Talk:National Organization for Marriage/Archive 1

Marriage equality or same-sex marriage?

We seem to have a low-grade edit war going on over this terminology. I would propose that we use same-sex marriage. It's the name of the wiki page that deals with the topic, and it's WP:NPOV. "Marriage equality" is a political term that implicitly favors one political position. Even though that's my political position, I think we should strive for neutrality in the encyclopedia. Agathman (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Not only is marriage equality POVish, as you said, but I think it's a bit ambiguous compared to same-sex marriage. FlyingToaster 22:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the term "same sex marriage" is more POVish than "marriage equality." Using the term same sex marriage implies that it is somehow different than heterosexual marriage. We don't say "opposite sex marriage" do we? GLBTQs are seeking equality in marriage, not "same sex marriage." "Marriage equality for same sex couples" is a more accurate description and should be used here. TH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.64.219.3 (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is meant to imply that it is somehow different than heterosexual marriage - namely, the part where it's same-sex. :P FlyingToaster 19:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Given that there's an article titled same-sex marriage (and that term is used widely elsewhere in Wikipedia), you should probably start there to obtain consensus to change it... —EqualRights (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Really?

I thought the story of "2M4M" as a slogan was part of a parody video on the internet, used to suggest a worse unintentional double-entendre than "Teabagging." Can anyone clarify? Ai1238 (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No, they're serious. See the ref cited on the page -- [1] from the NOM official site. Agathman (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

2M4M

How established is 2M4M in homosexual parlance? The only mention of it I have seen is in this article. - Schrandit (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

All one needs to do is take a look at personal ads. I recall seeing this term as far back as at least a decade ago in the personal ad sections of printed weekly newspapers, along with other short forms such as M4F, F4F, MF4F etc.. Of course now, it is much easier to find online. And as Rachel Maddow suggests in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1MGtULY73Y you could try craigslist or ManHunt to find a 'few' more examples. LittleMatchGirl (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

(outdent) How about a category along the lines of "opponents of same-sex marriage"? - Schrandit (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If they're not anti-gay, then what are they? Exploding Boy (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The two are not inherently inclusive and why be broad when we can be specific? They are opposed to same-sex marriage. - Schrandit (talk) 06:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

An argument often made by groups such as these. It's utter nonsense of course: opposition to same-sex marriage is anti-gay. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Says you. I could argue (but not prove) that the Brady Campaign is anti-gun but that would not be encyclopedic and so we label them as a "Gun control advocacy group". The same should go for here. - Schrandit (talk) 06:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

So they're a "marriage-control advocacy group"? I couldn't resist.

But how can it be otherwise? People who are anti-gay want to restrict gay people from living freely and openly and from enjoying the same privileges and rights as other people. Marriage is one of those rights. Nobody who is pro-gay is anti-same-sex marriage.

And by the way, NOM's ads make it abundantly clear it's not only marriage they're talking about. Just take a look at "A Gathering Storm" (or whatever they called that hilarious bit of nonsense they came out with a few weeks ago): "I’m a California doctor who must choose between my faith and my job," etc. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"[the NOM] want to restrict gay people from living freely", "Marriage is one of those rights" - those sir, are opinions. Very possibly valid ones, but opinions, not facts.

I don't disagree that NOM encompassed more than marriage but I do not believe (nor can you prove) that the video they put out makes them "anti-gay"

Gert Wilders could be labeled "anti-muslim" but instead his it in the category "Criticism of Islam", Ward Connerly could be labeled "anti-black" but instead he is in the category "History of affirmative action in the United States", the Bardy Campaign could be labeled "anti-gun" but instead it is in is in the category "Gun control advocacy groups", Francis Beckwith could be called "anti-Mormon" but instead he is in the category "Criticism of Mormonism", and the list goes on. The category Homophobia alone is abused in this way, it is ripe for NPOV violations, unnecessarily political and unencyclopedic. - Schrandit (talk) 06:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Marriage is a right. NOM doesn't want gay people to have that right. Those aren't just my opinions.

And by the way, we have at least one similar category: "Racism." The American Family Association (for example) is in its sub-category "Antisemitism," not in the separate category "Criticism of Judaism." A similar principle applies here. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It is your opinion that homosexual marriage is a right, you cannot claim it as fact.

Everyone in the category racism is either dead (and respectable, third-party sources listing them as racists) or self-identifies as a racist. It is inaccurate to categorically state that the NOM is homophobic. A different, more specific category would be more truthful and more encyclopedic. - Schrandit (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it's "same-sex marriage", not "homosexual marriage". Second, I said that marriage is a right and NOM doesn't want that right extended to gay people. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. However, there are reasons other than fear or bigotry to hold such a position. - Schrandit (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's pretend for a moment that there are valid, non-bigoted reasons for opposing same-sex marriage. If NOM's activities focused on them, that would raise the possibility that they're not simply anti-gay. In fact, however, as has been independently reported, NOM's best-known media messages to date are filled with outright lies about same-sex marriage and the impact it will supposedly have on "opposite marriages." Just today I read a report that the Carrie Prejean ad contained deliberate misrepresentations. Out of curiosity, are you playing devil's advocate or do you actually think NOM isn't anti-gay? Exploding Boy (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Those are interesting opinions. The category "Homophobia" is at best vague and overly broad, at worst, political and misleading. The National Organization for Marriage opposes Same-sex marriage. Lets just say that and let the reader make their own moral judgments. - Schrandit (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:CATP might be the best place to discuss creation of new categories. Personally, I'm against it so if this is a poll, count me as oppose. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder about CATP. Opinion noted on the matter. - Schrandit (talk) 06:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Homophobia categorization

Near as I can tell the National Organization for Marriage has not displayed a irrational fear of homosexuals. Opposition does to homosexual marriage does not translate to homophobia. If there any compelling reason that this categorization should remain on this page? - Schrandit (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems you are using your own particular definition of homophobia. My dictionary says homophobia is an "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" (my emphasis). Does yours say something different? Since the group exists to try to ensure that the right to marriage is denied to gay men and women, I don't think the categorization is a stretch, especially in view of their tactics. Feel free to try and build a consensus here that they are not advocating discrimination against homosexuals, but let's work from an honest definition of the word. - Outerlimits (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I see a vast disparity in that generalization. Why doesn't President Obama's page include the aforementioned category? - Schrandit (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If he starts spending millions of dollars on disinformation campaigns to oppose marriage rights for gay men and women, I suspect it'll be added soon enough. - Outerlimits (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

He ran a billion dollar campaign with the preservation of marriage as one of his platforms. Shouldn't that count? - Schrandit (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Come now. How can you expect to be taken seriously if you pretend you really see no difference between the emphasis, vituperativeness, and honesty of the two campaigns. One was started to take away rights from gay people in a state in which they had won them; the other was to attain the presidency. - Outerlimits (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That is how you view things, not necessarily how they are. I see an organization and a man who have spent vast sums of money campaigning to preserve traditional marriage. One is labeled homophobic and one is not. - Schrandit (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're free to use your powers of persuasion in an effort to see that Obama is categorized according to your lights. - Outerlimits (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Putting aside the obvious nuances of President Obama's generally progay position and the NOM's absolute antigay position, NOM exists solely to promote antigay causes. Wilhelm Marr is categorized under "Antisemitism" because a substantial part of his public life was spent campaigning against Jewish people. Voltaire is not because he was a polymath that simply held the popular unenlightened position of the time. Campagne (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the text at Category:Homophobia says, "This category is for issues relating to homophobia, including organizations or individuals that are particularly noted for being involved in the subject of homophobia. It is not intended for groups or individuals who have made homophobic remarks and related actions but are not considered widely known for their homophobic stances." Opposition to same-sex marriage and other aspects of the gay-rights movement are the raison d'être of the NOM. The opposition to gay marriage was an incidental plank of Obama's platform, and one on which as President he has taken no action to date. The difference seems clear. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Outerlimits. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 23:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Has any reliable source described the group as homophobic? If so (and if such a cited addition can be added to the article) there might be a justification for adding the category. If not, the category would be a violation of WP:NPOV. We shouldn't make the determination based on whether we think the organization is homophobic (however we choose to define the term); we should base it on what reliable sources say. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia categories are of Wikipedia's creation and reflect the way we organize things here, not necessarily what others say. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that NOM's defenders will reject the San Francisco Chronicle ("What's most striking, what sets these ads apart from most homophobic campaigns of the past, is the palpable tone of desperation. It's a feeling that these groups are, more and more, clutching at straws, scraping bottom, leaning on the most absurd, least tenable arguments imaginable, each one more shrill and desperate than the last in a losing effort to appeal to an ever-shrinking audience of increasingly indifferent, bored homophobes") as unreliable, let's go with the New York Times: "If [the ad] advances any message, it’s mainly that homophobic activism is ever more depopulated and isolated as well as brain-dead." The Bigots' Last Hurrah. - Outerlimits (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

SFC Morford is a "satiric liberal commentary columnnist" and the NYT article is an oped. - Schrandit (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You have something against columnists and op-eds? The question was whether commentators in reliable sources used the word "homophobia" or if it was something that Wikipedians started applying on their own. The answer is yes: commentators in reliable sources have indeed used the word "homophobia" and applied it to this group's activities, and no, it's not something Wikipedians just made up. - Outerlimits (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

And how many columnists and op-eds do you think I could find that don't use the word "homophobia"? - Schrandit (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That's sort of...irrelevant. - Outerlimits (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Merely not using the term wouldn't say anything. You'd have to find a columnist or op-ed (in a similarly reliable source) explicitly saying that the group or its aims aren't homophobic. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

