stated beliefs and principles. There is no recharacterization of general statements, when Obama stated, "But I also agree ... that decisions about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been." Later, Obama states, "And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states." He is directly contradicting himself, which is why he appears in both sections. Gambit2392 (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Why remove it before discussing it,because of WP:BLP. If someone says they don't support Proposition 8, they are not a proponent. Review [[WP:SYNTH], making the assertion that if one is against same-sex marriage, one must be for Proposition 8, is your POV not a tautology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmeryvilleEric (talk • contribs) 21:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You said it "is [my] POV not a tautology" - Again, it is not my POV, it is the view of the Yes on 8 campaign, the main proponent of the Proposition.Gambit2392 (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama is an opponent, he has said he opposes Proposition 8, you have added cites to infer something else. Other more credible sources indicate that what the Yes on 8 campaign is saying is incorrect, Obama is not a proponent. So why put him in that category? Perhaps a new section on Prop 8 points and counter-points is warranted. It would be informational to gather up all the for and against arguments and their rebuttals. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama is already listed in the opponents section. The Yes on 8 campaign is using his principles, his other statements, and the statement made by Joe Biden in support of traditional marriage support their stand on the proposition. The Yes on 8 campaign has not said that Obama supports Prop 8, but it uses his support of traditional marriage to garner support for its viewpoint. You may want to view the source. It says nothing that is "incorrect." Regarding the new section, I believe it will just turn into a battleground between the supporters and opponents of the measure, and will not really be that informational. That is not to say I would oppose one though. There was actually an arguments for/against last week I believe, but someone removed it. Gambit2392 (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I definately agree with gambit2392 because he argues that since the Yes on 8 Campaign is using the candidates'(including Barack Obama) support of traditional marriage to its own benefit. So Obama may not specifically support the measure but the campaign is using his stated principles to further their argument. 68.7.85.81 (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

In general terms, Wikipedia is not the place to repeat a campaign's questionable claims when those claims have been widely discredited. When those claims relate to the views of others and the person concerned has explicitly stated the reverse, those claims go from being questionable to being downright misleading. They have no place here and I have reverted the article accordingly. — Lincolnite (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to include notable opponents in the article? I have twice now added a paragraph, fully sourced, on the opposition to Prop 8 by Phil Plait, Amanda Marcotte, and Rebecca Watson. Two of them already have Wiki articles and are clearly notable enough (dr. Plait for instance is a successful author and president of the James Randi Educational Foundation), and the third - Rebecca Watson - has been covered by dead tree media enough to warrant her own article. All three of them have publicly opposed Prop 8 on their blogs, which I linked to. I'm not sure why this information keeps being deleted, but it looks like censorship to me. Stefan Kruithof (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's called editing not censorship. Laundry lists of proponents and opponents adds very little value to the article. Why people support or oppose Prop 8 is much more relevant than who supports or opposes Prop 8. The notability of these individuals is questionable, self sourced cites from their own blogs is a stretch. What mainstream publications have cited their opinions on Prop 8? The video is also unnecessary, unless you want to put together a section about the impact of self-produced videos and the campaign. There have been a few stories on the production of "fan" ads and is definitely something the other ballot measures don't have. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify my position: right now the opinions of leaders from religious organizations are listed as relevant for the article. What I do not understand is why leaders from the rational movement, such as Rebecca Watson and Phil Plait, can not be included in the article. It would be a ridiculous double standard to cite religious leaders as having a relevant opinion, yet censor out leaders from the rational movement. Stefan Kruithof (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If Rick Warren qualifies as a prominent proponent so does Phil Plait, a well known member of the rationalist movement, as a prominent opponent. I don't see how Rick Warren is any more expert on this issue than Phil Plait. I'm reverting the article since I can't see that a good reason was given to remove them. AK (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is a parody video posted on some blogs notable for an encyclopedia article? Alanraywiki (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not about the video, it is about the opposition to Prop 8 by notable people. Right now religious leaders are being cited as having relevant opinions. If that is the case, then the opinions of the leaders of skeptical/rational organizations should be listed just as well. Phil Plait is the president of the James Randi Educational Foundation, and therefore a very notable voice.Stefan Kruithof (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

We do not need another laundry list (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:California_Proposition_8_(2008)#Laundry_list_of_entertainment_industry_donors). Gambit2392 (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Good question. A Youtube video and a bunch of blog posts about it pretty much violates every Wikipedia reliable sourcing convention and rule I've ever heard of. It does not compare to the Warren mention; like it or not, he's a prominent figure in that stratum of Christianity and there is no disputing his endorsement. This apparent attempt to match the sizes of personalities (egos?) from one side or another does not trump reliable sourcing. Mike Doughney (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't intend to have an exhaustive list of everyone who is for or against it. I am arguing that leaders of the rational movement have an equally relevant opinion on this as leaders of religious organizations. Phil Plait's opposition to Proposition 8 is worth to be included in the article.Stefan Kruithof (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Until and unless there is some coverage in some media about this particular matter (not just the persons involved) that qualifies as a reliable source, it doesn't matter how important or relevant you personally think someone's opposition is, YouTube and a few blogs do not qualify as reliable sources to warrant inclusion of mention of this video. Perhaps there will be coverage; until then, this stays out. Please re-familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and conventions with respect to these matters. Mike Doughney (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The video has been reported on by Andrew Sullivan, who writes for The Atlantic Monthly. He reports on it here: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/a-matter-of-civ.html It's on the journals site, but it is not in its dead-tree version. Stefan Kruithof (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Wil Wheaton linked to the video here: http://wilwheaton.typepad.com/wwdnbackup/2008/11/californians-vo.html and joined the opposition to Prop 8. Stefan Kruithof (talk) 05:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Samuel L. Jackson just joined the "No On 8" campaign. He voiced an ad for them ( http://www.eurweb.com/story/eur48188.cfm ). I think this kind of stuff should be included in the article. Highly notable person, with a history in the civil rights movement. Stefan Kruithof (talk) 11:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Opinion polling

The section on opinion polls, which contained the results of the three recent public polls that have been conducted on Prop 8, has been removed by Gaytan on the grounds that "Opinion polls in this article, without Prop. 22 results, are POV." I profoundly disagree that reporting the results of reputable, third-party, publicly-released opinion polls is POV. I therefore propose that the section be reinstated. — Lincolnite (talk) 09:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think reinstating the opinion poll results on recent surveys is fine. They are relevant (at least until the election, which will render them moot). Having them in the article certainly is not POV. Removing them under the pretext of POV strikes me an abuse of the standard.

Gayton obviously feels strongly that article needs to cite less relevant data about Prop 22's passage rate. Prop. 22 is a related, but different, proposition. It speaks to a different set of circumstances, in a different point of time, before a different electorate. While it's less relevant than surveys about the proposition on the November ballot, I don’t dismiss Prop. 22 as altogether irrelevant to the question of public opinion.

(Earlier, I objected strongly to inserting the Prop. 22. passage rate into portions of the article that had nothing to do with public opinion.)

If anyone wants to augment a public-opinion discussion with a reference to Prop. 22's results with an appropriate historical context and WP:WEIGHT, that strikes me as fine too. Wonderbreadsf (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of opposition, I've restored the section and have updated it to reflect a new poll published this week. — Lincolnite (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

An anonymous editor inserted an entry that averages the listed polls, which I removed because an average disregards outliers and trends over a significant period of time. (An arguably more meaningful statement would point out that the trend is toward increasing disagreement with the proposition...) --EqualRights (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

“In the absence of opposition”, Lincolnite restored the opinion poll section. Well, the a voice for the opposition to that move is again represented. I have again removed the opinion poll section because Prop 22 results are currently not allowed on this article.

Polls are polls. Polls are biased according to those who run the polls. To believe otherwise is extremely naive. I have no problems with inserting current polls into this article as long as the most accurate poll of voters is included: that is the Prop 22 results. It is utterly impossible for one to argue that polls are more relevant than a fairly recent election. Polls often miss the mark on predicting election results. Election results are facts; polls are educated guesses at best and completely subjective at worst.

According to Wikidemo, “polls of any sort are fairly marginal and citing the latest poll measures is recentism of fairly low value.” So if Wonderbreadsf feels Prop 22 results are not very relevant, the same could be said of recent polls, as justified above by Wikidemo. Therefore, to be consistent, if we have some polls, we must include all of them, including Prop 22 results. If we have no polls included, then Prop 22 results may also be excluded. At least in this manner, we can all play fair. To include some polls but exclude Prop 22 results is clearly foul play.

While I can agree with Wonderbreadsf statement that Prop 22 “speaks to … a different point of time, before a different electorate” that does not negate the fact that Prop 22 results are still a snapshot of public opinion, 8 years old of course. Yet the argument can be offered that Prop 22 and Prop 8 both deal with the same deep-rooted societal values that will take much longer than 8 years to change.

Lastly, everyone is biased Lincolnite. That includes me, you, Wikidemo, Wonderbreadsf, WikiProject LGBT studies, all Wikipedians (that’s the potential greatness of Wikipedia, all viewpoints can be represented, although much to stifle this does occur), pollsters (“reputable”? Ha!), media, talk radio, unions, and yes, even “Big Brother” (or government). For one to say otherwise is simply foolish or is in on the campaign to swindle the public.

To ignore this reasoning by a simple waive of the hand is nothing more than blatant POV. 61.4% of Californians voted to preserve marriage between a man and a woman back in 2000. This is a fact whether you all like it or not. Gaytan (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Gaytan, thanks for your contribution but there is no evidence that you are in anything other than an overwhelming minority in your opinion on this subject. A consensus emerged in favor of restoring the opinion polls section and, in the fifteen days since I first posted, you are the only editor to have raised opposition. There is clearly no consensus in favor of removing the section and I have restored it accordingly. — Lincolnite (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Lincolnite, thank you so much for your thoughtful and careful review of my comments above. And I am so sorry for waiting 15 days to get back to this discussion, but some of us do have other important issues in life that require our attention, which in the end prevent us from watching in wait (24/7) of those Wiki editors who come to wage EditWars against us.Gaytan (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Gaytan, you're straying into WP:EDITWAR behavior here. Continuing on that path isn't a constructive (or welcome) exercise.

For better or worse, opinion polls are a commonplace feature in pre-election coverage of a topic. You may choose to dismiss them out of hand. I'm sure others feel the same way. As a factual matter, PPIC in particular was a remarkably reliable predictor of Prop. 22's passage rate in the months leading up to the election. No doubt some polls are better than others. Rather than relying on individual editor's opinions of polling bias, the more even-handed solution is to cite add any professional polling results as they become available.

A reasonable canvas of polling data is not inherently POV or OT. To remove polls because you infer they're biased strikes me as an abuse of the POV policy.

The more obvious and constructive way of addressing your belief that only Prop 22. matters is to cite the Prop 22 figures adjacent to the more recent opinion polls. Readers can make of all that data what they will. I invited editors to do as much two weeks ago.

I've added a sentence about Prop. 22 for the time being. Feel free to delete the entire section of the article in eight weeks. The polls are moot at that point.

In the meantime, discuss your concerns here or contribute constructively to the article. Please don't remove the polling data in its entirety, as doing so will needlessly escalate this disagreement.Wonderbreadsf (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

EditWar?? Of course, the minority opinion is the one that's causing all the trouble; what else is the majority to say? Well, thanks Wonderbreadsf for placing the Prop 22 results in the opinion section. I know if I would have done that myself, othere editors here would have removed it. All I had been asking for was inclusion of Prop 22 results. Since my inclusions of these results were not allowed and constantly deleted, consistency demanded that I delete the opinion polls as well since they were POV by the majority against Prop 8. By the way Wonderbreadsf, why did you attempt to marginalize the 61.4% approval of Prop 22 by showing invalid percentages of yes, no and incomplete votes?? Your data was incorrect anyways. Well, I fixed it. But in order to assume Good Faith on your part, I must conclude that you made a simple mistake.Gaytan (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Gaytan, it wasn't your minority opinion the suggests an edit war. Reverting something three times is getting close to and edit war. Reverting something you should have known was under discussion two times in less than two hours also strays into edit-war behavior.

My reference to the vote totals was not a mistake. Nor was it an attempt to "marginalize the 61.4%" passage rate. And the figures were accurate. I put those figures there because the only reason to cite Prop. 22 is to lend more context to the opinion polls.