So if I find any op-ed from a reputable publication calling someone anti-Semitic is that grounds to categorize them as such? I could be wrong, but I don't believe op-eds are considered reliable sources for this sort of determination. - Schrandit (talk) 05:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently there was a previous argument about whether American Family Association belonged in this category or not, and the eventual consensus was that it did. If they do, then NOM does. That's good enough for me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Alas, Wikipedia:Consensus can change#Consensus can change - Schrandit (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but this one doesn't seem to be headed that way. - Outerlimits (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose the homophobia categorization, because the term is thrown around too loosely as a scare tactic.  EJNOGARB  00:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Shocker, that there. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 01:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for what its worth. - Schrandit (talk) 05:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I am the person who removed it, and I think it should stay like that. Also, my dictionary defines homophobia as unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality, which I don't think applies to this group. -Zeus-^u|c 04:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

What dictionary is that, precisely? - Outerlimits (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

dictionary.com -Zeus-^u|c 04:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, answers.com says 'Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men, or, Behavior based on such a feeling' -Zeus-^u|c 04:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

For example, the page on Freedom From Religion Foundation is not categorized as theophobia, but rather as 'Opposition to religion'. I think the same idea could be used here, eg, 'opposition to homosexuality' category instead of 'homophobia'. -Zeus-^u|c 04:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Not an actual dictionary, then. Web sites. Only one of which says what you say it says. - Outerlimits (talk) 04:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, fine, I admit that I didn't look past the first entry, I didn't even notice the others. Besides, only one of them refers to discrimination. -Zeus-^u|c 04:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

And one isn't enough for you? I would strongly encourage the use of an actual dictionary, but if the web will suffice for you, type "define:homophobia" in a google search box and be treated to (avoiding the Wiki definitions): "prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality; term is generally used for a negative and contemptuous attitude to same-sex sexual relationships ; Any attitude, action or institutional structure which systematically treats an individual or group of individuals differently because of their sexual orientation". Again, an actual dictionary, such as the Merriam-Webster I've quoted above, is more definitive than a web source. - Outerlimits (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"Antipathy towards homosexuals or homosexuality" seems to fit them quite well. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I am assuming you got that out of the text version? I can't find that online. However, I still think something like 'opposition to homosexuality' conveys the same meaning, but is not as controversial. -Zeus-^u|c 05:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No I copied it from your post above. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see. now what do you think about the alternate naming? -Zeus-^u|c 05:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't we usually defer to self-description in cases like these? - Schrandit (talk) 05:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

[undent] I think it would be construed as bowlderizing, since opposition to homosexuality and homophobia are the same thing, but I wonder whether a new category of anti-gay organizations might be called for. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that the ambiguity of various dictionary references is enough to suggest that they are not synonymous, and we should separate them. I think a category such 'Organizations opposed to homosexuality' is in order. -Zeus-^u|c 05:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's really any ambiguity: every source seems to present both the "irrational fear or hatred" and "antipathy" definitions. I also think "anti-gay organizations" is better than "organizations opposed to homosexuality." Exploding Boy (talk) 05:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I maintain that many of these organizations do not have an irrational, or in that case, even a rational 'fear' or 'hatred'. As far as antipathy, yes, but that is less prevalent in definitions. As far as the category name, I have no preference. -Zeus-^u|c 05:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

These folks are opposed to state-sanctioned homosexual marriage, not homosexuality, per say. What does it mean to be "Anti-gay"? Is the US Army anti-gay? Is the religion of Islam anti-gay? (unsigned by user:Shrandit)

Umm, yes, the US Army is anti-gay.. as is the Marines, Air Foce, Navy, Coast Guard.. we do have the Don't ask, don't tell policy and it's in effect. Try joining any of those branches after telling them you're gay. Or try coming out while already a member of any one of those branches. If it were up to me, they'd all be in the same category.. but I can only imagine the backlash on Wikipedia. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If you think you've got a case doesn't intellectual honesty bound you to pursue it? - Schrandit (talk) 06:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there used to be a link around here going to something about picking your battles. ;] - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Dictionary.com gives us what appear to be 4 very reliable sources of definitions for "homophobia." They are as follows:

1: unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.

(source: Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009).

2: Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men; Behavior based on such a feeling (source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

3: prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality (source: WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University)

4: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals (source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.)

They all seem to say pretty much the same thing. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I accept these definitions. I, and presumably NOM, would argue that they do not do NOM justice. I also fail to believe that categorizing certain groups and individuals are "anti-gay" will be possible or productive. - Schrandit (talk) 06:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Being against the extending of civil and human rights to gays hardly makes a group pro-gay does it? Exploding Boy (talk) 06:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

And now we enter the insanely fun world of "What is a Civil right". There is a very strong position that NOM (and the US government) present. It may or may not be a valid position, but in light of it I believe it would be impossible to objectively label someone like NOM as definitively "anti-gay". - Schrandit (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, all adult US citizens (outside MA, VT, ME, CT, IA) have the exact same marriage rights: each one of them can legally marry one person of the opposite sex (with certain narrow exceptions, like close relatives). That a certain class of citizens chooses not to exercise this right, and demands the additional right to "marry" someone of the same sex, is true, but it does not render the law itself unequal - the law extends the exact same right to everyone. And NOM is trying to preserve the status quo; it is in no way trying to remove existing marriage rights from anyone, merely to prevent the creation of additional rights. That said, especially given the libel issues involved, we would be wise to find neutral (non-editorial) references to the group as "homophobic", and not brand them as such on our own. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not actually true: NOM was involved in the effort to repeal California's same-sex marriage law, which did exactly that: remove existing marriage rights. And in fact, several supreme courts in the United States have ruled that the law is unequal. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It fought to remove existing additional marriage rights, yes. Now all adult Californians remain free to marry anyone they choose - of the opposite sex. And yes, courts in Iowa, Massachusetts, California and Connecticut have ruled the law unequal, but courts in 46 other states have not done so - including some, like in Maryland, explicitly ruling the opposite way. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the claim that NOM is not trying to remove existing rights from anyone is demonstrably false. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Do we draw no distinction between rights that are inherent and privileges the government grants? Clearly a majority of courts do not believe those rights are inherent and can be added and removed at will. - Schrandit (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, the Supreme Court of the United States has found that marriage is a right "fundamental to our very existence and survival", and so have lower courts. That's why the state can't arbitrarily deny that right to people based on race, national origin, etc. The only question is whether the protection of that right extends to people with minority sexual orientations. The courts of California, Connecticut, Alaska, Hawaii, New Jersey and Vermont decided it did. Campagne (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)8

And the federal government has resoundingly answered "no", marriage to a person of the same sex is not a right. The situations in California, Hawaii and New Jersey are a bit more nuanced and Alaska has constitutionally banned homosexual marriage. - Schrandit (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Information regarding stance and activities

This article is missing some very important information. Does this organization actually oppose gay rights? Where do they stand in regard to spousal type legal rights such as: Inheritance, Insurance and Death Benefits, Hospital Visitation, Power-of-Attorney, and other legal rights afforded to marriages? Are they opposed to any form of legally recognized same sex union? Are they only opposed to use of the term marriage in regards to same sex couples? I've heard a lot of things about this organization, but I can't find verifiable facts about the above points anywhere. With the recent scandal, it's been difficult to find much of use. And does defining marriage as between a man and woman as U.S. law signed by Bill Clinton necessarily mean homophobic or anti-gay if it's purely a semantic issue? For example, although most voters have upheld the definition of marriage as between man and woman, most voters support legally protected spousal rights for same sex unions. The term marriage has great cultural and spiritual significance to the majority of Americans, and for most, it's protecting something, in this case the definition of a word that is meaningful to them, and not part of an agenda of restricting the rights of a group who is different. Where does this organization stand in regards to this? The Phool (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I find it hysterical that you assert that marriage is not a right, but a semantic issue, and in the same breath exhort its 'great cultural and spiritual significance to the majority of Americans.' The exclusion of gays and lesbians from marriage itself, even if not for the myriad legal consequences that have yet to be solved with some new institution is an act of discrimination, easily seen when you substitute 'gay marriage' for 'black marriage' or 'Muslim marriage'. The NOM (and its spokesperson Carrie Prejean) have not articulated a position on civil unions because civil unions are a failure and a fantasy that is being relegated to the dustbins of history now that substantially larger percentages of the population support an end to gay and lesbian couples' exclusion from marriage. Campagne (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Careful: Miss California is not a spokesmodel for NOM, just a fellow traveller, as NOM was at pains to make clear when the news about her purchased breasts and semi-nude photos came out. Though she's undeniably an expert: she clearly knows quite a bit about "opposite" marriages, since her mother had four of them. - Outerlimits (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the great chuckle, Outerlimits. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The only problem with civil unions is that they have not been federally upheld yet. It would have the exact same rights and benefits as marriage, it would just be called something different. I stated that it's only the word "marriage" which most people want to defend. The rights granted by the legal institution of marriage would be available to all regardless of the sex of the two partners. Calling civil unions a failure would be a little premature if they haven't even been implemented yet. I specifically stated that it's the WORD "marriage" that most people want to keep, yet you failed to register that so you could hit me with the same tired arguments I've been hearing for days. And it's funny you should bring up Miss California USA, since for some of you this is really all about tearing down anyone who disagrees with your worldview, now isn't it? She simply said that she thinks marriage should be between a man and woman. She never said gays shouldn't get married, just that she wasn't raised to support that. Now obviously, NOM does oppose same sex marriage, and what I wanted to know was to what legal extent. Yes, her association with them probably adds a more homophobic slant to her comments, and makes her position seem more grounded in clear opposition to same sex marriage, and it's part of the reason I wanted more facts about the organization itself. And it seems you've already lumped me in with the opposition. For what it's worth, I don't care one way or another, gays getting married and calling it married doesn't bother me. But since I'm apparently the only person on earth capable of seeing both sides of the argument then I guess I have no choice but to make myself part of it. The thing about the defense of marriage act was that it only provided for the legal definition of a WORD. In terms of same sex spousal rights, they're actually already provided for in the equal protection clause of the constitution. Which means the problem with lack of spousal rights for same sex couples is with lack of enforcement of civil unions, not the current definition of marriage. However, I would be truly shocked if the Supreme Court didn't find in favor calling it marriage regardless of sexes. It doesn't matter what the voters or Carrie Prejean thinks. The Phool (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and 1 more thing. I completely 100% support full spousal rights, benefits, protections, including the aforementioned rights, for same sex unions. Just so you don't go throwing the usual bigot/homophobe label at me. I think, that if two people are in love, and want to spend their lives together, start a family, etc... even if they are the same gender, they should be able to. I also think that Carrie Prejean doesn't deserve the shitstorm she's had to endure. Yeah, I'm pretty sure she's not the sharpest tool in the shed, but she certainly shouldn't be getting called the names she has been or getting threats or anything else. It seems to me, that for a few people, who either happen to be homosexual or just self appointed protectors of gay rights, that she represents the personification of right-wing Christian America, and THAT is what makes her such a tempting target. Yeah, let's all trash a 21 year old aspiring model beauty queen, who's said and done a few stupid things. Yeah, that makes us so awesome, doesn't it?

One thing I find strange in particular is how one (and I don't mean NOM or Prejean) who takes a stance of full spousal rights for same sex unions, but says "just don't call it marriage" is still a bigot/intolerant/discriminating against gays, BUT someone who COMPLETELY disregards the spiritual beliefs of e.g. Christians regarding the spiritual significance of marriage between a man and woman is not bigoted/intolerant/discriminating against Christians. Isn't that a double standard? Or are Christians somehow excluded from civil rights and protection from being discriminated against? But it seems the sticking point of the issue is this: some Christians want to keep the word "marriage" and some gays -including some who don't want to get married, but just do not like Christians- want to take it from them. Not to mention the whole supporting cast of self appointed gay rights crusaders, many of whom also have some kind of beef with Christians. I don't think there can be a compromise in this situation, and I am quite certain the Supreme Court will decide marriage is an orientation neutral term. Which would render the situation entirely pointless anyway. The Phool (talk) 09:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

First, a factual correction on the law you cite: The Defense of Marriage Act did not "define a word". It prevents the government from recognizing same-sex relationships as marriage for any purpose, which means they aren't counted in the census, aren't given survivor's benefits, or federal jobs benefits even if they are legally married in their states (which have ALWAYS been the gatekeepers of marriage), and prevents states, for the first time ever, from being obliged to recognize them from other states. The Equal Protection Clause has not been used to grant same-sex couples rights in the way you claim federally.

Next, Christianity. You err in claiming Christians are a single, united group against civil marriage for gays and lesbians. Many churches (such as the Unitarian Universalist Association and the United Church of Christ) perform religious same-sex marriages for their members, and for the government to deny recognition that is a violation of THEIR spiritual rights. Christians who oppose same-sex marriage lose nothing if gays and lesbians are allowed civil marriage, as has been happening. They're not forced to perform any religious ceremony, or even to recognize them in their churches as religious marriage. What's being "taken" from them? In the United States, churches don't and should not have influence over how the government defines a civil institution such as marriage. If they did, divorce wouldn't be allowed and birth control wouldn't be a right for married couples. One last thing to remember is that many gays and lesbians and supporters for the legalization of same-sex marriage are Christians, and religious people in other ways. It's not as clear cut as one group vs. another. Campagne (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There are many who believe that we give far too much regard to people's religious beliefs in our secular societies. Exploding Boy (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That's why I used the word "some". The argument isn't split neatly along lines of sexual orientation or religion, but the way the recent incident was portrayed in the media was as a Christians vs. gay rights issue. And if the defense of marriage act actually keeps same sex unions from legal recognition then it probably will (and should be) struck down. More relevant to the actual topic, is NOM actually trying to protect the act, and to what extent? The only way the DOM act could survive the constitutionality test if it's sole effect is to keep the definition of the word "marriage" as is. If it goes farther than that, i.e. restricts spousal right in a same sex marriage, it WILL be struck down, and given that some states and even churches already do recognize same sex marriage then perhaps it should be. At any rate, same sex marriage is a complex and delicate issue. As for NOM, if they would refuse same sex marriages to gay and lesbian Christians then NOM is fatally flawed AND hypocritical. Again, I have to wonder where they stand, but I just don't see them staking out a tenable position. The Phool (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

And the statement released by NOM regarding Prejean's role may have actually been to prevent her from losing her title for breach of contract in regards to supposedly using her title to promote NOM's agenda. It's a clear cut breach if, for example, she's supporting them as Miss California USA, but not so much if she's just there as Carrie Prejean. Personally, I think she'd be a lot better off if she'd never supported them in any capacity, because it may well be what costs her the crown. Getting back to the article, it's worded as though the only reason NOM released the statement was to distance themselves from her in response to the photos, and doesn't consider that they may have actually been protecting her. Unless someone has some information regarding their actual motives, it's NNPOV. The Phool (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Religious Tolerance

Religious Tolerance Org has a bit on NOM's ad - http://www.religioustolerance.org/homnom.htm Would anyone (who has more time than I) wish to incorporate content from this to the article? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Here we have a reliable external source that demonstrates that NOM is homophobic:

• NOM supports "the right of a physician to discriminate against GLBTs in the provision of health services that she or he supplies to the general population"
• NOM supports "the right of church groups to discriminate against GLBTs in the provision of services that they provide to the general population"
• NOM supports "the right of parents to require their local public school board to restore past policies of teaching discrimination against the GLBT community"
• NOM's best-known ad "deals primarily with the religious freedom to discriminate against minorities"
• NOM's best-known ad "involve[s] the freedom of religious conservative[s] to discriminate against the LGBT community"
• Specifically, the "doctor" depicted in the ad "is motivated to discriminate against the LGBT community . . . She fears losing her job because of her desire to discriminate"

As quoted above, Dictionary.com gives us 4 reliable sources of definitions for "homophobia." They are as follows:

1: unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality (source: Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009).

2: Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men; Behavior based on such a feeling (source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

3: prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality (source: WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University)

4: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals (source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.)

Exploding Boy (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

On what world is this an unbiased source? - Schrandit (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit I'm just a little confused as to why we're actually arguing whether an organisation that produced this offensively homophobic advertisement is homophobic? Black Kite 18:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

THIS is why. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum. In 2 days no one has been able to find a source for contentious content. That is unacceptable. - Schrandit (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Schrandit seems a little confused about homophobic. Multiple people have attempted to explain that discrimination against gays is, by definition, homophobic. Sources have been provided. (btw, Homophobia of All Hues is another one). Its not so much an "argument" as it is a tendentious perseverance with intent to whitewash, although I don't see why or what its supposed to accomplish. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't help but notice that NOM isn't mentioned once in that article. We all come here with our points of view, that is why this encyclopedia has guidelines. You think this organization is categorically homophobic, I think it isn't. This is where we defer to reliable third party sources. None have been brought forward to support the former position. It is your believe that opposition to same-sex marriage is discriminatory. To present it as fact and label it as such is unacceptable. - Schrandit (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The article on Religioustolerance.org states:

Elizabeth D. Hutchison, in Dimensions of Human Behavior, described Ontario Consultants for Religious Tolerance as "an agency that promotes religious tolerance as a human right".[7] In Teaching New Religious Movements (2007), David G. Bromley lists ReligiousTolerance.org among recommended secondary research sources on new religious movements, to be used in concert with movement and countermovement sources.[8] Rebecca Moore, a scholar teaching Religious Studies at San Diego State University, described the ReligiousTolerance.org website as a "massive education program". She expressed regret that her students dismissed the site at first because it supported itself with advertising.[5] A 2005 online literacy guide (IssueWeb: A Guide and Sourcebook for Researching Controversial Issues on the Web) lists ReligiousTolerance.org as a suggested research resource on abortion, assisted suicide, religious tolerance, gay rights and hate groups/hate crimes.[9]

Now you have not only a reliable source calling NOM homophobic, but reliable sources indicating that it is a reliable source. What more do you want? As of this moment we have multiple sources indicating that NOM is homophobic, and not one saying it isn't. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The site is run by Bruce A. Robinson, he writes most of the content, he wrote that piece. He is an engineer. This is more or less his blog. It is a really nice one, but still this is what some Canadian engineer feels that NOM thinks. NOM would, I assume, dispute this. Even Bruce, when asked whether or not the articles he writes should be considered credible sources pretty much just said "hey, I try to summarize other folk's arguments and at the end I tell you what pages I looked at to give you an idea of where I generated these summaries from". For the article about NOM most of his sources are youtube videos. This a Canadian engineer's summary of same-sex marriage advocates' reactions to NOM's gathering storm ad. Even he would not claim this to be an academic description of NOM's motivations, rather, it is a summary of what some people think of NOM. I do not believe this can be considered a reliable source.