As you can see from the article, opinion polls express percentages of all respondents, including those who do not express an opinion. The Secretary of State also reports the number of ballots not voting on each contest. In terms of passage rates, that's of little consequence. Acknowledging that fact, I put the 61.4% figure first. I then added a parenthetical note that expressed the percentages in terms are comparable to the opinion poll figures. Just as it would be misleading to recast the opinion poll percentages to exclude respondents not expressing an opinion (in which case the PPIC poll yields 57% against Prop 8), it is misleading to cite only the 61.4% passage rate juxtaposed to opinion polls.

Your edit yields a misleading comparison. I propose that my parenthetical note be restored: (of all ballots, 58.6% voted "yes," 36.9% voted "no," and 4.5% did not vote) Wonderbreadsf (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there may have been an edit war. But to blame me only (the minority opinion here) is extremely one-sided. Its not like I was the only one reverting. My opinions were never carefully considered or addressed when suddenly my edits were reverted. Who was the cause (or who is to blame) for any edit war? That is all in the eye of the beholder. That's why history is so biased in favor of the winning side (the majority), as many may have noticed.

As for the vote total, I owe Wonderbreadsf an apology. I made the POV accusation incorrectly. I could not understand where the 58.6% came from. So I got the exact vote totals, calculated the percentages myself and found that Wonderbreadsf was right. Sorry. I have re-inserted your vote totals and link Wonderbreadsf. Hey, I'm human ain't I? Gaytan (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology. Thanks too for putting the vote parenthetical back of your own accord. Wonderbreadsf (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Lincolnite recently added the section "Reliability of polling data" to the article. This section is totally based on an article from a gay website that is completely biased against Prop 8. Of course, depending on which side you ask (pro or anti Prop 8), the reliability of various polls will always be a hot issue, as Lincolnite rightly stated in this section. If then this is such a hot issue, why enter such biased arguments (in favor of gay marriage) in an article that is supposed to be unbiased? POV edit by Lincolnite? I definitely think so. Besides, this discussion belong in an article which deals with polling and thier accuracy. Gaytan (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the article is a summary of an academic paper, the citation could simply be redirected to the source. --EqualRights (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The root problem here was the addition Echelon3 made on Sep. 18. (Wiki diff) That edit merely repeats a claim made by the campaign manager for Proposition 8. As one would expect, that's a patently POV source.

The Prop 8 campaign understandably likes to focus on the Field Poll, which consistently underestimated support for Proposition 22. Field got it wrong (as happens sometimes, even to an organization with a track record as strong as Field has). The campaign understandably ignores the other polling organizations which predicted the outcome correctly ("correctly" = well within the margin of error on any of the eight measures typically used by social scientists: Mosteller's first six methods, Traugott's odds-ratio error, and the one used by Lincolnite's source). Obviously, I'm not going to clog up an article about Prop. 8 with the documentation for all of that, but I can provide it here if anyone is curious. (Perhaps the Prop 22 talk page would be more appropriate, or even better an article about "polling junkies," a badge I wear with little shame.)

I've added a brief reference to the other polls. I agree with Gaytan that this whole section is growing beyond what belongs here, but I don't credit his assertion of bias to the professor's analysis. That said, I'm fine with ditching all of the polling-analysis embellishments since Sep. 18.Wonderbreadsf (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't speak to Lincolnite's edits, which Gaytan directly addressed here. Those edits were a substantial improvement over the biased treatment I described a moment ago. True, his citation could have been stronger, but he remedied a sub rosa assertion of social-desirability bias and glaring POV issue. Thanks, Lincolnite.Wonderbreadsf (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wonderbreadsf, thanks for your kind words. In response to Gaytan's concerns, a couple of things need to be said. Firstly, I do not think I added any "biased arguments (in favor of gay marriage)" into the article. The section, after I'd rewritten it, was considerably more balanced and NPOV than it was beforehand. Secondly, on the question of the source, calling it "an article from a gay website" is highly misleading. It was a guest column from an academic (whose neutrality I've not heard questioned) that appeared on the website of a respected LGBT newspaper. The whole point of a guest column is that it's not written by the newspaper's own staff and that the publishers have no substantive editorial control over its content. Unless there are grounds to question the author's neutrality, therefore, I don't see that there are grounds to question the article's.

On the question of removing all the polling analysis stuff, I wouldn't object particularly, as long as it all went (including the very questionable 8-point difference stuff). — Lincolnite (talk) 08:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The opinion polling needs a column including the sample margin of error. Does anyone have that info handy? EmeryvilleEric (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it is just a matter of adding a column. All the references included that number, which seemed to run +/- 3-4%. The column would help people not have to search through the fine print. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Marist College poll

There is a new poll out today, sponsored by the Knights of Columbus [1] and conducted by Marist College Institute for Public Opinion. The polling questions were based on Pro 8 arguments and used the original Pro 8 ballot language. Unsurprisingly, its results differ from those of other surveys conducted around October 5th. Since this poll doesn't ask the question on the ballot, I don't think it warrants inclusion. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 19:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this poll from the table, for now. Thus far the only sources on the poll appear to be the Knights of Columbus, via their website and their press release that was picked up on the Forbes and Marketwatch websites from PR Newswire [2]. I suggest waiting until there is some other reporting on this poll by some news organization and not sole-sourcing this to its main proponents. Mike Doughney (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If mainstream sources do pick it up, and it is decided that this poll should appear in the article, The ordering should be based on the date the polling was conducted (ended Oct 5th), not the result publication date, and there should be a note explaining that poll was paid for by one of the largest donors and that the question asked was not what will appear on the ballot. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out talk page, didn't know we were discussing it. First to EmeryvilleEric, the poll was first conducted in an unbiased manner informing the likely voter what the proposition was ("Proposition 8 is the initiative on the California ballot to amend the state's constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California") and asking if they supported or opposed it. After that result was tallied, different questions were asked to see if the likely voter would change his/her opinion to either more likely vote for or against the proposition. The percentages of 52% Yes, 43% No, and 5% Undecided, however, are for the initial, unbiased question. There are also the other results for the follow-up questions, but those should not be included in the opinion poll table. Second to Mike Doughney, why is that the majority of the other opinion polls only need a single source of their conductors while this one needs a different organization? That doesn't seem to be very balanced. Third to EmeryvilleEric's second post, if you want to indicate a date different than the publication date, then we need to amend all the other polls. You cannot edit this and not the others. Notice that the SurveyUSA polls were also conducted on different dates than their publication date. If you want to do that, we must make sure that it is balanced for all the other polls. And if you want to add a note about the organization that paid for the poll, you should do the same for the Los Angeles Times poll as it is an opponent. My main point is that if you want to shift the trend we've already established because of personal beliefs about the poll, you need to apply those changes to all of the pre-existing ones in a fair manner. Gambit2392 (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

My issue is with the bias of the question wording:

Proposition 8 is the “Limit on Marriage Constitutional Amendment.” It amends the California constitution to say that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. If the election were being held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 8?

It's not the ballot language. The sample ballot language is:

"Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry." Changes California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is recognized in California...

Other polling has shown that the question wording matters. As to the polling dates, yes, they should all be in chronological order based on when the poll was conducted, the value is in the trending data. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Gambit2392 asks, "...why is that the majority of the other opinion polls only need a single source of their conductors while this one needs a different organization?" Well, actually, if you search against Google News ([3], [4], [5]) you'll find substantial reporting by major newspapers on the other polls. Thus far I'm only seeing the Knights of Columbus press release for the Marist/KofC poll. ([6]) This difference in reporting by major papers (thus far) is, I think, a rather obvious indicator of whether or not the Marist/KofC poll is notable and should be included with the others.

You also wrote, "And if you want to add a note about the organization that paid for the poll, you should do the same for the Los Angeles Times poll as it is an opponent." The LA Times editorial page pales in comparison to the kind of activism that the Knights of Columbus regularly engages in. They are activists, feet on the ground, actively working toward a particular outcome by all means at their disposal; creating a poll designed to show the results that they want to show, that they are already winning, is just another of those means. The LA Times is simply a newspaper, seeking to report on public opinion, with an editorial board which, as with most papers, is insulated from ongoing reporting. Mike Doughney (talk) 04:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we would include polling commissioned by activists on either side, even if reported in a major paper. For example, the opposition has publicly discussed, and major papers reported on, two recent internal polls. They aren't in the article. The Knights of Columbus is obviously an active proponent of the measure (arguably the most active proponent).

I agree with Mike Doughney that the LA Times (or any other major paper) isn't an activist by virtue of what its editorial board wrote. Accepting the contrary argument would leave us with essentially no polling data in the article. With the exception of PPIC, all of the polling widely cited in election contests is paid for by media organizations, the vast majority of which have editorialized either for or against the proposition by this point.

I'd propose some reasonably straightforward standards for including polling data:

• Commissioned by mainstream media outlets or nonpartisan research organizations
• Random sampling of voters that is statewide in reach
• A brief statement of methodology (who included, how conducted, number of responses) in secondary sources or, at least, by the polling organization/sponsor
• Conforms to WP:RELIABLE sourcing.

Perhaps that too much/too little. It seems like a reasonable starting place for the discussion.

BTW, per EmeryvilleEric, I prefer to see the article cite and sort the results by the date the survey was in the field rather than when it was reported. As Gambit2392 notes, that isn't what we have in the article today. So changing all of the dates in the table may be more work than it's worth. Wonderbreadsf (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Nonprofits

Why is it that of all these nonprofit organizations cited who publicly support or oppose the proposition, only the LDS church is presented as having a legal defense? Don't these other organizations have tax-exempt status which is potentially threatened by their political involvement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.186.150 (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as a nonprofit organization does not endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms, its tax-exempt status is not threatened. It can, however, endorse, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect its interests. Gambit2392 (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Donations

With all due respect to actors, do we really need to include all the donations made by various people in the entertainment industry (on either side)? They tend to get a lot of press (and have publicists), so there will be more sources on their donations. I can just see this section getting out of hand with a citation of every fundraiser. Maybe just a few of the more significant donations on each side, if any? Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Fran Drescher hosting a cocktail event that gathered $40K is not very impressive at all. Many have donated as much individually - does that imply that we list anyone who donates $40K or more? If so, the list of donors would quickly get out of hand. I submit the following criteria for listing any supporters on this article (proponents or opponents):

1. Financial Donations - Donations greater than $100K; or

2. Size of Organization - Organization which extends beyond a local area (city or county).

I think celebrities should only be added if they satisfy the criteria above. Once we get consensus on criteria, then we should edit the article accordingly. Gaytan (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. Citing the amounts of specific contributions adds little to the article. I think Gaytan's proposal should be absolute the minimum requirement. The size (or donor) should be truly remarkable (perhaps even higher standards than Gaytan proposed). If that's unworkable, I'd rather see them omitted altogether. Wonderbreadsf (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I rough estimate: Brad Pitt giving 100,000 is about as much of his net worth as if I gave 20 bucks. It's absurd to make a fuss over it.--24.85.68.231 (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, are all the donations from religious organizations necessary? Would providing a link to the state maintained list of contributors be sufficient? EmeryvilleEric (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on all these comments, I am going to remove the two paragraphs (one for the proponents and one for the opponents) that show the donations. Each side's web site already contain a list of endorsements and, as mentioned, the state list of contributors can be added (I'm not sure where that is). Alanraywiki (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

We are still trying to create a useful resource here though. I don't think you need to remove all the information about donations and supporters. barrylb (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Alas, since Jonahtrainer added back significant church proponent donation info, I've added back significant opponent donation info. --EqualRights (talk) 13:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I just removed them from both sides again, hopefully it stays like that. Gambit2392 (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think some of the donations need to be listed or at least sources where people can investigate the donations made and it is irresponsible editorially to excise the donations as that is extremely relevant information. Donations, from both sides, should not be hiding in the shadows and purposely obscured from view. At the same time I do not think it is good to have an extremely large section listing all the donations. Maybe something like 'Significant monetary donations have been made for(links) and against(links) the Proposition.' Several links to relevant sources and articles could be cited. That would allow people interested to quickly locate donation information. Any other suggestions?Jonahtrainer (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

SFgate has some pretty neutral info:

By Election Day, the measure's opponents and supporters expect to spend about $40 million. Volunteers on both sides will have spent thousands of hours getting their messages across to the state's 16.2 million registered voters. More than 9,500 people from all 50 states and the District of Columbia have contributed nearly $22 million to support or oppose the measure, while institutions have kicked in another $7.8 million.EmeryvilleEric (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds succint, neutral, and pertinent. I think that is more appropriate for an encyclopedia than all the individual donations by people and organizations. Alanraywiki (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. So Alanraywiki did not appreciate listing donation amounts so let's delete these paragraph completely (paragraph which names other significant supporters of this Prop)? What kind of logic is that?? I never seen an argument for removing lists of significant supporters. This discussion has focused on monetary donations although many significant proponents are donating time, talents and organizational skills rather than money. Do not exclude any supporters on the list without some reasons for doing so. My points above stated some criteria for listing donors of either side. Once again they are:

1. Financial Donations - Donations greater than $100K; or

2. Size of Organization - Organization which extends beyond a local area (city or county).

Now some discussion about #1 above was that the amount was too small. This is a legitimate concern. But no one has said anything about point #2, which accounts for organizations which are building grass roots support (or opposition) for Prop 8 yet may not have made a large donation yet(or the donations are impossible to track to a specific organization). I am adding the list of major supporters back into the proponent section without donation amounts. If there is a problem, discuss it here and get a consensus prior to removing. Gaytan (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Why some fixed dollar amount, and why organizations that extend beyond a local area? Why not limit the list to organizations that are California based and people that live in California? Detailed endorsement lists can always be found on the pro and no websites. The current list on both sides is rather obvious and adds little value, take the Mormon quotes for example. Wouldn't general information about in-state vs. out-of-state contributions or mentioning Democrats for and Republicans against, or the unusual case of businesses stepping into support or oppose a social issues be more relevant?EmeryvilleEric (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Prop 8 Endorsements - http://www.protectmarriage.com/endorsements

Who opposes Prop 8 - http://noonprop8.com/about?id=0009

EmeryvilleEric (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

San Francisco Chronicle op-eds

The article currently states that California's largest newspapers including the Chronicle have come out against Prop 8. However, it appears that the Chronicle has also published an editiorial FOR Prop 8. See Prop. 8 protects rights of those who support traditional marriage. Please discuss how this should be clarified. Thanks --Shamir1 (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The piece you refer to is clearly labeled as a "open forum" guest opinion column rather than a product of the newspaper's editorial board. --EqualRights (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

VP paragraph

A couple of hours ago, Prop8yes added the following paragraph that I then removed.

“ During the Vice-Presidential Debate 10/02/08, both Senator Biden and Governor Palin showed their support for same-sex couples' rights but not for redefining marriage as anything other than marriage between a man and a woman. They also stated that this is the position of their respective Presidential Canididates, Obama and McCain. ”

It was then reinstated and I have just re-removed it. My rationale was as follows. The opinions of the four candidates (McCain, Obama, Biden and Palin) referred to same-sex marriage generally, not to Proposition 8 specifically and therefore have only a weak claim to be included in this article. That's more particularly the case because Sen. Obama has specifically come out against Prop. 8 despite his more general preference for civil unions over same-sex marriage. Whilst I'm not aware of Sen. Biden having said anything about Prop. 8, it's presumably the case that he shares Obama's views and also opposes Prop. 8. The paragraph was therefore misleading and arguably POV (particularly given the identity of its author, whose username leaves little to the imagination...). — Lincolnite (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I just reinserted it because there was no explanation specifically for removing that paragraph and thought it was just reverted as part of the quotation change. Now that there is an explanation, I will leave it out. Frankly, the subject is pretty well split between party lines so there are no surprises on who is supporting and who is opposing. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. I had run out of space in the edit summary line to add an explanation of the second change as well as the first! — Lincolnite (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

But now that this is on the talk page, the transcript from the vice presidential debate does have Senator Biden saying specifically that he does not support gay marriage here. It is down aways on the CNN web site, but states the following:

“ IFILL: Let's try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?

BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.

The bottom line though is, and I'm glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that's the case, we really don't have a difference.

IFILL: Is that what your said?

PALIN: Your question to him was whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that I do not.

IFILL: Wonderful. You agree. On that note, let's move to foreign policy.

”

So it sounds like while the candidates support the same rights, they do not support a redefinition of marriage. And rereading the comment above, that is correct that Proposition 8 is not specifically mentioned, but I still think this topic should be discussed before any decision to leave it or delete it from this article is made. For example, how exactly is gay marriage different from Proposition 8 when it comes to support or opposition? Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The campaigns have specifically commented on Proposition 8 and did not change their positions in the debate, both believe in separate but equal treatment. General comments about gay marriage may belong on other wiki pages, but this page is about Proposition 8 and specific comments about Proposition 8 should take priority on this page. If anything the debate comments from both sides could be construed as opposition to Proposition 2 on the Florida ballot. How exactly is gay marriage on the national level different from Proposition 8? Gay marriage on the national level is about recognizing rights, Proposition 8 is about taking recognized rights away.EmeryvilleEric (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The question Ifill asked was on gay marriage, not prop 8. Every American politician under the sun has a position on gay marriage but their sentiments are not important enough to put in this article. thanks Astuishin (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Largest newspapers?

Lincolnite, I see that you reverted my edit to the discussion of newspaper editorials. I certainly agree that noting the prominence of the newspapers editorializing on Prop. 8 is worth mentioning. My desire to tone down the original reference was because I doubt your assertion that the O.C. Register (rather than the Sacramento Bee) is the fourth largest newspaper in the state. (There's no doubt about the three largest.)

I'm fine with calling the O.C. Register and Sacramento Bee tied for fourth. Perhaps that's what you're driving at. Declaring that the Register is larger than the Bee without some qualification, however, seems to require cherry-picking the circulation numbers.

According to the Audit Bureau of Circulation's most recent statements of circulation (total average paid circ for the six months ending 31-Mar-2008):

• The Register is slightly larger in Sunday circ (about 1%).
• The two papers essentially tie in Saturday circ (Bee larger by a trivial amount).
• The Bee is clearly larger in weekday circ (a bit more than 7% of the Register weekday circ).
• The weighted average of those seven editions has the Bee about 5% larger than the Register.

Rather than nitpicking about this, I removed the explicit reference to the "four largest newspapers. Perhaps you're relying on some other metric (total audience, total revenue, ad market share, combined online+print reach, readership purchasing power, etc.). I avoid those numbers, in part, because they are unaudited. If you want to rely on them or something else, just say so. Absent some explanation, I think you're out on a bit of limb. Wonderbreadsf (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wonderbreadsf. In the article, there's some hidden text (between <!-- -->) that explains where the numbers come from. Very simply, I looked at List of newspapers in the United States by circulation which shows the OC Register higher than the Sacramento Bee (albeit only by a small amount). If there are problems with the data they've used on that page, we can revisit the words "all four". — Lincolnite (talk) 08:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't see the comments among all the <ref> tags (which I tend to gloss over). Obviously, I think BurrellesLuce's method (from which that list was made) are bit suspect in close cases, but that firm is a perfectly reputable authority. I'm fine with the relying on that list for our purposes. Thanks for the pointing to me the citation that was already in there. Wonderbreadsf (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Did we come up with a size cut-off for newspaper endorsements? The North Country Times, published their Proposition 8 position. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

We haven't reached a consensus on where to draw the line. I just added two more to round out the "top ten." I thought that The Fresno Bee was noteworthy, given the region it serves. I added the LA Daily News just reach whatever magic the number ten offers. Note that I skipped Investors Business Daily (circulation between The Fresno Bee and LA Daily News) as it's a somewhat different animal. Perhaps we should cut off at the ninth to avoid that judgment call.

Thereafter, I think we're straying into the small fry (< 100,000 in circ). I did add La Opinión (Los Angeles) to the "other" list. The New York Times was sort of orphaned in that sentence. La Opinión seemed worth mentioning as it is the largest Spanish-language paper in the country (and 11th in total California circulation, again ignoring IBD). I'm open to drawing the line somewhere around top ten or 100K in circ. Wonderbreadsf (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Alternatively, we could rely on the List of newspapers in the United States by circulation (top 100) that Lincolnite cited above. That has roughly the same effect as the California top 10 or > 100K in circ. Using that list as gauge might prove to be more convenient. Wonderbreadsf (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"only marriage" grammar

My addition about the grammar was reverted. I'm not trying to be unreasonable. Maybe there is a better place in the article. I just think it is an interesting point that Proposition 8, if interpreted literally, outlaws divorce. The only counter-argument would seem to be, "you don't need to be so picky about the wording; it's not as if it's a legal document". There's a citation, and the topic of the section is the wording of the proposed amendment. I put the content back in. Spiel496 (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Your citation has nothing to do with Proposition 8, therefore your contribution falls under WP:SYNTH or WP:COATRACK. Please find a valid citation pointing out this issue specifically with regard to the subject of the article before attempting to reinsert this material. Mike Doughney (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not misquoting the source (WP:SYNTH) nor am I trying to add some irrelevant topic (WP:COATRACK). The authors in the citation[7] analyze the phrase only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. How is that not the subject of the article? Yes, the authors are talking about Proposition 22 rather than Proposition 8, but that seems like a minor distinction given the identical language. Are you saying that if this citation had said "8" instead of "22" then we should keep my contribution? I would like to hear from others on this, too. Is it inappropriate to add a comment to the article about a grammatical error in the wording of the proposition? Spiel496 (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Spiel496 makes an interesting grammatical point: Proposition 8 literally outlaws heterosexual divorce, while allowing both divorce and marriage for same-sex couples. The reference provided is certainly adequate to verify the grammatical issue, since the change in verb tense between Proposition 8 and Proposition 22 does nothing to solve the adverb-placement error. Unfortunately, even though we can show irrefutable documentation that the sentence is grammatically flawed, this fact alone constitutes original research and is argumentative unless we can provide a published source which has used the grammatical argument against Proposition 8 specifically. It shouldn't be that difficult to find one, and I'd say if one can be found, then the addition should stand. (It might also stand as-is in a subsection dealing with historical background, which could justify inclusion of arguments against Proposition 22.) Rangergordon (talk) 06:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Section 308.5 was in place for eight years and during that time no court found that the cited interpretation is correct, nor is the cite coming from a recognized California Constitution scholar. Based on that, I don't think it belongs in this article. Maybe the section belongs in a wiki article about why initiatives drafted by non-lawyers is a bad idea. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 07:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between an argument and the citation of an argument as an argument. The section listing arguments for and against Proposition 8 may be NPOV only if it merely registers the fact that such arguments exist in the public discourse among reliable sources. (This is why every such argument must be accompanied by a source citation.) To give a silly example, if a genuine authority were to claim that Proposition 8 is necessary because a purple unicorn dies every time a same-sex couple gets married in California, that argument becomes fair game, even though most editors would find that argument personally unconvincing.

What would happen if an editor decided to include or exclude a particular citation based on a personal judgment of the cited argument's merit? The section would become argumentative and POV. Regarding the grammatical argument, it would indeed be very surprising if a court ever had interpreted the ungrammatical wording literally. I am not an authoritative source, however, so I cannot include my personal judgment in the article. The argument was used against Proposition 22 by authoritative sources, so it could be cited in the article about Proposition 22. Now, if authoritative sources are using a similar argument against Proposition 8, that fact could likewise be cited in this article, even though editors like me find the grammatical argument to be somewhat unconvincing personally. By the same token, if other authoritative sources can be found pointing out the weaknesses of the grammatical argument, they, too, could be cited. Rangergordon (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we would all agree that if there was a court case about the wording, the grammar flaw would belong in the "arguments against" section. As has been pointed out, though, the legal world seems to take an attitude of "well, we know what was intended". That is why I chose the language section. To me, it is less a legal argument than it is a curiosity. It would be as if we noticed today that the 2nd Amendment really said "the right to bare arms". It is remarkable to me that a legal document would be written so carelessly. The question is whether that carelessness is notable enough to be pointed out in the article. I think it is worth a couple of sentences, but I'm not going to push it further if others feel it detracts from the article. Many thanks to everyone for the thoughtful comments. Spiel496 (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

School districts

A passage has been inserted about a San Diego County school district supporting Proposition 8. I removed the passage and had my edit reverted on the basis that "Support from a school district is notable, just like opposition from a corporation like Google". I'm afraid I disagree. California has 1,052 school districts: 560 elementary districts, 87 high school districts and 330 unified districts. There are also 58 County Offices of Education, and 6 California Youth Authority districts, 6 State Special Schools, and 8 State Board of Education charter schools, now classified as a "school district" since 2004-05 (quoting List of school districts in California). Is it really reasonable to mention every district that's issued an endorsement? As it happens, many have come out against Prop. 8 including the Los Angeles Unified School District, the state's largest. If we set a precedent by including Grossmont, then equity suggests having to list every school board that's taken a position on this issue. There would certainly be dozens on each side, possibly hundreds. Is that really a road we want to go down? — Lincolnite (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

GUHSD was the first public school district in California to go on record by taking a stance on the Proposition. I think that is pretty significant. Though I understand your view, I believe it is important to include at least the GUHSD for taking the first stand. I know a district in Chino also supports the Proposition, but they were not the first and so did not establish a precedent as did the GUHSD, and so were not included among proponents. I believe it should be clarified that the GUHSD was the first district to take a stance, and, if necessary, also provide a link to a list that shows which districts support and which oppose the measure.

I fail to see how a random San Diego County school district's endorsement fits the Wikipedia definition of notability ("the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources"), its notability is orders of magnitude distant from Google's (comparison invited by Alanraywiki), and I find the addition of increasingly lesser opponents/proponents tiresome, but if GUHSD is to remain then the far larger LAUSD will need to be added to the Opponents as well. What is the point of growing arbitrarily long lists of opponents/proponents? --EqualRights (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If a number of school districts take a stance on Prop 8, then I agree that school district endorsements are not notable. If only a couple of districts take a stance, like Grossmont and LA Unified, then I think they are both notable. I do not usually see school districts take positions on ballot initiatives (unless school bonds are involved). Alanraywiki (talk) 04:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Jewish groups

Must all the Jewish groups that oppose the proposition be listed? Under this establishment, all of the churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious organizations would also have to be listed. I believe the following paragraph should be removed:

Jewish groups in the San Francisco Bay Area came together to present an event against Proposition 8. The September 17, 2008 event was presented by the Jewish Community Relations Council and the LGBT Alliance of the Jewish Community Federations of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin, and Sonoma Counties; the Jewish Community Federation of the Greater East Bay; and the Progressive Jewish Alliance[75]. Other Jewish groups who sponsored the event and who oppose Proposition 8 include Kol Tzedek[76], Congregation Beth Am[77], Congregation Emanu-El[78], Keshet, Congregation Sha'ar Zahav, Kulanu, Nehirim, Congregation Shomrei Torah, Congregation Sherith Israel, Jewish Mosaic, National Council of Jewish Women[79], Jews for Marriage Equality[80].

It is already mentioned that Jews support and oppose the proposition, but why list all the opposing organizations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gambit2392 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A summary should remain for balance, but I certainly agree that its unnotable detail should be edited away. --EqualRights (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

One of the citations used regarding lawn signs comes from http://calitics.com/. This may not be a reliable source. Any other thoughts about replacing the source with something other than this blog? Alanraywiki (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find a more authoritative cite or any other confirmation, so I removed the quote. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Violence

While this incident is arguably newsworthy, an isolated instance of violence related to the proposition is hardly noteworthy enough to be included in the article. Were there to be widespread or systemic incidents involving violence, I could see including something. ShigityShank (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, it should be included, it is clearly relevant and needed, what you say is like an article on 9/11 that doesn't speak about going to Afghanistan afterwards.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a completely ridiculous analogy. 9/11 and Afghanistan are in an entirely different category from a single person being attacked. This incident is newsworthy for the area, and probably for the whole of California as well, but hardly noteworthy enough to include in an article on the proposition itself. If there were widespread (or even multiple) reports of prop 8 supporters being attacked, then I would wholeheartedly concur with adding a section on violence.

A more applicable analogy would be placing a section on the Coors article if there was a news story in which someone punched a Coors drinker and stole a bunch of cases of beer while screaming, "Why do you hate Budweiser?" If there was a series of coordinated attacks by Budweiser drinkers on Coors drinkers, that would be one thing, but a single attack is neither noteworthy nor relevant enough to include in an article on the brewing company. ShigityShank (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It is newsworthy enough to get in the news. It is covered by multiple sources. Probably more newsworthy than the fact that some gay man by the name of David Knight opposes Proposition 8. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This was a single incident of violence that was uncoordinated, unorganized, and unknown to the public proponents or opponents of Prop 8. The are occasional incidents of violence in every election, so unless there is any evidence that this violence was organized by anyone for or against Prop 8, I see no reason why this single incident should be included in this article. thanks Astuishin (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's also the case that no other eyewitness testimony is available except the victim's, and the police have no suspects. In my opinion, this diminishes the noteworthiness and relevance. We're talking about one guy's claim, with no evidence (of the circumstances of the attack, i mean--there is physical evidence that an injury occurred). Either this not-very-reliable nor noteworthy section should be removed, or else for accuracy's sake, language should be altered to reflect that this is an alleged attack, an alleged motivation, with no other witnesses and no suspects. I may do this right now, but won't remove the section until there's further discussion. tej (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If this is relevant, than so is every act of violence committed against those who advocate marriage equality. Rangergordon (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Can this section use better cites than MarketWatch and Examiner.com? Those two sources are reprints of the PRwire press release issued by ProtectMarriage.com. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

A minor edit is required. It says an opponent of prop. 8 was attacked, when the rest of the paragraph tells how it was actually a proponent that was attacked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.236.61 (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The current version [8] reads: "On October 13, Jose Nunez of Modesto, CA alleged that an opponent of Proposition 8 attacked and seriously injured him while he was distributing lawn signs in support of Proposition 8..." This matches the reporting in the citation. This does not say that an opponent of Proposition 8 was attacked. Perhaps the wording is confusing? Mike Doughney (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's discuss the alleged violence section before unilaterally removing it. None of the other propositions have reported issues of violence, making them notable in this case. The campaign is heavily focused on what children will be taught in schools. To have a school board member allegedly involved is also relevant. EmeryvilleEric (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC).

The main problem I have with inclusion of this section is that there have been no arrests in either case and the stories have been rather ambiguous he-said-she-said sorts of reports. I also think the article should be kept to a reasonable length. Changes between now and election day should, for the most part, focus on what the campaigns are doing and who is supporting who (and perhaps the polling if any polls are still active). Mike Doughney (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Should any mention be put in of the recent vandalism that happened in San Jose to Prop 8 Supporters? [9] Kylar (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Protected due to edit war

The article has been protected for 24 hours after a complaint about edit-warring at WP:AN/3RR. A surge of new edits of the article has left the Talk page far behind. In the last two days most of the article edits have been reverts. This is not a good way to make progress. Please try to reach consensus here on Talk about the disputed matters. The Talk discussion above appears to show plenty of good faith comments and the use of reliable sources as references; no reason why that shouldn't continue. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Protection modified to semi after a discussion at AN3. The suggestion to use the Talk page still stands. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Lede paragraph edits

The current wording of the first two paragraphs of the article reflects the actual wording of the proposition on the ballot, as can be seen on the California Secretary of State's "2008 Ballot Measure Update" page, and the means by which the current title of the proposition on the ballot was revised by the Attorney General. This wording reflects a consensus of editors who have been working on this article over the past few months, and a discussion archived here ("New Name for Ballot Measure" section). Please register objections here, or propose changes to these paragraphs for discussion before editing the article. Mike Doughney (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Arguments for and against

We don't really have a roundup of the arguments for and against the proposition and how both sides messages have changed over time. Would that information be a worthwhile addition or would it open a can of worms? Why Vote Yes? and Why Vote No? would have the base material for the new section. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That is a great question. I think it may be a good idea to avoid the pros and cons after looking how it caused the Prop 2 article to become massive. The pros and cons are listed in the voter guide under external links. I think that is a more workable approach. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Opinion Poll Sample Size Incorrect

In the SurveyUSA poll for October 17, the sample size is stated to be 614 which is incorrect. The correct sample size is 800. 614 is the number "determined by SurveyUSA to have already voted, or to be likely to vote on or before election day" (the results of which have different percentages). I haven't read the history of this page, but I assume there have been edit wars etc. due to the topic; I just wanted to give a quick heads up and will defer to those who are more involved in this page than myself. Super_C (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Election polls generally only take likely voters into account and it appears the correct number is 615. If you view the poll frequency data you will see the polling data is for those already voted or to be likely to vote on or before election day. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Image

A designer friend of mine did Image:Defend equality poster.png. I wonder if there's any room for it in this article. I kind of think that without a corresponding "Yes on 8" poster, it might give the anti-8 side too much weight, but I wanted to see what others thought. howcheng {chat} 18:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Total donation estimates & portion contributed by Mormons

I've just removed this new paragraph from the "Proponents" section of the article:

As of mid-October 2008, Protect Marriage, the group leading the campaign in support of the ban, had raised more than $26 million from more than 64,000 donors, many of them from outside the state. One estimate finds that members of the Mormon church have accounted for about 40 percent of those donations,<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/10/20/voters-deadlocked-on-same-sex-marriage-ban-in-california.html|title=Voters Deadlocked on Same-Sex Marriage Ban in California|author=Justin Ewers|publisher=''[[U.S. News & World Report]]''|date=October 20, 2008}}</ref> while another October 20 estimate finds that Mormons have raised 77 percent of all Yes funds since July 1, 2008.[http://www.camajorityreport.com/index.php?module=articles&func=display&aid=3747&ptid=9]

The main problem with this paragraph is that, following the apparent chain of attribution, it appears that most of these numbers originate at a website that's apparently self-published by some anonymous person or people, Mormons for Proposition 8. There is nothing on that site that explains where the numbers they are publishing came from. The writer of the US News article does not explain from who or where the numbers in their article came from - I would make a reasonable assertion they also ultimately came from that anonymous website. To further muddy the reliability of these numbers, the Mormons for 8 site appears to be using some self-reporting mechanism as the sole means of determining whether or not a particular donation came from someone of the Mormon faith.

The following "77 percent" alleged estimate in the above paragraph comes from a group blog which again does not cite a source; I've previously removed this assertion from the article.

I don't think anonymous sources for these numbers are acceptable. If a spokesperson for the pro-Proposition 8 organization collecting this money is willing to speak and be quoted on the record with some set of numbers, that is one thing (and that would probably satisfy my concerns). In the meantime, without some solid attribution on where these numbers come from, they should be disregarded for the purposes of this article. If there are some more reliable sources for these numbers that I'm missing, please point them out. Mike Doughney (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

To partially answer my own question, the data is being compiled by the California Secretary of State and is downloadable here. The file indicates $24,394,162.44 in contributions from 26,635 individuals and organizations through September 30. To what extent is calculating a sum on a downloaded, publicly available spreadsheet "original research?" Mike Doughney (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that original research if you are just adding up provided numbers, but how would you count all the Mormon contributions? How would you know who is of what religion? Unless I am missing something obvious, I think that would be nearly impossible by just looking at a list of names. Gambit2392 (talk) 05:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's the thing. The attempt at calculating a Mormon percentage of the total is not at the state site, but at Mormons for Proposition 8. There, they've posted a copy of the state-provided spreadsheet and as I understand it from what's there, Mormons are supposed to identify their contributions and report them via e-mail to whoever runs that site, and then they'll make a tally of Mormon contributions after the fact. The problem is that anyone can report anyone else's contribution on that list as being from a Mormon. There's no way to do identity checking after the fact like this and have it be meaningful or in any way accurate. Mike Doughney (talk) 05:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Mike Doughney is correct: If the list is self-reported, it can't really be considered a reliable source. If MormonsFor8.com is important enough to be sourced, then its claim that individual members of the LDS Church have donated $10 million (or some other specific dollar amount) to defeating Proposition 8 may be cited as the opinion of MormonsFor8.com, but its figures should not be cited as fact without independent verification. This could be easily verified by a bit of skulduggery, but that would constitute independent research. (For what it's worth, its own records don't inspire much confidence: For instance, the site's spreadsheet identifies the California chapter of the National Organization for Marriage as a donor. Some businesses, too, such as the Golderado Animal Hospital and the Wright Center for Orthodontics are also listed and flagged as having been verified "Mormon." In the former case, it a nondenominational organization, and in the latter two cases, it seems questionable that corporations such as animal hospitals and dental practices can, in themselves, be considered members of a religion.) Rangergordon (talk) 08:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

For starters, these are estimates. Any problem with the estimates must be properly or are otherwise considered OR. The 77 percent figure comes from figures released by Californians Against Hate, while the 40 percent figure according to Frank Schubert, campaign manager for ProtectMarriage.com, the primary backer of the "yes" campaign. --Shamir1 (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

DOMA

I added these two paragraphs, but someone removed them:

In 1998, the US Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, and Pres. Bill Clinton signed it. The federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages, and does not require states to recognize same-sex marriages.