To date, you have shown op-ed pieces, which are not reliable sources, and this. If there is a reliable source out there that categorically labels NOM as being homophobic, you have yet to produce it.

unsigned comment added by user:Schrandit

ReligiousTolerance.org is not a blog. YouTube was cited in that article because they used videos of the ad in question, hosted at YouTube. And I've provided ample evidence that this is a reliable source. Meanwhile, you have yet to provide anything except your personal opinion that the growing mountain of sources you're being provided aren't reliable. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

My personal opinion, and of course, this. Even the website's published does not describe it as reliable, third-party source. - Schrandit (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing in Reliable sources that would preclude the use of RT.org. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The man does not claim to be an authoritative voice on these issues. He only claims to summarize other people's partisan arguments. To use his website as anything other than a summary of other people's partisan arguments is disingenuous. - Schrandit (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've already provided references for the site's credibility, but even on the very page you link to it says: "One reason [that what we write is credible] is that we do not promote a specific religious point of view. We are a multi-faith group consisting of an Agnostic, Atheist, Christian, Wiccan and Zen Buddhist. So, even if we wanted to promote our beliefs, we could not because we do not have a common position. Instead, we simply report what both or all sides to each topic believe."

No bias. No agenda. Widely considered credible. Not a blog or opinion piece. Reliable source. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

And no facts. The author only claims the site to be a compendium of arguments from both sides of issues. - Schrandit (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Board of Directors

When I added a board of directors section to the National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce article, it was deleted and I was warned that this was considered an unfair edit that could make the board some kind of target. However, it appears to be fair game for the NOM article. There appears to be a systemic bias by the contributors of this article. Classing it as "homophobia" and then listing out the board of directors, when that is not allowed for any GLBT groups, really detracts from the merit of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macaw2000 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this in your contributions (you have only 3, including your edit to this talk page), and I don't see anything in National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce article history. Also, that article lists both the current executive director and a list of former executive directors. Furthermore, NOM's own website has a list of "personnel," so their identities are hardly a secret. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Though it's poor PR for the group, it nonetheless says something worth saying about an organization that it chooses someone as a director who justifies violent overthrow of the government if it permits equal marriage rights for gay men and women ("How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn. Biological imperatives trump laws. American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die"). - Outerlimits (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Just glancing at the section, is it necessary to mention that Card is a Mormon? - Schrandit (talk) 06:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Since he seems to occupy the NOM Board of Directors' "Mormon seat", and since the extent to which NOM is financed by Mormon contributions is the subject of legal inquiry, it certainly seems pertinent. - Outerlimits (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you prove that bit about the Mormon seat? - Schrandit (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's hardly a need to, as it's on a talk page and not in the article, but it seems rather self-evident that the seat has been filled by only two people, in a group apparently heavily funded by Mormons, and that both are prominent Mormons. The first occupant, Matthew S. Holland, is the son of Jeffrey R. Holland, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Quorum is second in leadership of the church only to the First Presidency, and as a member Jeffrey Holland is considered a Mormon apostle, prophet, seer, and revelator; he is also former president of Brigham Young University. The Mormon apostle's son, Matthew, who was the first occupant of the seat, was a Brigham Young University professor. Shortly after the Californians Against Hate charged the Mormon Church with creating the National Organization for Marriage as a front group, Holland resigned his position on the board of directors, and NOM Chairman Robby George announced that "the LDS Church would be represented on the board by author and Mormon Times columnist Orson Scott Card” [2]. Robby George had been a former teacher of Jeffrey Holland (Holland was a fellow under him at Princeton University in 2005-6). I will assume that the Mormon bona fides of the second occupant, Mormon Times' columnist Orson Scott Card are known to you; a simple Google search will allow you to read both his Mormon apologetics and anti-gay screeds. Any complaints about the Deseret News as a reliable source? - Outerlimits (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I am reluctant to accept this, but it probably doesn't do much harm. - Schrandit (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What's the basis for your reticence? Your own personal bias, a distaste for truth, or something actually based on information and fact? - Outerlimits (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I hope you wouldn't think me so shallow. It is possible that the NOM has some sort of a shady financial relationship with the mormon Church (as I understand things, we shall soon know pending a lawsuit) but that may not be so. To speculate is, well, to speculate. As the organization has been around for little more than a year I find it unremarkable that 1 mormon stepped down and was replaced by 1 mormon. Maybe if it happened a few times over the course of decades we could claim a pattern but just once? And for an organization so young? I don't really think you can look at that and go "yep, mormon seat". I see little evidence (for or against) that his mormoness defines his place on the board and as we have no evidence I would err on the side on non-inclusion. - Schrandit (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The chairman of the board has specifically stated that Card is the Mormon representative on the board: I see no reason for your disbelief in his statement. You certainly have presented no factual basis for calling him a liar. As to the truth about the degree to which the group is predominantly Mormon-financed, I agree that the documents that the group has so far withheld are key to that understanding. Until they comply with financial disclosure laws, alas, the strong suspicions that they are a creature of the Mormon church must necessary remain speculative. I'm sure we both encourage the group to stop hiding documents that, by law, are required to be public. NOM: Let Facts be submitted to a candid world. - Outerlimits (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The present source doesn't indicate that, could add chairman's statement into the ref.s so that it is clear?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Schrandit (talk • contribs) 00:21, 17 May 2009

I confess that I don't know what "present source" you are referring to. If you think that Robby George's statement that "the LDS Church would be represented on the board by author and Mormon Times columnist Orson Scott Card” and the accompanying citation from this page belongs in the article, you can certainly add it. - Outerlimits (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find that quote in any of the current citations, in you would include a source that does mention that quote it would be for the best. - Schrandit (talk) 07:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The citation appears in this very thread. Here it is again: [3] - Outerlimits (talk) 07:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Schrandit's objections

I CAN HAZ MAZZIV GAY CONSPIRACY?

Look guys, I love the gay marriage debate, really, I do. If any one wants to have it out my talk page is always open. This is not the place to have a debate on gay marriage. Now, with that in mind - I plan on replacing the category "homophobia" with the category "same-sex marriage opponents" on this article. I believe the former category is too broad and make unfounded judgments of NOM's motivations/values. I believe the latter is more specific/encyclopedic and reserves any interpretations and moral judgments to the reader. Let me know if you believe this to be a poor decision, and if so, why. If comments begin to spiral into an unproductive discussion of gay marriage I will delete them. We all come here with strong opinions, let us put them aside for now and work to build a better encyclopedia. - Schrandit (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Not so fast. I see no consensus for this change, and 2 reliable sources provided by another editor above referring to NOM as homophobic. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think not. As EB says above, we have reliable sources. But that's not the main point. To give an analogy, if an organisation was agitating for marriage between those of different races to be illegal, would they deserve the category "Racism"? Of course they would. So the difference here is ... ? Black Kite 16:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, we have the precedent of the American Family Association, which is also categorized under "Homophobia." Exploding Boy (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The AFA is a far more obvious example, as it makes attacks on homosexuals outside the arena of the gay marriage debate, but the concept is clearly the same. Black Kite 16:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Per the racism category - I think this is a wonderful example - the people/organizations in it either self-identify as racist or are deceased and historians overwhelmingly refer to them as racist. NOM falls into neither of those categories with regard to homophobia.

There are reliable sources to say NOM opposes homosexual marriage. Are there reliable sources that categorically state that NOM is homophobic? To date, I have seen none. - Schrandit (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

2 are provided above: the New York Times and the San Francisco Chronicle. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Those are Op-ed pieces. - Schrandit (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and discussion about their reliability has already taken place in the relevant section, above. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations Sorry, but they don't count. - Schrandit (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Given NOM's record of distortion, and dubious goals i.e. they haven't even stated what their actual positions are regarding legally protected spousal rights for same sex unions OR what is their stance on churches that recognize same sex marriages and married gay and lesbian Christians, etc. ; although some more information about their actual goals might clarify things, Homophobia seems like a pretty good description of NOM's activities, and I really don't see how they can be anything but. The Phool (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If they haven't stated they believe something we can't just assume that they do and categorically state that they do. I very firmly believe that the Brady Campaign is out to get my guns but as they have not stated that they are and as reliable, third party sources have not proven that they are I can't just go ahead and say that they are. - Schrandit (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That was why I was asking for more information earlier. Yes, it was clumsily worded, and I got WAY off topic, but the whole point was to ascertain where NOM actually stands, and whether or not they could be considered some sort of homophobic group. The Phool (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, right, I think I read that a little fast too. Well, we shall wait and see if any sources emerge. If they do not, I'll effect my proposed change. - Schrandit (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

But they do count in this case: they are 2 reliable sources that call NOM homophobic. Are there any that say they're not? Here are several more:

• Edge Boston: "[http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=90919

Prejean starred in an anti-gay commercial from Proposition 8 supporter the National Organization for Marriage]"

• Edge Boston: "...the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage" (plus several other articles in EB using similar language)
  
• Calgary Herald: "Miss California appears in anti-gay marriage ad"
  
• Washington Examiner: "Miss California stars in new anti-gay marriage ad"
  

Exploding Boy (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I've really got to question the legitimacy of the Edge Boston as a reliable, third party source but even they don't describe NOM as "homophobic". Per the other two - the describe the ad as being "anti-gay marriage" and do not describe the organization as "homophobic". - Schrandit (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

How does Carrie Prejean find her way into every single discussion? It seems that she was trying to find an ally, and she probably chose one poorly -which she seems to have a habit of doing. So now, straight marriage only advocates are using her as a rallying point, much to her detriment, and same sex marriage advocates see her as an ideal target for bashing. It's brought out the worst from both sides. And yes, for whatever reason, I've taken it upon myself to serve as her unofficial apologist. Waiting for college classes to start, so I don't have much else to flex my brain muscles with. The Phool (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