The amendment has no effect on federal law, so the federal government will not recognize same-sex marriages regardless of whether the amendment passes or not.

I think that DOMA is quite relevant to the history of marriage in California. Roger (talk) 05:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It defocuses the article. The federal issue is not so clear, your wording has a POV. Do we want to get into what states and countries recognize California marriages, standing to challenge DOMA in federal court, the IRS and California community property laws, or any of the other 1000 laws DOMA only extends to opposite-sex marriages? Or do we leave that to other wiki pages? In any case, the year is wrong. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

By your own wording, Roger, and as is obviously true, the Federal DOMA has no effect whatsoever on California law, nor would the California amendment affect Federal law one way or the other. So why, specifically, should the act of pointing that irrelevancy out be included in this article? Why would a Federal law that's irrelevant here be "relevant to the history of marriage in California?" What is the "history of marriage in California," anyway? Mike Doughney (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right, the year should be 1996. But DOMA has everything to do with California marriages. If a couple gets married in California, then the couple gets various rights and responsibilities, such as filing joint tax returns. But if the feds do not recognize the marriage, then the couple can file a joint California tax return but not a joint federal tax return. This seems like a relevant issue to me. I hear same-sex couples complaining about it. My edit has no POV; I am just pointing out a simple fact. Roger (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked, Roger, the things that you hear other people saying do not constitute a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. (Though I'm sure that for some people that would make for interesting citations.) That Federal and State policies differ in many matters, particularly tax law, is again, kind of like reporting that the sky is blue. Without some other rationale for inclusion, it's irrelevant with respect to Proposition 8, which is why I expressed my objection to your edit as a series of questions, to elicit from you what that rationale might be, since I am unaware of such a reason.

As for why some might consider your edit POV, I see it this way. If we presuppose (by whatever name) the existence of a community of politically-involved people with a particular point of view who regularly put forward such initiatives and legislation as DOMA and Proposition 8, then inserting a reference to DOMA here, without some valid, neutral reason for doing so, merely points out the past successful efforts of that community to pass such measures and to gain status and influence by doing so. Mike Doughney (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Asians also in opposition

This article is locked, but can a registered AND responsible, unbiased editor please add that the majority of Asian and Pacific Islander Americans in California are opposed to Proposition 8, in stark contrast to what it says about Asians being for it in the Proponents section. Here is the link to the news source: http://www.asianweek.com/2008/10/18/survey-indicates-asian-american-opposition-to-gay-marriage-ban/— Preceding unsigned comment added by

This poll is extensively covered in the 'opinion polls' section. [10] - Mike Doughney (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

wow that is very surprising since Asians as a whole were known to have self conservative values. They have been known for the longest time that they value marriage and family. Also, that article could be biased. Also it clumps together ALL asians which isn't right. This is a whole race we are generalizing at. That is not right! I'm asian and I support prop 8. Still do but I'm having second thoughts though. Do morals of the US are shaky right now. Punkymonkey987 (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps they also value gay marriages, an expanded definition of family, and a definition of morality that does not touch on sex between consenting adults. Point taken that when we get into matters of race things get complicated. There is another section, greatly trimmed now, that reported on a small Asian-American rally for the proposition. I think it's important to have balance. But beyond that race-based polling is inherently divisive and including it at all can introduce the non-neutral POV that race is important to bring up in deciding policy issues about marriage. Wikidemon (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Additional notable figure opposed to Proposition 8 as of 10/23

Could someone also add these names to the list of those opposed to Proposition 8? -Itzhak Perlman (Musician) has made an ad opposed to Proposition 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1diMYn2pfU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.50.223 (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A reliable source other than Youtube is needed. This ad was apparently just released yesterday, perhaps news coverage will follow. Mike Doughney (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple in Hacienda Heights has confirmed that it has not taken a stance on Prop 8. Fliers were placed at the temple by others and were removed by Temple personnel. [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vwyang (talk • contribs) 23:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Both the original report and this reversal are sole-sourced to a closed message board, not a reliable source, so I've removed all mention of the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple for now - until and unless there is some reliable reporting on this matter. Mike Doughney (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

California State Superintendent of Schools in ad opposed to Prop 8

This is a significant response to the Yes On Prop 8 ad campaign. It is worth noting as a fact that California State Superintendent of Schools Jack O'Connell has denounced that ad campaign as lies in order to sway voters. Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIL7PUl24hE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.50.223 (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, a reliable source other than Youtube is needed. I'm looking for a clear quote from O'Connell. Here are other possible citations: [12] [13] Mike Doughney (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No on 8 has the ad featured prominently on their website and it's airing now, the press release has a transcript of O'Connell's statements. More sources will be available in tonight's news cycle. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also want to be cautious about using O'Connell's criticism of the Yes-on-8 advertising as the only basis for asserting he opposes the measure itself. I haven't seen any words from O'Connell that are directly on point as to the measure's (de)merits. (Obviously his predecessor, Delaine Easton, is a opponent FWIW.)[14]

That said, he if chose to appear in the advert against the measure, that seems like an unambiguous endorsement. I presume he did, I don't pretend to know that. Wonderbreadsf (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also be cautious about assuming his position on the Proposition without a direct statement or cite. He's not listed on the No on 8 endorsement list and doesn't state his position in the ad. The proposition has become about kids, so his comments are noteworthy, but I'm unsure what section they belong in. Perhaps some kind of section on how the arguments have been framed over the course of the campaign?EmeryvilleEric (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of blackmail?

This deserves a mention, no? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081023/ap_on_el_st_lo/gay_marriage_1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.27.190.59 (talk) 03:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's up as of 03:55 UTC. Note that the description of what the letter is, in the section title, is contained in a quote. I would take great care in characterizing the letter as one thing or another - since I will guess that this letter may well be the subject of lengthy litigation to determine what was or what was not intended. See this comment [15] for one possible interpretation. Mike Doughney (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The cites for this section list Mark Jansson as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as do other cited articles on this page from August. If his church had minimal involvement in the Prop 8 campaign, I'd agree that his choice of religion is not relevant, but given the involvement of the LDS church's members in Prop 8, his religious affiliation is relevant and has already been published by reliable sources. Just as Edward Dolejsi's religious affiliation is relevant. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added Jansson's LDS affiliation. It is relevant - whether or not Jansson has a relationship with the church other than mere membership - given the extraordinary LDS involvement with this campaign. One of many possible examples: "The LDS First Presidency announced its support for Proposition 8 in a letter read in every Mormon congregation.[16]" Clearly every LDS member is expected to support Prop 8. There are other mentions in reliable sources confirming Jansson's affiliation, including here in the LA Times in August. Mike Doughney (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

So why don't we put the religious affiliations of everyone else mentioned in the entire article? There is a list of signers with the title below their signature. It is irrelevant to show one person's religious affiliation which has nothing to do with the letter sent. Gambit2392 (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Watch incoming redirects

Last night an IP editor who several times edited the lede paragraph contrary to consensus deleted the redirect at California Proposition 8 (no year suffix) and replaced it with a copy of the article. [17] Editors may wish to add some of the redirects [18] (particularly that one) to their watchlist to thwart any further attempts to fork off copies of the article. Mike Doughney (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Apple, Inc notably opposed to Proposition 8, contributes.

Add this to the section on opponents next to Google, etc. Here is your reliable source: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2008/10/apple-against-t.html?cid=136241195 You can also find the official press release at: http://apple.com/hotnews —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.50.223 (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's already in the 'opponents' section - adding second cite. Perhaps you're viewing a cached copy of the page? Mike Doughney (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Rick Warren

I have no problem with amplifying Warren's rationale and comments with respect to Prop 8. I do have a problem with the use of this article to bang Warren's popularity/accomplishments/superhuman status/whatever over the head of the reader, when this is not an article about Rick Warren (where all that stuff belongs, if anywhere). The man runs California's biggest church (perhaps that very clear fact, and only that, should be added to give some hint of Warren's perch in the pecking order). Hence my edit, since reverted. Mike Doughney (talk) 04:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Levi Jeans

I just wanted to add that Levi Jeans are against Prop 8 as well as google and apple and have donated $25000 to help defeat it. Read this on Salon.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.83.191 (talk) 10:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

San Francisco-based Levi Strauss & Company gave $25,000 in September. In addition, Robert Haas, the former chairman of the family-owned company, donated $100,000 (with his wife).[19] — AssataShakur (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstanding of poll terminology

I'm removing the column from the table entitled "Win/Loss minus Margin of Error." Such a number has no relevance to anything, and betrays a misunderstanding of the basic concept of a margin of error--it applies to both results of a poll (i.e., the yes AND no votes) and is merely a probabilistic assessment of the likely result of a poll, rather than a hard outside limit. --71.226.238.102 (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Laundry list of entertainment industry donors

We addressed the issue of donor and supporter/opponents before, but the list of entertainment industry people is getting a little out of control. There are now fifteen people listed. Nothing in particular makes most of these individuals notable on this subject. What is the best way to cut this paragraph down so it is not just a laundry list? Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I've said previously that the tedious lists of supporters/opponents are pointless in general; on the supporter side we've got professional football players and (yeesh) skateboarders, and none of these people's opinion on this issue is notable as far as I'm concerned. Proposal: references to all non-politician individuals' support/opposition should be removed from the article. (Why leave in politicians? Because they are elected based in part on their positions on such matters.) --EqualRights (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think if they're notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about them - and only then - they should be mentioned, with citations, in one long series, with no details other than, perhaps, they were included in advertising or they donated. What's in the article now is similar to what I had in mind, with the removal of one redlinked name. Mike Doughney (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with EqualRights. Politicians should stay, celebrities should go. Just because a person has a WP article doesn't mean everything they say and do is notable. They are not anymore notable in the field of politics than anyone else. I think we should remove all athletes and entertainment industry people. Alanraywiki (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Mike, can you help us understand why you think a notable person's opinion or contribution on this matter is itself automatically notable? I understand it when the subject is of particular concern to them (e.g. Angelina Jolie & refugees), but to my knowledge few if any of these people have demonstrated sustained, long-term interest in the subject. --EqualRights (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is getting long. I believe there are thirty people listed now. I agree with the proposed solution above: to eliminate all individuals other than politicians. Gambit2392 (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Would it be more informative to group and list why people endorsed yes or no rather than list who? As for politicians, how about limiting naming politicians to the speaker and those that ran for statewide office in California, for the rest we could go with head counts. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 05:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(after e.c.) Agreed, we should cut out all the individuals from both sides - there may be some in the future, but one would have to argue why their opinion is relevant. The Asian-American rally (120 people) is not of any significant importance and should be removed too. I'm of mixed mind whether high school districts or teachers' groups are relevant. Are these the only ones? If not, it's arbitrary to pick and choose and we don't have enough room to list them all. Politicians are important, but it is hard to decide which ones. Wikidemon (talk) 05:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears that most agree we should remove athletes and entertainment industry individuals. I think there should be a sourced sentence about the entertainment industry in general opposing the initiative, so I will add that. I have not been able to find a good reference supporting the entertainment industry's position, but there must be one out there so I will add a fact tag to my sentence. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that ref, EqualRights. That is just the kind of broad citation I thought would be appropriate for the article. Alanraywiki (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

History of Interracial Marriage

Rainwater21 (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Under the "history" section of this article, it is noted that "[California] was the only state supreme court to do so before the United States Supreme Court invalidated all those laws in 1967."

While this is technically true, two other state (albeit lower) courts ruled that laws prohibiting interracial marriage were unconstitutional. Neither decision was successfully appealed, and both had the effect of ending anti-miscegenation laws in their respective states.

On December 10, 1958, District Court Judge Taylor Winers held that Nevada's anti-miscegenation law unconstitutional. http://americanhistory.si.edu/onthemove/exhibition/exhibition_5_3.html

On December 23, 1959, Superior Court Judge Herbert F. Krucker held Arizona's anti-miscegenation law unconstitutional. http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/books/237605

Protectmarriage.com letter to Equality California donors

This section should be retitled and expanded in order to be more balanced. Organizations on both sides of the issue have applied political pressure to business donors. In fact opponents of Proposition 8 have done so earlier on (see http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121979337416974603.html).

Further, citation 40 incorrectly lists its source as ProtectMarriage.com. The link is to www.noonprop8.com, and the citation clearly should be changed to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueser 2008 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that opponents of the proposition have already created a "Dishonor Roll" (see http://www.californiansagainsthate.com/dishonorRoll.html). Gambit2392 (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The letter got a lot of attention so its notability is sourceable. However, the section is too long and detailed, and I don't think quoting the text of the letter is helpful. It should be a single sentence, two tops. The shame campaign can be included if it's got sources showing it has comparable weight, but it would not be neutral merely as a "tit-for-tat" attempt to balance things out. Wikidemon (talk) 05:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The WSJ article directly references the "Dishonor Roll". The "Dishonor Roll" itself claims that boycott efforts with respect to Manchester Financial Group have been highly successful. Further, the "Dishonor Roll" states that Bolthouse Farms "recently took significant steps to demonstrate that it is committed to diversity, including those in the LGBT community." As both of these businesses are directly mentioned in the WSJ article, this shows that the shame campaign does in fact have considerable weight. There is no evidence that the ProtectMarriage.com letter has had any direct impact upon the businesses to which it was addressed. This clearly suggests that omitting mention of political pressure on the part of opponents of Proposition 8 is not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.237.76 (talk) 03:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Publishing a "dishonor roll" simply pointing out who's donating to whom is quite a bit different from the executive committee of an organization floating such a ballot issue, including the director of the state's Catholic Conference, sending a letter demanding money and implying consequences (of any kind) if the targets don't comply. Do not conflate the two. Mike Doughney (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It's one thing to publish a list of donors, the Secretary of State does that. One might be able to go so far as to say, "if you don't give us money too, we will tell people that you oppose Proposition 8." It is quite another to say, "if you don't give us money, we will tell people that you oppose traditional marriage." One can support marriage and oppose Prop 8, it's that extra inference and the demand for money to keep from making it publicly that crosses the line. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

A public information resource such as Wikipedia should present facts and let readers draw conclusions. Subjective line-drawing and then declaring that something crosses that line is *not* neutral. The "dishonor roll" is not merely pointing out who's donating to whom, it is also reporting the results of political pressure leveled at those listed. Even the name of this list ("dishonor roll") implies more than simply pointing out who's donating to whom. Both ProtectMarriage.com and Californians Against Hate are officially registered with the state of California for the sole purpose of supporting or opposing Proposition 8. There is no conflation here, and focusing on only one side of this facet of the election is *not* neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.237.76 (talk • contribs) 02:58, November 3, 2008

The sourcing of the letter in citation 40 is correct - executive committee members of ProtectMarriage.com were the authors of the letter. A copy of the letter provided by one of its targets was placed on noonprop8.com; the original sourcing of the letter is not disputed (ProtectMarriage.com organization admitting sending that letter) but I don't expect them to release a copy themselves. Mike Doughney (talk) 03:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You are correct in that the source of the letter is not disputed. In fact, the authorship is already established by listing the letter signatories. However, if a website is listed it is more appropriate to explicitly state the download location of the document ("www.noonprop8.com") as well as the date of last download. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.237.76 (talk) 04:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide an example of what you are proposing and how that's different from the current method of citation. Mike Doughney (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Virtually any citation guide will give you multiple examples. Try, for example the APA and MLA guides posted at the OSU library system (http://liblearn.osu.edu/tutor/les7/pg3.html). The letter was not retrieved from ProtectMarriage.com, but from noonprop8.com and the citation should make this clear. This is really quite straightforward. Wikipedia is free to choose whatever citation style it wishes to, but whatever the choice, citations should be consistent with well-established guidelines.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.237.76 (talk • contribs) 02:58, November 3, 2008

Photos of house signs

ResolvedPictures of houses with campaign signs replaced with the official campaign sign/logo. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 04:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any illustrative value to including pictures of random houses with pro/anti signs, and the pro one conflates this subject with abortion... Should they be deleted? --EqualRights (talk) 11:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, keep: Keep the images, multimedia is very important to wikipedia, it has plenty of illustrative value. The signs are the official signs of the corresponding campaigns. The signs clearly depicts the political signs used by people who "support" and "oppose" the proposition, hence the placement in their sections. And "conflates this subject with abortion"?, what are you trying to imply? --Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect to Cooljuno who posted the pictures, I also do not see how the pictures add to the understanding of the article's subject. In addition, having a picture with multiple propositions may imply that supporting one means supporting the other. I think they should be deleted. Alanraywiki (talk) 20:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That's like saying i don't see how adding the golden arch logo to the Mcdonald's article has anything to do with the "understanding of the article's subject". They are the offical campaign signs of the "support" and "oppose" campaigns, they aren't just some home made dillidads someone threw up in their yards and windows. If you look at other campaign article pages they will have official campaign posters, yard signs, etc. For example Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 showing a picture and saying "campaign poster", it even has a whole section about the media campaign. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If the goal is to show the groups' logos, the current pictures do a poor job. They're currently a small fraction of the image area but should instead show the logos or signs exclusively (like the referenced poster.) --EqualRights (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with user EqualRights on all counts: pictures of random yard signs don't add value to the article, the pictures currently used are poor examples anyway, and it's absolutely unacceptable to show yards with signs for multiple different campaigns which have nothing to do with Prop 8. The pictures should be removed immediately. tej (talk) 05:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The pictures obviously do have value to the, they are the official campaign signs of the corresponding articles. And it is not "unacceptable to show yards with signs for multiple different campaigns", i would love for you to reference me to official wikipedia policy that supports your claim. I assume you have some sort of underlying agenda which is not welcome on wikipedia. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 05:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The graphic design of the campaigns' respective logos is not valuable information (unless you can give some compelling and logical reason why). Would you expect to find that information in an encyclopedia? If you are the one adding the disputed content then the burden is on you to explain in what way pictures of signs add relevant and important information to the article. If you can find some *notable* statistics or news stories about lawn signs or the role of graphic design in the Prop 8 campaigns to include in the text of the article, and you manage to find some decent pictures (i.e., pictures in which the signs are clearly visible and occupy more of the frame than a random house), then you could make a case. As for showing a lawn that has signs advocating other campaigns that are completely unrelated to Proposition 8, these are misleading images: they imply that the campaigns/beliefs are linked, that for example people who oppose abortion should support Proposition 8 as well. Misleading images have no place in a neutral, encyclopedic article. Frankly, I'm surprised there's any contention about this. tej (talk) 10:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

To elaborate: if you have sufficient material to write a media section similar to what appears in the Obama article, then clear and legible pictures of the individual signs (not including signs for any unrelated campaign) could be appropriate. There's been a fair amount of press about people stealing signs on both sides--this might be worthy of inclusion in the article and would merit small pictures of the respective signs. tej (talk) 10:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There is enough material for a media section and why not include images of the signs. Prop 8 had issues with 1,000,000 signs outsourced overseas, two fights - one even caught on video and involving a county organizer, numerous sign thefts and arrests, and even a SUV with "haters live here" painted on the side and parked in front of someone's house. None of the other propositions have had anywhere near this level of controversy, making the controversy around Prop 8 noteworthy and worth documenting. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that i see signs that were there one day and gone the next, bot yes and no signs. There has been a big thing of going around at and snatching signs from both sides of the issue.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 01:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I have included references to the pictures to enforce that these are the official campaign signs.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the opponent image with their logo; I'll take care of the supporter image tonight if someone else doesn't beat me to it. --EqualRights (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Although I am still not convinced of the value to the article, at least the pictures will be keeping more with an encyclopedia. This article will be the only California proposition article with pictures of signs. Alanraywiki (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok everything looks good on the article with the "Yes on 8" campaign sign and the "Vote No on Prop 8" logo. There is an issue with the Yes on 8 one though, who ever uploaded it did not take the step necessary to deem it as free use like EqualRights did with the no on prop 8 logo. This will need to be fixed or the image will be deleted by wikipedia.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Alright, everything is corrected and finished. I resized the "Yes on 8" sign because it was tagged for being too large for a fare-use image, i sized it down so it was the exact width of the "Vote No on Prop 8" logo.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 04:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

One more reason to have a section on signs, now they are being used to beat people - [Hate crime charge in Prop. 8 sign attack] EmeryvilleEric (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act

In the History/background section there is a citation from the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act. It disrupts the chronological flow of the history and was confusing to me. That citation would make more sense if it were with the description of the act, not mixed in with earlier legislation. Carbaholic (talk) 03:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Date added to clarify the timeline. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama Surge Confounds Gay Marriage

"Obama Surge Confounds Gay Marriage: Minority Voters, Often Social Conservatives, Could Support Calif. Gay Marriage Ban" I know this forum is locked but I thought this article brings an interesting perspective to Proposition 8 and the upcoming elections. I'm an editor at ABCNews.com and our writer Susan Donaldson James just wrote a piece about the minority vote in California and how it weighs into state's support to keep gay marriage. The article also describes that how this value vote is a high priority beyond picking the new president.

Also, can we provide this article as a possible reference link for this topic?

ABCNews EH (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is a commercial misuse of Wikipedia which should not have been restored to this talk page. "Anyone can edit" is not a defense of misuse or abuse. There is an open discussion of this matter at Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention#User-reported. Also see my contribution to that thread. Mike Doughney (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is your opinion, and while you are entitled to it, this is a Talk Page, not the article itself. She's asking if the link is inappropriate. This is appropriate for discussion. Bastique ^demandez 19:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

History

Why the need to remove most of the History section? Most of the information came from the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act and the In re Marriage case and was cited. The removal overly sanitizes the marriage issue in California. Also are all the headings necessary, some sections only have a sentence at most. What was wrong with the old layout? EmeryvilleEric (talk) 04:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The Background section should be reverted back to the consensus. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 05:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The section has been rearranged. The only text that is currently removed from the consensus version is the 1948 section involving Perez v. Sharp. (diff) I was initially skeptical about the new set of subheadings, but it does seem to clarify the timeline and in particular the bit of timeline fork at the end.

The 1948 section should go back in, in particular, because of the following. There is a citation of Perez v. Sharp in In re Marriage Cases which reads as follows:

Several respondents rely on cases striking antimiscegenation laws as support for their positions. Just as today's marriage laws prohibit men and women equally from entering into same-sex marriages, respondents argue, antimiscegenation laws from the past century prohibited persons of all races equally from marrying outside their race. In the interracial marriage context, the United State Supreme Court “reject[ed] the notion that the mere ‘equal application’ of a statute containing racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment's proscription of all invidious racial discriminations … .” (Loving v. Virginia, supra, 388 U.S. at p. 8.) Several years earlier, the California Supreme Court rejected the same argument, stating: “The decisive question, however, is not whether different races, each considered as a group, are equally treated. The right to marry is the right of individuals, not of racial groups. The equal protection clause of the United States Constitution does not refer to rights of the Negro race, the Caucasian race, or any other race, but to the rights of individuals. [Citations.]” (Perez v. Sharp, supra, 32 Cal.2d at p. 716; see also Connerly v. State Personnel Bd., supra, 92 Cal.App.4th at p. 35 [noting rights guaranteed by the equal protection clause are personal rights belonging to the individual].) 21 [20]

The full paragraph of Perez v. Sharp the above cite is from, some part of which should probably be excerpted in this section is as follows:

It has been said that a statute such as section 60 does not discriminate against any racial group, since it applies alike to all persons whether Caucasian, Negro, or members of any other race. (In re Estate of Paquet, 101 Ore. 393, 399 [200 P. 911].) The decisive question, however, is not whether different races, each considered as a group, are equally treated. The right to marry is the right of individuals, not of racial groups. The equal protection clause of the United States Constitution does not refer to rights of the Negro race, the Caucasian race, or any other race, but to the rights of individuals.[21]

Mike Doughney (talk) 06:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten the part about Perez v. Sharp in light of the above citations. Diff of previous/consensus version versus current; the significant changes are the consolidation of paragraphs specific to Prop 8 and the rewrite of the Perez v. Sharp reference, which if I didn't make clear earlier, was prompted by this inline comment. Mike Doughney (talk) 07:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who started the rearrangement, I did it to put it in cronological order as best as possible. History is usually cronological. When I rearranged it I did not remove anything, I only rearranged to make it chronological. Someone else cut a lot out and I agree that they removed too much. It has since left chronological order, and I just put it back. It's ok with me if it's not chronological, but I think it has to be either chronological or by topic, mixing the two styles is confusing at best.

The section on the 1948 supreme ruling applies to prop. 8 in that it was quoted in the 2005 ruling, so I moved it to the section on the 2005 ruling. The info that California was the first state to allow interracial marriage does not directly apply to this proposition. I also removed some information about a ballot initiative that was not the initiative that is now prop 8.