She finds her way in by elbowing her way in. She hasn't been co-opted; she's volunteered. She's injected herself into the issue: that was her choice and no one else's. Your time would be better spent persuading her to clam up and minimize the damage she has done to her own reputation; but consider for a moment that her priorities are different from yours, and that she see this escapade as an opportunity to enhance her own commercial value at the expense of the rights of other human beings. - Outerlimits (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but it seems like something of a stretch to say her actions are malicious or self-serving when she hasn't demonstrated a lick of good sense in any of this. In other words, she doesn't seem quite smart enough to have planned this as some sort of gambit. The Phool (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought we already established that anti-gay is the same as homophobic. And as for Prejean, she appears in this discussion only tangentially, because of her connection with NOM. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to assume (and state) that the two are one in the same and I see no reason to over-simplify NOM as "anti-gay" rather than stating the fact that they oppose gay marriage. It serves no purpose for us to be vague or to make values judgments and to claim them as fact. - Schrandit (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I can honestly say I have no idea what you mean by this statement. How is "anti-gay" different from "homophobia"? Please consult the definitions gathered for your convenience above. And why are we having the same discussion over and over again? We dealt with definitions above. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change Discussions are had over and over again in Wikipedia. No one has been able to find any hard sources for the label "homophobia" being applied to this group. To label them as such (or as anything) without sources is unacceptable. - Schrandit (talk) 02:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

At any rate, I believe that it would probably be in her best interest to disassociate herself from NOM, particularly given that, if nothing else, NOM's objectives coincide with established anti-gay rights entities. The Phool (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I have provided several sources, as has another user, which call this group both homophobic and anti-gay, terms that are synonymous as demonstrated in multiple definitions sourced from reliable dictionaries as provided above. To this moment nobody has provided a single source indicating that NOM is not homophobic. The AFA, which engages in similar activities, is categorized under "Homophobia." So are the Alliance Defense Fund, the March for Life and Family, and, significantly, LGBT rights opposition. Clearly NOM belongs in the category as well. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You absolutely have not. You have provided Op-eds and pieces which describe one of NOM's ads as being, and I quote "anti-gay marriage". To argue that articles should be included in categories unless there is evidence that that they should not belong there is silly. If no reliable, third party source emerges than the category cannot stay. - Schrandit (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Applying your logic, if no evidence can be found that this article doesn't belong in the category "Homophobia" then it must stay. So apparently we've reached an impasse. However, there is no consensus to remove the category, and even in the absence of what you personally consider acceptable evidence, we have plenty of other articles we can look to for guidance, as explained above. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how one would reach such a conclusion from my logic. What I consider to be acceptable evidence does not matter. Per Wikipedia Policy, the threshold for inclusion is Verifiability; "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references", likewise "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made". My opinions are irrelevant and unless reliable, third party sources categorically label this organization as homophobic, the consensus does not matter in this instance. - Schrandit (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent). I agree with the OP, that while opposition to gay marriage is usually based in homophobia, it is not always the case. I am against gay marriage because i am against all state-supported marriages, as all are discriminatory. So, the question is whether the category implies that this opposition to gay marriage is homophobic, or if there is enough overlap between the 2 that it should be in the cat anyway. I think for this organisation there is, but not necessarily for all, so a new category for Gay marriage opposition, a sub cat of LGBT rights and homophobia, would be useful. As long as the category isn't called "Marriage protection groups"!YobMod 09:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think we need to worry that the "National Organization for Marriage" opposes marriage rights for gay men and women because of a principled objection to "state-supported marriages". They are at least nominally in favor of "opposite" marriages. - Outerlimits (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)In any case, I think enough time has been given to find a source for the category, one has not been forthcoming. I will effect my proposed change, if a sources comes forward we can always change it back. - Schrandit (talk) 04:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You have no consensus to do that so don't be surprised when it gets reverted. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 07:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What does consensus matter in the face of unsourced content? This would be a matter for discussion if some could come up with reliable, third party sources for the inclusion of this category but as no one can, per Wikipedia Policy, it must be removed. - Schrandit (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You're going to have to broaden the search for input here, because I'm completely opposed to removing the category. Sources have been given, discussion has been had ad nauseam, reasons and precedents have been provided. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well sir, your opinion is noted but again, read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." and "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text.". Reasons provided have been insufficient and on Wikipedia, precedent is only used as a mean to attempt to steer discussion to the most productive end. Unless a reliable, third-party source emerges, the category cannot stay. - Schrandit (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That you don't like the sources does not negate their validity for this purpose. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

My likes and dislikes are irrelevant. Wikipedia Policy dictates what is and is not a valid source. No valid sources have yet been given for the category. - Schrandit (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Again I repeat, that you don't like the sources given does not negate them. I'll give you another policy to consider: WP:CON. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you trying to say that Consensus can override Verifiability or that there is a consensus that a reliable source has been brought forward? - Schrandit (talk) 06:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be quite the consensus that it's a reliable source. I also regard it as one, myself... not that that means a lot. It doesn't even strike me as an opinion. 98.168.204.179 (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus that what is a reliable source? - Schrandit (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

More sources

Writing in The Advocate:

• Julie Bolcer says: "Prejean . . . appeared in a commercial against marriage equality by the antigay National Organization for Marriage'."[4]

• Neal Broverman writes: "Anti-Gay Group Hiding Mormon Cash?" [5]

Exploding Boy (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Do I really need to explain why we shouldn't count on the advocate as a reliable, neutral source? - Schrandit (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think you do. The Advocate is a major mainstream published source established in 1967 which attracts major mainstream writers and has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It is not an extremist or fringe source. It is not a blog, zine, tweet or other unreliable format, or an opinion piece. And in this instance its statements are widely supported (as evidenced by all the other sources provided). Exploding Boy (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

We're the Advocate, we're pretty partisan and we don't pretend not to be. This publication is in bed with the HRC, the LAGLC and Lambda Legal, just to name a few. - Schrandit (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

So, for example, you wouldn't accept Fox News as a reliable source about politics? Black Kite 23:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If Fox news had the sort of relationships with partisan organizations that the advocate has, no, I would not accept them as third party sources on what ever topics those partisan organizations championed. - Schrandit (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh come off it. You're just getting desperate now. For the record, that page says:

For nearly four decades, The Advocate has recognized the importance of offering support to the GLBT community. Much work has been put into the formation of lasting relationships with a variety of community partners. Reaching out across the nation, bonds have been established and maintained with AIDS service organizations, community centers, political advocacy groups, and many others.

And your point is what? That The Advocate isn't a reliable source because it's aimed at a gay audience? I think you've pretty much lost this one, Schrandit. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No, my point (clearly) is that the advocate should not be treated as a reliable third party source because it has publicly allied itself with partisan groups on one side of the issue it is covering. On that same page the Advocate encourages its readers to make contributions to those partisan groups.

The Advocate is as reliable a source for third party coverage of same-sex marriage as the Shotgun News is for gun control.

Have you ever wondered why no mainstream sources label NOM as homophobic? Why the Times, the Post, etc. never call them such? - Schrandit (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Ballessness would be my first thought, but of course, the Times' actual op ed piece doing precisely that is cited above. - Outerlimits (talk) 00:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't Op ed pieces as legitimate for anything other than conveying the opinions of the author and we do that for good reason. - Schrandit (talk) 07:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Outerlimits here, and would add that your point is clearly that The Advocate is aimed at a gay audience; that doesn't preclude them from being reliable on matters concerning homosexuality. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No sir, that was not my point. I explicitly told you above that that was not my point. For you to pretend that was my point rather than addressing my actual concern is highly disingenuous. The Advocate should is not a third-party source on this topic owing to its political relationship with several partisan organizations devoted to one side of this issue. Nearly every mainstream media outlet has covered the NOM. None of them have categorized the organization as homophobic. This should tell us something. - Schrandit (talk) 07:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Advocate would not be considered a neutral source for this particular article, but you can ask for outside opinions at WP:RSN. APK straight up now tell me 07:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion it's disingenuous to deny that you think The Advocate is unreliable on matters concerning homosexuality because it's a gay publication. That a gay publication would support pro-gay political causes and community service organizations is hardly surprising. What you're really saying is that since it has a gay audience it's incapable of being reliable and credible on gay issues. This is of course untrue. See their coverage of the Isaiah Washington incident and the Eminem controversy (here, here, and here). Exploding Boy (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Son, that shit is not going to fly. I showed you why the Advocate is not a neutral source when it comes to this issue. Don't come back at me with that straw man shit - this isn't my first time around the block. - Schrandit (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this accusation directed at me? APK straight up now tell me 20:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not an accusation, it's a statement of opinion, and it's in response to Schrandit's remark above. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2009

You say potato, I say potato. If using a RS that both 'sides' agree is neutral, the process would go much smoother. (puts on his devil's advocate hat) If I tried adding the word 'liberal' to describe Keith Olbermann by citing a National Review article, what do you think would happen? It's the same thing here. The Advocate is a great magazine (I've used it as a source), but using them as a source to add a controversial adjective describing a very controversial organization is not very neutral. Do I want to add 'homophobic' and other personal opinions to the article? Oh yes. NOM reminds me of my relatives and the church folk back home. (aka scurry baptists) But then I'd be sinking down to Conservapedia's level. My statement of opinion is that long-time editors know when a biased publication should be used (not can be used), and when they should not be used (hurts your case when the opposing ideology can claim biased sources were used). APK straight up now tell me 22:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)(UTC)