When I was writing my masters thesis, my advisor gave me some really good advice, he asked me to go through my thesis section by section, read every sentence and ask myself, does this apply to the topic at hand. if it doesn't, move it to the right place or remove it. That's what I've been doing.

I'm doing my best to be a good citizen, I'm new to this and I'm learning. I'll be better about checking the talk page before I make edits. Carbaholic (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The history was in chronological order, your pseudo groupings are more confusing and have put things out of order. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've again added Perez, it was more than a case about interracial marriage, it established marriage as a fundamental right in California. I also moved cites around and logically grouped them in the historical timeline . Specifically, the 1977 changes to the family code, it makes sense to put the legislative intent with the passage of the law, rather than including the 1977 intent in 2005. You can't have it both ways, it's not ok to group a cite in 1977, yet it is ok to move one of the fundamental marriage cases in our country sixty years later to 2008 and move events out of date order merely to fit in some arbitrary section grouping. Am I missing something? EmeryvilleEric (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is improving, but it's still swinging pretty far from edit to edit. We disagree about a few things and instead of editing back and forth why don't we talk about it and come up with a compromise. Marriage as a fundamental right - this section seems to be the main point of contention now, so why don't we talk about it first. It's fine with me if we have the sub-headings, but you don't typically have only one sub-heading in a section. Usually in that situation you remove the heading and put the body of the sub-heading into the main heding. I'll give that a try, if it doesn't work out, we can try something else. Carbaholic (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I have just taken a look at the official In re MARRIAGE CASES supreme court report and the quote in the interracial marriage section is not in that report. I have replaced it with the quote that is actually in the supreme court ruling.Carbaholic (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The section has been reverted to the original quote, which is not referenced in the judicial decision from 2008. It no longer says the quote was referenced in that judicial decision, but if it is not referenced in any legislative or judicial action relating to proposition 8, then it is not related to proposition 8. I think it would be fine to include quotes from the judicial decision in the section about the judicial decision, but the current section relates to proposition 8 by POV only. I have removed it and placed the actual cited quote in the section about the judicial ruling.Carbaholic (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The section is again in a mixture of topical organization and chronological organization, which makes it confusing. We should choose either chronological organization or topical organization.Carbaholic (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite see the difficulty Carbaholic is mentioning...the section is by and large chronologically oriented. The breaks in the chronology are such that each era gets a sort of "theme" or chapter heading--this is quite standard history practice. The only place this breaks down or gets a little fuzzy is in the most recent era, when attempts to have same-sex marriage recognized were occurring somewhat simultaneously to attempts to change the state constitution. I think it is ok when the article reflects the reality that these were occurring somewhat simultaneously. Or am I missing some bigger problem?

I also think it would be better to mention the Perez case in the chronological era in which it was decided. If Carbaholic feels very strongly about not having the subheading here, well, ok, but then the text needs to be in the 1850-1977 era anyway. I have removed the "disputed" marker, since I think we are quibbling about details here--the basic facts do not seem to be disputed at all.--Bhuck (talk) 11:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't put the "disputed" marker in because of the chronology, or because of the sub-heading. I didn't like how they were, but they didn't seem like that big of a deal. I put the "disputed" marker in because someone keeps putting a Perez v. Sharp quote in, saying that it was cited by the supreme court in 2008 when that quote was not cited by the supreme court in 2008. The way the quote was inserted was misleading. If that quote goes back in, I will put the disputed marker back. Carbaholic (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Perez established marriage as a fundamental right in California and stands on its own, its inclusion in the history is not only because of its reference in the In re Marriage case, but also because it was cited in all the court cases leading up to the Supreme Court ruling and was mentioned in the laws passed by the legislature. The original quote used was from AB43's legislative history, provides a summation of the central finding in Perez v. Sharp, and has never been attributed to the In re Marriages case (see cite). The original cite provides a much clearer explanation of Perez v. Sharp than the alternative text (which hasn't been cited correctly, don't change the quote text without updating the cite). First, you kept removing Perez v. Sharp, then you kept relabeling the section Interracial marriage, now you've imposed some arbitrary limitation that to cite Perez the cite must come from In re Marriages, why? EmeryvilleEric (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There is, of course, no fundamental problem with using this series of quotes from Perez v. Sharp. This exact piece of text (this structure of quotes from Perez) is apparently from AB 19 (2005) [22] and should probably be attributed to that should probably be explicitly attributed to AB43 and its history; it is not an arbitrary wording. There is a subtle effort here, in my opinion, of pushing a POV (common among proponents of things such as Prop 8) that there is no relevant history to current disputes other than their (proponents) particular version. Removing quotes that establish historical precedent, and headings that present those precedents, is POV pushing. This text should not be removed on the basis of a series of ever-changing arbitrary complaints, and the current version [23] should stand. Mike Doughney (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with quoting Perez v. Sharp as long as it is quoted in clear context. It is not currently quoted in clear context, in fact the context of the quote has changed from edit to to edit. You have pushed perez v. sharp and AB43 quotes into other sections (common for opponents of proposition 8). I have not removed a single one of your quotes, I have only moved them to the appropriate location in history. Perez v. sharp relates to prop. 8 because it was cited in the 2008 supreme court ruling, so it belongs in that section, when it was quoted. The quote you keep inserting into the 1977 change in legislation is out of chronological context, that quote was said in 2005, so it belongs in 2005. This issue is not resolved, I am putting the POV flag back in the section. Please do not remove it until this issue is resolved. Also, who changed the header section to add "ban on interracial marriage"? there is nothing in this section that talks about banning interracial marriage. Carbaholic (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear to me at this point to what you are referring. I don't think it's disputable that the Court held in 1948, not in 1977 or at any other time, in Perez, that marriage was a fundamental right. Seems to me that that should appear in the timeline as having happened in 1948, with perhaps one sentence that explains how that language was later cited in AB43. The timeline would then show the chronological course of events. In other words, I think the date of quote is less important than the date the quoted language was written. That seems to be the arrangement of the current version. [24] As for your most recent edit, the phrase "man and woman" doesn't appear anywhere in Perez v. Sharp. It would be incorrect to suggest that the language in that decision defines marriage as exactly that. Mike Doughney (talk) 04:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

My problem isn't with quoting perez v. Sharp it's the way in which it was quoted. Most of the time it's been there it has not referenced AB43, but the 2008 supreme court ruling. I'm fine with sub-section as it stands now and if you want to make it into a sub-section that's fine with me. Carbaholic (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there are now two issues outstanding:

• Section title - should it be "1948: Perez v. Sharp" or "1948–1977: Marriage as a fundamental right" - the second was apparently preferred.
• The additional text added to the Perez quote - While I myself am not going to dispute your edit, I'm going to preemptively point out (as I suspect some other more motivated editor might) that the text that you added expanding the Perez quote may well be largely irrelevent and/or may reflect a subtle POV in this context. In particular, the sentence "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. (Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra, at p. 541.)" is a partial enumeration of the things that marriage might be, but not that marriage must be. There is no requirement of procreation, in fact, both fertile and infertile couples regularly do not have children and/or adopt the children of others yet still are able to legally marry. Meanwhile, "There can be no prohibition of marriage except for an important social objective and by reasonable means" in tandem with the following mention of procreation may also subtly reflect and support the POV that marriage must exclusively be a means by which the state encourages reproduction and therefore must be reserved, by restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples, to those relationships provably capable of reproduction, which state law clearly does not require, as I just previously mentioned. Mike Doughney (talk) 04:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The original quotation was used in AB19, AB849, and AB43; if was good enough to pass the legislature, it's unclear how it could be viewed as a biased POV. The current quotation will work trimmed down to the central findings of the case. This minor section doesn't warrant the largest quotation on the page. The section title of Perez v. Sharp doesn't flow with the formatting of the other section titles, so I've changed it back to the original consensus title. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 06:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still have a problem with the current status. The text is ok, as far as I am concerned, but the division of the 1850-1977 period into two periods, before and after 1948, seems to me to be misleading. The "Gender-neutral langauge" characterizing the 1850-1948 period was not removed from the statute by the Perez ruling. The text for the 1948-1977 period only talks about the ruling itself and is therefore episodic, rather than characterizing that period as a whole as a distinct period. I see two alternative solutions for this problem: 1) remove the sub-heading for Perez, while leaving the text in as a description of something that happened during the 1850-1977 era, or 2) change the sub-heading to a sub-sub-heading and have it refer only to the year of the ruling, while making the end of the 1850-1977 period noted in the previous sub-heading, instead of 1948. Since I have already tried solution 2, and Carbaholic objected that sub-headings only make sense when one has more than one sub-heading, I will now try solution 1 again, but I would be happy with either, or maybe someone has an additional suggestion that also addresses my concerns...--Bhuck (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

EmeryvilleEric said: "The original quotation was used in AB19, AB849, and AB43;" I have not seen this quote you speak of, nor is it referenced in the article. I know for a fact that the quote as it is in there now is not in the Supreme court ruling of 2008. The "original" quote is a cut version of the Perez v. Sharp ruling that is design to push the POV that marriage is a fundamental right for everyone without social context. If you would like to use a quote from some legislation, then the quote should be in the section about that legislation. If you want to use a quote from Perez v. Sharp, then it is biased for you to hand-pick the words that best suit your POV. The purose of my change to the quote was to put it into its original social context. I think it is acceptable to put actual quotes from actual legislation in their correct locations in the history, or to work together to come up with an acceptable quote from Perez. v. Sharp. I don't like Perez. v. Sharp as a sub-sub-heading but I have not changed it back recently and am willing to compromise there.Carbaholic (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Impact of Prop 8 passage

The Los Angeles Times has a good story on the impact of Prop 8 passing on same-sex marriages. Should we add some of the legal analysis to the article? EmeryvilleEric (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a third bullet point under "Legal challenges" which could be retitled "Legal challenges and issues" or somesuch. Interesting that advisors to the proponents believe chaos would result upon passage. Mike Doughney (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Legal challenge duplication

The next to last paragraph of the "Ballot summary language" section should probably be merged into the second bullet point under "Legal challenges." Both refer to the challenge denied on August 8, referring to different aspects of the case just a few paragraphs apart in the article. Mike Doughney (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Constitutionality of Amendment section needed

There is a real belief by many opponnants of Prop 8 that even if it should pass that it can easily be overturned as unconstitutional just as "Prohabition" was during the depression.

Proposition 8 does not change the language of the California Constitution so simply adding wording to the constitution does not overrule the "Equal protection" under the law of Section 7. Also language in place also states that amemdments to the constitution cannot be made if wording already in place states otherwise. The california Constitution has very clear wording.......and a Supreme Court Ruling. Trying to keep a class of people from having the same things as you is pretty sick to begin with but...hey this IS America. It will take more time if Prop 8 is passed but it is clearly a flawed amendment and is wasting the time and money of the people and state of California.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of the impact of passage, were it to occur, and how that should be included in the article has started two sections above. The Los Angeles Times article has been suggested as a source; are there others that cover the issues you raise, in particular, are there sources that have raised the possibility of some kind of equal protection challenge? Mike Doughney (talk) 08:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I added some material under ==RESULTS== section

I originally opened the ==Results== section of the article which was commented out. After I attempted to save it, I discovered someone else had opened the ==Results== section to put the box in.

One of the things that I thought of when reading the article, was "What if it's approved, will there be a 'rush to the courthouse' to get in before the law changes?" This happened when the U.S. bankruptcy laws were tightened to make it harder to file bankruptcy.

I did not see anything in the article indicating when it would go into effect. So I went to look it up, and have included the following, which I believe is neutral:

The Initiative is among the other items on the ballot, including the 2008 Presidential Election. If the initiative is rejected by the voters, the result is that the status quo would remain unchanged. If the initiative is approved, there will not be any sudden "rush to the courthouse" with same-sex couples trying to marry before the law goes into effect, as initiatives become effective the day after the election unless the initiative specifies otherwise. <ref> Description of how Initiatives are proposed, including when they become applicable if approved </ref> Thus, all marriages after the initiative was approved would be subject to the law and could only be between a man and a woman (unless someone files a challenge to the initiative and it is struck down for some reason.)