Nobody is trying to add the category "homophobia" to this article; some editors want to remove it. In stating our opposition to that plan, editors have provided a slew of sources showing that the term is being used to describe the group and its message; as yet the other side has provided no source suggesting that the group is not homophobic. Of course this is not the only rationale for keeping the article in this category. Extensive discussion of the term on other talk pages shows that the term is currently used to describe opposition to rights for LBGT people, and we have the precedent of various similar articles already being in the same category. Certain editors will object to any source that disagrees with them, no matter how allegedly neutral, but here we have a preponderance of the evidence--reliable sources, the group's own statements and actions--plus precedent that supports our placement of this group in the "homophobia" category. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. I only read this section. Mentally switch add with remove (and visa versa) in my statement above, but remember all of my valid points. Trying to use a gay publication to justify keeping (there, i got it right) the category is a weak argument (olbermann analogy). If other neutral, RS have already been found, then that's super-duper-trooper. If those sources are so solid, then why is The Advocate being mentioned? APK straight up now tell me 22:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Have any sources that prove the HRC doesn't hate Hungarians? The burden of proof lies with the party pressing for inclusion. To suggest anything else is ridiculous. - Schrandit (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ummm... what? There's nothing to suggest ill feelings towards Hungarians from the HRC, while there's ample evidence to suggest anti-gay sentiment from NOM. I'm sorry, but I don't get how it's not obviously and factually homophobic/anti-gay - whatever you want to call it. I mean, if this were back in the days the federal government didn't recognize marriages between African-Americans and only recognized those between caucasian Americans, do you think it would be unfair to label said organization racist? It virulently campaigns against inclusiveness for a group. That is fundamentally anti-[said group], which in this case equates to homophobia, by literal definition. It is completely lost on me how this is not, for a fact, a homophobic group. The entire group exists solely for the purpose of excluding gays from marriage laws. It is quite fundamentally a homophobic group. 98.168.204.179 (talk) 07:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Your grasp of American history is less than exemplary. I'm sure that you believe that NOM is a homophobic organization as much as I believe that the Brady campaign is an anti-gun organization but the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability and as no reliable, third-party sources can be found to back either of those opinions, neither can be included. - Schrandit (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet more

Shanon Moakler calls NOM a "hate group". Exploding Boy (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Director of Princeton University's LBGT center calls NOM's message “offensive and homophobic”. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

She's correct, but her opinion is just that...personal opinion. Is she very notable or considered an expert on LGBT issues? (my question sounds sarcastic, but it's not) If so, we would still have to include whose opinion that is: "Shanon Moakler thinks NOM is homophobic." The Princeton source may work, considering his profession, but the same principle applies. We would have to include who said it and why his opinion should matter. APK straight up now tell me 22:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You would be right if we were discussing adding this to the article, but we're not (although at this point, I think we have enough sources that we could add something to the effect that the organization is widely considered homophobic). These are just 2 more voices backing up the assertion that NOM belongs in the "Homophobia" category. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

1 is an Op-ed and 2 is a freaking college paper. Seriously, why is there nothing in any mainstream news sources? I'm fine saying "many people believe NOM is a homophobic organization" or "many people, including XY and sometimes Z believe that NOM is motivated by homophobia" but to state that they are as fact is no evidence in reliable, third party sources and as such, can not be included. - Schrandit (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) as no reliable, third party newsources have emerged calling NOM homophobic in the last weeks I feel that is it time to remove the categorization. - Schrandit (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're still alone in that belief. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

In an argument where numbers don't matter I'm comfortable with that. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability. With no verifiability... - Schrandit (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Outerlimits' additions to the lead

Are cumbersome, partisan, fail to conform to WP:Lead and I see no reason why they should stay. - Schrandit (talk) 05:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

[1] they're not "my" additions: the verbiage you removed was initially placed by 68.43.19.251, inspired by NOMs recent campaigning against domestic partnerships in Washington D.C.; I merely clarified them, as your initial comments reflected your apparent inability to "see" how opposing domestic partnership benefits and opposing legal same-sex marriage are two different things.

[2] accurately reciting NOMs positions in the lead is required, not optional, and not partisan.

[3] please be cautious regarding the WP:3RR. - Outerlimits (talk) 05:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The current Wording does accurately recite NOM's position, perhaps not in the language you would like it to but that is an entirely different issue. - Schrandit (talk) 05:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I've reported your fourth revert at the appropriate noticeboard. I'll be happy to discuss the niceties of NOM's positions once that's resolved. - Outerlimits (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The lead

Didn't mean to hit the revert on that last one. I think my version more accurately, and neutrally states the intention of the organization in question.

I disagree, and in addition, you misrepresent their position: they are not (publicly) opposed to same-sex unions, only to same-sex marriages. - Outerlimits (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop the edit war. I've restored to the version that seemed to last a few days, cited with a WaPo story. (an extremely neutral cover story of NOM's Executive Director) APK that's not my name 02:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Tagged Article As Unbalanced

This would seem to me to be blatantly obvious...but when an article spends more time criticizing the organization than actually describing it, that's unbalanced. 74.70.38.127 (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Then what do you suggest needs to be done? APK that's not my name 02:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You haven't given a reason to keep the tag, even though you've obviously read my question (the IP made three edits to the article today). So I'm removing the tag. APK that's not my name 02:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I would argue for the inclusion, the fact that the criticisms section is decidedly longer than that rest of the article combined is particularly stinging. - Schrandit (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What "criticisms" section? - Nat Gertler (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be logical to see the sections "Controversy", "2M4M" and "Potential violation of public disclosure requirements" as criticism. Mind you, it is decently sourced, pretty well worded criticism and it should probably stay but should it make up the bulk of the article? On a related not, should there be some sort of a current tag on the "Potential violation of public disclosure requirements" section? Has that complaint with the IRS resolved itself? How did it end up? - Schrandit (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I find no sign that the complaint to the IRS has been resolved; I'm not sure how swiftly such things are normally done (nor if the IRS makes anything public in case that they find nothing). I'm not sure what appropriate "current" tagging is. The sections you describe as "criticism" are not in fact larger than the rest of the article... and a substantial portion of it is not "criticism" (the descriptor of the gathering storm ad and what its referring to is descriptive rather than critical in nature, although the HRC statement is critical. If we went into noting how the cases don't exactly align themselves up with the SSM question, that would be critical.) There could certainly be some more depth on their involvement in Prop 8, but in general this article seems to reflect the things that NOM has gotten attention for; what you're seeing as unbalanced may just be that they've made a range of legally dubious or just plain tin-eared steps that have drawn attention. A balanced look need not get balanced results; a picture that shows the leaning tower of Pisa as being strictly vertical has done a poor job of capturing the subject. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the tag I was talking about -

That might be appropriate for the section about the IRS stuff, I'm don't know too much about that though and I'm inclined to give it some more time. With the exception of the "Massachusetts Constitutional Amendment" section everything in the article follows the same patter - here is something NOM did and here is why some guy thinks that was wrong or foolish. I can think of no other article that follows that pattern. - Schrandit (talk) 07:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That descriptor doesn't fit the article that I see. The lead doesn't follow that pattern, the Board of Directors section doesn't follow that pattern. Stand For Marriage Maine doesn't follow that pattern. That makes most of the sections of this article. Is there criticism and things which could be viewed as negative or as documenting missteps? Certainly. NOM is a controversial group operating in a realm of controversy, and they've also made some very visible and dubious moves which have gotten attention. It would be inappropriate to overlook that aspect of the group. You'll certainly see such conflict throughout other articles on controversial groups that deal with controversial matters, such as ACLU. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is improved, but still unbalanced. It needs more information on the activities and history of the organization. I will work on it if I get the chance. The tag should stay.208.105.149.80 (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Civil unions

According to the group's New Jersey branch, (see here):

People of faith have an equal claim to protections in the public square, and we need to wrestle with the difficult questions of how to resolve those conflicts. Civil unions have the potential to become a workable compromise, not just a halfway stop on the road to same-sex marriage. Let's give civil unions a chance as we work to protect the rights of ALL New Jerseyans.

Which actually seems like the group is pro-civil-unions to me. The Squicks (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, Maggie Gallagher has wrote for National Review that she personally would support civil unions as a compromise if enacting unions would mean creating what she calls "religious-liberty protection laws", but she believes that the compromise would not work since the gay rights side would renege later (which we would- or at least I would). I don't know whether or not it's reasonable to interpret this statement as being anti-union. But it's not pro-union either. The Squicks (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"Conservative Christian"

I see this label is cited to the NYT, but it's not clear where the NYT description comes from, and the claim that the organization is a conservative Christian organization is disputed. "Conservative" is doubtless apt but unnecessary since it's a single-issue, not movement, organization. But the organization does not claim to be religious and no religious claims appear on its website. I'm removing the label for now, because I think it's half incorrect ("Christian") and half unhelpful ("conservative"). Welcome feedback. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The website does claim that it's there for the "faith communities", and cites articles with things like "If the courts or the legislators redefine marriage, our children will be taught that gay marriage is a great good and it will become very difficult to do what we have to do: transmit an authentically Christian marriage culture to our own children," said Gallagher. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

They also quote both the NYT article and one other article on their blog calling them Christian without any correction, and these aren't complete displays of the articles, but the quotes they've selected. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Supporting "faith communities" generally is, of course, very different from being a "Christian" organization. Of course, so is citing articles from non-NOM sources written by Christians like Gallagher. They do quote the NYT story, but it's in a long list of quotes mentioning the organization with no commentary on any of the quotes. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You claim that the descriptor is disputed - by whom? If NOM itself, that's one thing, but I cannot find such a dispute. If it's just some other source that isn't up to the level of NYT, that's another. The Gallagher quote comes first from an event where she was promoted as the president of NOM, and could be seen as speaking from that position. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a quite accurate descriptor. It's evident that it's a religious organization from their twitter page alone (nevermind the ample useage of the word 'Christian' on their webpage.) It should not be removed again with just one person's hunch. That AND Teaforthetillerman removed the homophobia category, which has been discussed in the past, and the consensus was to keep it. Your edits reveal a clear POV, Teaforthetillerman. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Anti-NOM propaganda

Should there be any mention of the more recent Anti-NOM videos inspired by NOM's ads and political activity? This parody of Maggie Gallagher by playwright Jeff Whitty is particularly effective. - Outerlimits (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that counts as propaganda, it's intended for ironic/comedic purposes. It could warrant a mention if you want to add it somewhere, but I don't know what context would be appropriate for it. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Current edit war

Folks -- you're both in major violation of the three-revert rule. Calm it down.

FatherTruth - the "marriage equality" phrasing is neither neutral (as accurate as it may be) nor necessary, as it represents what is more clearly spelled out right after that. You may notice that a variety of editors have removed your changes; if you feel the wording must be in there, please try to achieve WP:CONSENSUS before reinserting it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"and eliminated same-sex couples' right to marry"

Someone just removed "and eliminated same-sex couples' right to marry" from the piece claiming it was redundant and POV. It was not redundant because without it, there's not an indication that same-sex couples had the right to marry; and it's not POV - it's basically the title of Proposition 8. Should be restored. - Nat Gertler (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Could the person's complaint stem from the perception that "right" is being used in a moral, rather than legal sense? (I think this is clearly a misreading of the word's use here, fwiw.) Just wondered if it would be worth writing "eliminated same-sex couples' legal right to marry" for extra clarity. (I'm assuming everyone agrees that Prop 8 didn't eliminate a moral right to marry; either the moral right never existed, or still exists despite Prop 8's passage... So I suspect this is a change that might pacify some without bothering everyone else?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teaforthetillerman (talk • contribs) 17:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"Legal" is redundant here in that we're talking about a change in the constitution and thus a change in the law... and does not seem to be the source of confusion, given the relevant edit summary. The claim that the statement of elimination is somehow POV was a strategy of the prop-8 forces, which tried to get that descriptor stricken from the ballot, not under the pretext that it was untrue, but that it was framing things in a negative light. - Nat Gertler (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"Legal" is unduly limiting: NOM takes a moral stance against marriage equality, not simply a legal one. - Outerlimits (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC) "vagueness is what allowed a politically motivated anti-marriage hate group to misuse the law to attempt to divert a campaign from the important moral issues at stake" [6] - strangely, NOM is not talking about itself, there. - Outerlimits (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with NG, but I don't understand what OL is saying here. You think Prop 8 took away Californians' moral right to SSM? If I understand right, the context of this language is what Prop 8 did. Teaforthetillerman 00:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teaforthetillerman (talk • contribs)

"Conservative Christian"

In what sense is this group alleged to be Christian? I am not super-well-versed in sourcing standards--is any adjective that appears in the NYT automatically acceptable for inclusion? This one seems clearly false; there's no indication on the organization's website or IRS forms or published statements that it is exclusively Christian or even religious (presumably the "faith communities" include various religious groups). "Conservative" isn't a helpful word when it's a single-issue group whose issue is spelled out in the paragraph; it doesn't make sense especially in a context like this group's issue, which doesn't break down along party lines. I think maybe this discussion was deleted before anon re-added the inaccurate descriptor without discussion. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The previous discussion was not deleted; it was archived, as inactive discussions on many talk pages automatically are. The editor did not readd it without discussion or without seeing the discussion; he readded it when joining into the discussion. NYT is considered a generally reliable source; if you have a source to contradict it, please put it forward. No statement on its forms that it is religious does not make it not religious. The word "Conservative" is not one meant to break down along party lines, and in this case may be seen as a comment on their politics, but on the brand of Christianity they evince (I was having a conversation on this word usage just the other day, discussing an individual who was both a Christian and a conservative , but neither a conservative Christian - i.e., he was not fundamentalist - nor a Christian conservative - his political beliefs were not grounded in making the nation more Christian). - Nat Gertler (talk) 06:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my ignorance about the archive function. Of course I realize that the fact that there is no evidence that it's a "Christian" organization (whatever this means...) doesn't prove the negative, but the burden is on the folks who want to include the false allegation. So, given that the NYT used the adjectives but that I know the description is objectively incorrect, what's the best course of action? Once a newspaper has made the allegation with no supporting information or source, is it a permanent part of the wikipedia entry no matter what? Or should I inform NOM that they must publicly dispute the characterization before Wikipedia can doubt it? (I emailed a NOM board member to inquire whether they agree with the NYT's description and they said that both descriptors are incorrect, but obviously an email to me isn't a wiki source.) So what's the best course of action given that I know this article includes objectively false information, and it's based on a single unsupported adjective in the NYT article? I guess the question is, when a newspaper prints an incorrect description, what is then necessary to prevent that incorrect description from becoming a permanent part of the wikipedia article?

Maybe the article author who added the incorrect phrase should suggest to us what he even means by a "Christian organization"... That would help for evaluating the lack of support for the phrase. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it noteworthy that other NYT articles haven't used the description? (Obviously I recognize this doesn't prove the negative.) See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/us/30maine.html, for example. Or http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/11/25/us/AP-US-Gay-Marriage-Stalled-Momentum.html (I think "organization which mobilizes social conservatives to fight against SSM" would be accurate but misleading, since it's doubtful most of the yes-voters in CA/MA were broadly socially conservative; mobilizing social conservatives is some subset of what NOM does). I've emailed the author of the article being sourced here to inquire about her source for the inaccurate description; I have not heard back yet. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, for Anon--my ignorance about the archive function is why I didn't realize the homophobia label had been discussed, and thought it was just vandalism. When I have time I'll explain why I think the homophobia label violates NPOV even under the discrimination definition of homophobia (and I dispute the description of the earlier discussion as a "consensus"--there was clearly no consensus achieved in that discussion.) Again, sorry I didn't know about the archive function. I rarely edit. It's odd to me that you think my edits betray POV; what POV exactly does my opinion that NOM is not "conservative Christian" convey? Teaforthetillerman (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that the reason the group is termed a "Christian" group is that NOM is for the most part funded by churches and organizations that characterize themselves as Christian, specifically Mormons and Catholics. That such groups supply most of NOM's money is, I believe, undisputed: the exact extent of this financial support is unknown only because NOM has failed to report the sources of its money as required (and has even filed lawsuits in an attempt to keep the information secret). - Outerlimits (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

So a "Christian" organization would be one which receives some percentage of its funding from self-identified Christians? This will be an especially tricky standard to employ in a country where a huge majority self-identifies as Christian... Or are you saying if an organization is funded by organizations which self-identify as Christian (as opposed to individuals), the organization is itself "Christian"? I'm skeptical that we can label groups purely based on anecdotal perceptions of the percentage makeup of their donor base. Suppose I learn that most donations to Americans United for the Separation of Church and State come from atheists; would it be accurate to characterize the group as an atheist organization? It seems clear to me that it would not, since their positions and arguments are compatible with theism and they do not have a theological litmus test. The self-identification element also makes it tricky; I imagine most mainstream Christian participants in NOM would dispute whether Mormonism is "Christian" (this is a subject of heated debate; I'm not taking a position, just making an example of the disputed point--how can the perceived Christian-ness of some percentage of the donor base make the organization objectively "Christian" when the subject of who in that perceived percentage is "Christian" is itself a disputed subject?). Teaforthetillerman (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You professed to bewilderment at why NOM is termed "Christian". It's a creation of Christian churches, including Mormons (like it or not, NOM will never term Mormonism non-Christian) without whose financial support NOM would wither and die. It "defends" what it sees as "traditional" Christian precepts. Sorry you don't like that; sorry they are ashamed to admit where their support comes from, but the truth still remains, despite the attempts to downplay it. - Outerlimits (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and avoid indirect criticism; this would make this discussion more pleasant and is (at least as I understand it) suggested by Wikipedia Etiquette guidelines. Your subjective perception of my "likes" or "dislikes" and NOM's feelings seem unhelpful this discussion; please discuss how to improve the article. I did not suggest that NOM has an organizational position on whether Mormonism is Christian; that's probably irrelevant to the organization which, since it is not exclusively Christian, need not determine the margins of Christianity (the fact that NOM would never take a position on Mormonism's religious status seems to support, rather than undermine, my point). Do you have a source for arguing that NOM is the "creation of Christian churches"? This is not included in the article, and I'm not familiar with this allegation. The article currently says (sourced) that the organization was founded by Maggie Gallagher and Professor George. I'm also not sure where you get the idea that NOM sees its role as defending "what it sees as 'traditional' Christian precepts;" can you clarify this? My understanding is that NOM's position is explicitly that the principles it defends are not exclusively Christian principles (I'm not sure how you are using "precept" here); I'm sure they see them as traditional Christian principles, but they see them as traditional principles more generally; why is only the subset of Christian tradition relevant to the organization's nature? Teaforthetillerman (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You asked a question; I answered it; that's what the talk page is for, rather than indirectly criticizing other editors for their indirect criticisms. And it's also not really for debates, either. If you think marriage between one man and one woman only is not a traditional Christian principle...well... you're entitled to your opinion. If you're unfamiliar with the allegation that NOM is a front group for the LDS church, then you just have to read further, starting with the references in the article. - Outerlimits (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to be direct; you insinuated bad faith. You have also twice mistakenly insinuated that I have been discussing my personal views. Please be careful to accurately represent me. You did not answer my substantive questions about the standard we are applying to labelling in this article; you just made broad, unsourced factual allegations that seem to contradict the article and do not seem to respond directly to the relevant question. I agree that the talk page isn't for debates about the topic; that's why I've limited my discussion to how to improve the article (and how to discuss improving the article). You fail to do that when you suggest that my own view about what marriage principles are part of what traditions is part of this discussion; it's not relevant, and I haven't brought it up. The two inaccurate representations here are (1) that I brought up my own view of the issue, which I did not, and (2) that I suggested oneman/onewoman marriage is not a traditional Christian principle, when in fact I questioned whether NOM argues that the principle is an exclusively traditional Christian principle or a more broadly traditional principle. The relevant question here is by what standard we determine whether NOM is an exclusively or definitionally "Christian" group for the purposes of the article. I am of course familiar with the allegation about NOM being an LDS front; even if this were established fact, it is not the same as NOM being "the creation of Christian churches," which is what you stated as established fact; if the allegation (the article's allegation, not your general allegation) were established fact, it might be more accurate to label the group a "conservative Mormon organization." Given that it is currently an allegation, it does not seem like we can rely on it for officially labeling the nature of the group in the introductory paragraph. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Since you gave no source for your misgivings about the applicability of the term Christian to this organization, I assumed that that "source" was you. If you have a reliable source for your feelings about the term, it would be nice if you'd produce it. As for the rest: you're quite right, your view, like mine, is unimportant in terms of crafting an encyclopedia article; it's the views that can be found in reliable sources that matter. So we needn't discuss your view or mine here. I'd point out that in this discussion, it's you who have inserted "exclusively" before Christian, which our article does not, and it's you that wants to call Mormons non-Christians, which our article also does not. We would need to further discuss this if you wanted to place those viewpoints in the article. - Outerlimits (talk) 10:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The article implies that the organization is Christian as opposed to religiously neutral; exclusivity isn't my invention, but a clear implication of the label as it's being used. You misread me when you say that I've suggested Mormons be called non-Christians, and you misread me when you suggest I've sought to include such a viewpoint in the article. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(reseting the indent) First, let me suggest that everyone calm down a bit, and that we focus the discussion on the article, rather than on what we feel others believe or assume. T4 has some legitimate questions. For one, T4 asks whether we must treat something as true just because it's in the Times. And given how Wikipedia is constructed, the answer is at least kinda yes, since it is supposed to be built not on what we know or believe, but on what reliable sources say, and NYT is within the realm of what is considered to be a reliable source. This does not mean that they NYT is infallible (yes, I heard some guffaws out there), but if its information is to be overridden, it should be by some published source at least equally as reliable in this matter. I've seen no signs that NOM spokespeople have spoken against this statement, despite the fact that they are clearly aware of it (having copied it on their webpage); the NYT has shown a willingness to correct this article when error is pointed out to it, and in fact the article already carries one such correction.