If someone thinks the language isn't neutral or sounds biased I invite them to clear it up. I felt it was important because there is no indication, if approved, when it would become effective or whether it might cause people to try to 'get in' before the law changes. Also, since some people are not from the U.S. or California (where I used to live), might not know exactly what happens if the proposition is not approved. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

---

I have also included (as comments in the article so the correct one can be used) to have neutral language for either the approval or rejection of the article, being similar to the above:

Approval:

The Initiative was among the other items on the ballot, including the 2008 presidential election. If the initiative had been rejected by the voters, the result is that the status quo would have remain unchanged. Once the initiative was approved, there was no possibility of any sudden "rush to the courthouse" with same-sex couples trying to marry before the law went into effect, as initiatives become effective the day after the election unless the initiative specifies otherwise.<ref>Description of how Initiatives are proposed, including when they become applicable if approved</ref> Thus, all marriages after the initiative was approved are subject to the law and may only be between a man and a woman (unless someone files a challenge to the initiative and it is struck down for some reason.)

Rejection:

The Initiative was among the other items on the ballot, including the 2008 presidential election. Since the initiative was rejected by the voters, the result is that the status quo remained unchanged. If the initiative had been approved, there could not have been any sudden "rush to the courthouse" with same-sex couples trying to marry before the law goes into effect, as initiatives become effective the day after the election unless the initiative specifies otherwise.<ref>Description of how Initiatives are proposed, including when they become applicable if approved</ref> Thus, had the measure received approval, all marriages after the initiative was approved would have been subject to the law and could only be between a man and a woman (unless someone files a challenge to the initiative and it is struck down for some reason.)

Same caveats if I am wrong on the language used being other than neutral. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 05:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It seemed neutral to me. Assuming a consensus that Paul Robinson (Rfc1394)'s language was neutral and unbiased, I proposed the following writethrough, merely to clarify some language and grammatical issues, while being careful not to alter the paragraph's meaning:

Proposition 8 shares a ballot with many other proposals and elections, including the 2008 presidential election. Voter rejection of Proposition 8 would maintain the legal status quo, whereby the State of California could continue its recognition of all marriages regardless of sex; approval would result in an immediate change to California law, requiring the government to restrict marriage rights to opposite-sex couples only. Were the measure to gain voter approval, it would take effect Nov. 5, the day after Election Day. Upon voter approval, there could be no governmental recognition of any subsequent marriages between gay and lesbian couples until such time as the amendment were struck down.

I didn't understand the concern about the "rush to the courthouse"; it seemed that a statement of the effective date of the amendment (were it approved) was sufficient, particularly with the following sentence, which explicitly restates the purpose of the proposed amendment. However, if the "rush to the courthouse" issue is important, it could be re-inserted.

Of course, the two hidden contingent paragraphs should also undergo a similar writethrough. Rangergordon (talk) 07:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry folks, I revised these statements to remove firm predictions about the future — things aren't often simple in the legal world; we aren't judges or state officials, and there are reliably-sourced indications that SSM licenses will continue to be issued after the election either way... what a can of worms! —EqualRights (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am an editor at ABCNews.com. Last week I added to the chat and offered a story about the weight of minority voters today impacting the approval/rejection of Proposition 8. I thought it was a perpective that wasn't listed on the references that would be worthwhile for readers. It doesn't sway either way and is neutral and covers minority groups and different faiths relaying to the debate. California as we know is a diverse state and it would be interesting to hear how gay and lesbian couples view or find any alliances with other groups. ABCNews EH (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This page is bias and false

This page is completely bias, as it shows all the people and organisations that vote no on 8, but none who vote yes. This needs to be revised immediately.--69.110.46.236 (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Then edit it yourself. I'm not aware of any organizations that have come out in support of Prop 8. The KKK maybe? PyroGamer (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

So much for "Liberal Tolerance." What about the following?

Active Christian Media
Advocates for Faith and Freedom
Agudath Israel of California
Alliance Defense Fund, serving as Legal Counsel
American Family Association
American Veterans Christian Alliance
Americas Hope
Armineh Chelebian for State Assembly 40th AD
Association of Christian Schools International, Northern and Southern Districts of CA
Bakersfield Republican Assembly
Bethel Baptist Academy
Brethren in Christ Church Pacific Conference
California Catholic Conference of Bishops
California Catholic Women’s Forum
California Family Alliance
California Family Council
Capitol Resource Institute
Catholics at Work
Catholics for Protectmarriage.com
Catholics for the Common Good
Celebration Center, Modesto, CA
Center for Reclaiming America
CFFC-LA
Christians OnDemand
Communities of Western Washington African American Healthy Marriage Initiative
Comunidad Cristiana Internacional Campus Los Angeles
Seasoned Sisters
Bill and Pam Farrel Marriage and Family Communicators
National Organization for Marriage
FHR
Christian Citizenship Council of San Diego
Christian Educators Association International
Christian Examiner Newspaper
Concerned Women for America
Confraternidad Hispaña Bautista de California (Hispanic Southern Baptist Fellowship)
Coral Ridge Ministries
Creation Research of North America
Creation Research of the North Coast
Dobbins/Oregon House Action Committee
Duncan Hunter for 52nd Congressional District
Eagle Forum of California
Eagle Forum of Sacramento
East County Refuge Center
El Camino Christian Fellowship
ElectionForum.org
Evidence for God from Science
Faith2Action
Faith 316
Family Leader Network
Family Research Council
Father Neil W. Seidl Council # 13672
Focus on the Family
Foursquare International
G51 Group
Golden State Association of Christian Schools
Government for the People
Holistic Integrated Services Foundation (HIS), Fullerton
Home Fellowship
Iglesia de la Colina - RCA
Ignite Youth/New Wine Church
Institute for Families and Taxpayers
Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc.
Kerigma Entertainment
Knights of Columbus Council #3052
Knights of Columbus Frances Cabrini Council #8879
Knights of Columbus St. Elizabeth Council #8747, Milpitas
Knights of Columbus St. Michael's of Marin Council #10530, Novato
Knights of Columbus Council #12887, Roseville
Knights of Columbus Council #11724, Sacramento
Knights of Columbus Orange County
Knights of Columbus San Jose
Knights of Columbus St. Raphael Council #1292, San Rafael
Koinonia Sports & Fitness Assoc.
La Familia Hispana
Legacy Law Foundation
Liberty Counsel
Life After Foster Care
Los Angeles Community Builders Inc
Lydia Gutierrez for State Senate
Marriage and Parenting Students of Christ (MAPS)
Meridian Magazine
Network of Politically Active Christians
North Coast Republican Club
One Heart Foundation
Organized Business Council
Orthodox Union
Pacific Justice Institute
Pastors Rapid Response Team (Pastors in Coalition with ProtectMarriage.com)
Preserve Liberty
Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund
Public Awareness Ministries
Rancho Bernardo Baptist Church
Rancho Del Rey Church
RelayFast08
Republican Party of Riverside County
Revive Indonesia
Sacramento District Church of the Nazarene
SanDiegoAnglicans.com
Sonoma County Republican Party
Southbay Crossing
St. Mary's Charismatic Prayer Group
The Center for Teaching the Constitution
The Holy Name Society
The Knights of Columbus, Council 1346, San Mateo, CA
The River Worship Center
The Rock of Roseville
The Western Center for Law & Policy
Traditional Family Coalition
Traditional Values Coalition
Trinity Life Solutions
NorthBay Neonatology Associates, Inc.
Families First Counseling Services
Ebmeyer Charter & Tour
Superior Organizing Services
Ventura County Christian Leadership Council
Come Let Us Reason
Environmental Geology Services
54th AD Republican Central Committee
United Families California
Values Advocacy Council
VOCAL Californians for the Preservation of Family & Marriage
Wycliffe Bible Translators, Temecula

Do you have a reason why those names should appear in the article? The consensus is that this article is not going to be turned into a laundry list of proponents and opponents. A page listing 65,000+ names is of little encyclopedic value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmeryvilleEric (talk • contribs) 01:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This issue has now been addressed. There is are "proponents" and "opponents" sections now. I would appreciate it if you did not invade my personal user talk page to accuse me of racism, and instead kept the discussion on this discussion page. I was just making a suggestion of an organization that would meet WIkipedia:Notability. Most of the groups you named in that long list of nothing are just organizations that oppose Gay Marriage in general. Just because they call themselves something doesn't mean we should flood an encyclopedia with lists of completely non-notable organizations that have popped up merely to oppose gay marriage. "United Families California" or the "Catholics for Protectmarriage.com" are hardly as notable as "Google". PyroGamer (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

---

I agree with several points. Whether we agree or disagree with the sentiments of this act (I personally disagree with it) our responsibility - if this is to be an encyclopedia and not Jimbo's Bag O'Trivia as some have maligned it - is to be neutral and to not show bias; this includes giving examples of the organizations that support the measure as long as we include those who oppose it. If it is reasonable to include examples of either side in the article - and I think it is - then it is both fair and mandatory to include examples of the opposite point of view to that side.

There are a number of religious arguments which may be used to support this measure, and therefore it is reasonable and proper for churches to come out (oh, that's a terrible pun!) in favor of it. Conversely, a number of groups could have reasons, including those who are simply of the opinion that restricting who may marry simply on the grounds that they don't like the type of people getting married it is not something that other people should have the right to do.

It's one thing to prohibit, say, a brother and sister to get married, we have incest issues there. But typically if two people who are not related to each other meet and wish to have this option, they have the privilege as long as they are of the opposite sex. But the problem has become that there are certain special privileges which are only available to couples which are married.

If you win, say, $10 million in the state lottery, and you want to give me 1/2, if I'm either your husband or wife, there's no problem and that's the end of it. But if I'm anyone else, you are also going to owe a gift tax of at least 1/2 a million dollars 4 million dollars, plus probably a state gift tax as well. And I do not believe that the 'Domestic Partnership' compromise changes this; I haven't looked it up and if it does that's a different matter.

But this is one example of what are probably many reasons - I think someone gave an estimate of something like 300 different benefits that are available to a married couple that are denied to a relationship of two adults who do not have that status - that those adults that are in a stable relationship with someone else want the legal right for their relationship, that, except for the fact one of them is not a different gender, would be treated exactly the same as anyone else where the two people were adults who are not of the same sex.

There are a number of organizations who are of the opinion that marriage is a sacred institution, created by God and intended to solemnize a special relationship between a man and a woman, and it should not be cheapened and degraded by using it for other purposes.

The problem we have is that marriage, as a solemn religious ceremony, has been merged with a government contract, which is which is what you get at the courthouse, and thus we have a mess for that very reason when you mix two things which are - for all intents and purposes - two different things and call both of them the same thing.

Religious marriage is a ceremonial rite; civil marriage is a formal contract. This causes all sorts of problems on this issue because the religious groups feel that granting the latter is going to eventually force them to accept it being granted to the former.

And the results of this ballot measure - no matter which way it goes - will neither settle the issue nor be the final word on the subject. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 05:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Pyrogamer - I posted the list above. As to your accusation of posting something on your talk page, you are mixing me up with someone else. I have never been, nor do I care about, your talk page. Beyond that, I simply listed the organizations above to refute your nonsensical implication that only the "KKK" would support prop 8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.196.168 (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside silly references to the Klan, Proposition 8 is supported by the Roman Catholic Church and the Mormon Church. Organizations at that level of social relevance should be noted in the article. If Proposition 8 has any opponents at that level of prominence, they too deserve inclusion. I'm pretty sure they don't, but we could charitably include the Episcopalian Church, as they are formally opposed to the proposed amendment (I'm pretty sure the Unitarians are too). A laundry list of every religious or political organization that supports or opposes the proposition is clearly not desirable, but major, historically notable organizations that have made their positions known deserve a reference (albeit with citation). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 11:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what is being referred to in this section. The article has long contained "Proponents" and "Opponents" sections. Inclusion of these sections should be limited to prominent national and state organizations, corporations and otherwise notable individuals. Inclusion without limitation would lead to an endless article, as was starting to happen when every organization on one side or other listed on printed material was added. I trimmed these sections at that time based on this criteria. Mike Doughney (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This section popped up because of an accident. A person made an error in editing that dropped off all the proponents and some of the opponents for a short time. During this short time period an anonymous editor, who apparently was new to the article, claimed the article was biased because it showed no proponents. The original editor fixed the edit and everything went back to normal. In the meantime, this talk page section just took off with examples of the KKK, laundry lists of proponents, soapbox edits, etc. by editors that are new to the article. I think the Proponents and opponents section is back to a balanced version and this talk page section can be closed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanraywiki (talk • contribs) 20:33, November 1, 2008 (UTC)

I somehow missed that while reviewing the history - thanks. Mike Doughney (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)