T4 also questions what the use of those terms means in context, which is quite a legitimate question. The answer is tricky. Labels cannot only be applied to those groups which publicly embrace those labels; there are often understandable reasons not to do so. As to whether the group is conservative, they describe their mission as "protecting" an institution, which is practically a definition (not the only one) of conservative, and clearly they are fighting change. Then there's the question of what qualifies as a "Christian" organization. The group does not have to say it's "Christian" to be Christian; the Who We Are page of the Cult Awareness Network's website does not call itself a Scientology organization, but it is hard not to see it as such; it can be to the advantage of a groups goals being seen as coming from a more general base than it actually is.

Most groups when asked to officially describe themselves will use the descriptor that best serves their goals rather than the one that is most objectively accurate. But if a group didn't allow non-Christians on their board, spoke publicly in Christian terminology, and held Christian prayers at their board meeting (note: I'm not saying this describes NOM), would they not be a "Christian" group even if that wasn't on their masthead or IRS filings? So the fact that a group does not choose to self-identify themselves with a given label does not inherently mean that the label is not applicable. And both descriptors (and it seems to me the article is using them as two, as if saying "conservative" and "Christian" rather than describing a style of Christianity) are significant, and should not be ignored if true. - Nat Gertler (talk) 05:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Two points. First: the great American philosopher Yogi Berra is credited with saying, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." That's a good approach for Wikipedia editing. Second, WP:NPOV requires us to include all significant points of view. That would typically range from the subject to the subject's main opponents. Just report what the sources say with a neutral point of view and you can't go too far wrong.   Will Beback  talk  09:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess the rule is it has to stay in the if it's in the NYT; I'm pursuing a correction from the NYT. Annoying that correcting the error in wikipedia requires a correction from the NYT, though. In the meantime, can we phrase it as the NYT's characterization, rather than simply footnoting it and including it as objective fact? This seems to be more in line with NPOV, but I can't think of a way to do it that isn't awkward (unless we move the characterization further down in the article). Teaforthetillerman (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That would be appropriate if it were placed in the NYT as a POV piece (if, say, the source were an editorial), or possibly if there was a conflicting reliable source that it was being contrasted with. But to place it on something presented as a statement of fact is either an argument that the NYT is not a reliable source, or it points to burdening every such statement ("Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States, according to the Associated Press...") - Nat Gertler (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The tricky thing is that the NYT usually either attributes or gives reasons for labels it applies for which there's no widely known justification. When they don't attribute, there's no widely known justification, and they offer no reasons, it's a tough burden to prove the negative of the allegation. (It is a "news analysis" piece, for which the NYT's NPOV standards are laxer, fwiw.) Teaforthetillerman (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that news sources that don't believe the label is justified will just not apply the label, rather than writing a news article disputing it. The label is applied, as far as I can tell, only in this one story; in every other NYT story on the group, as well as AP and Washington Post stories, the group is described with a more accurate label. Is it worth citing to, say, 30 of these stories? They don't, of course, prove the negative, but show that the label isn't widely accepted by reliable news organizations. Why not apply labels used by the vast majority of reliable sources, including the NYT in nearly every case, rather than the label used in one instance by only one source? Teaforthetillerman (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

What are those labels which we're not applying? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, whether we're "not applying" them will depend on how you view the labelling (as each label being independent, or a labelling whole). But I think accurate descriptions used by reputable news organizations who don't call them Christian include "[NOM], which mobilizes social conservatives to fight against SSM," (AP), "a group established to fight SSM" (possibly best description -- NYT), "organization fighting gay marriage," (NYT), "a group opposed to SSM" (FoxNews). In some sense, of course, all those would be consistent with the possibility that it's a generally "conservative Christian" organization, but it's notable that nearly all reliable sources choose not to apply those labels to the group. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but they also don't apply "American" and "non-profit" in every article as well; are we to forego those descriptors? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I should note, thought, that I have found a couple other NYT references to the group as conservative Christian; I was mistaken earlier when I suggested that the cited article is the first NYT article to apply the label. I still have not found any NYT articles with information supporting the label. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Here[7] is an article in which NOM says it's a multifaith coalition, not a Mormon organization, fwiw. I'm not familiar with the SLT, but I think it's a mainstream newspaper, not a Mormon paper. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC) (edited for formatting)

(resetting indent) Also, NOM (or at least a board member) has now contested the label[[8]]. I'm removing it pending discussion of how to handle it. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Maggie (who, it should be noted, is not a NOM board member, but rather its president, posting her mesage on another one of the site of another of her special-rights-for-straight-couples efforts, iMAPP) contests "Christian", but she doesn't make any specific claim of opposition to "conservative", a term which has sources beyond the NYT (such as the AP source you cite above). - Nat Gertler (talk) 04:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, she can't even bring herself to say that NOM is not Christian, only that it is not exclusively Christian. So because they'll accept money from Jews, it's not a Christian organization! - Outerlimits (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

NG is right re: her office. I read her to contest the Christian label by saying the group is religiously neutral, and the conservative label by saying it's ideologically neutral. The AP doesn't label the organization conservative, although it says it mobilizes social conservatives (which, as I've said, I think is both accurate and potentially misleading--it mobilizes social conservatives, among others, but surely there isn't a "social conservative" majority of voters in Maine and California...). Does anyone have suggestions on how/whether to include the NYT labels once they're contested? Teaforthetillerman (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Given not only the NYT usage, but also the AP usage, the CNN usage, the Christian Newswire usage, given that NOM campaigns against candidates based on how far to the left they are and how the score on the Conservative Party checklist, depicting "respect for marriage" as a "core conservative value", it would seem avoiding including the "conservative" label would be to avoid being direct and clear. That they might not want to be seen as carrying the banner of "conservative organization" does not make them not a conservative organization. - Nat Gertler (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

What are we trying to signify with the conservative label that is not signified by the description that they fight legal recognition of SSM? (not bickering; I'm really not clear on this.) Teaforthetillerman (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It accurately and concisely places them within the spectrum and allegiances of the American political landscape, creating a context where things like their focus New York's district 23 - where the immediate question was not some SSM law but rather the overall conservatism of a specific candidate - makes sense. - Nat Gertler (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

new edits

I think alleged is proper word. Link is dead, can someone find that piece? This paragraph was outdated; financial reports were released, but I don't know when. Can someone find report on the result of the complaint? I couldn't. Need better sources for this section; it seems like it's mostly to advocacy blogs. I think there have been MSM stories on the accusations against NOM that we could cite to, just don't have time to look now. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean "it seems like it's mostly advocacy blogs"; I see one link on there that might meet that description, the Queerty one. Besides that, we have the New York Times, an Associated Press article, the Bangor Daily News, two articles from The Advocate (I guess if you don't know what that is, I can see assuming it's an advocacy blog; actually, it has been a major and respected news source, although it recently underwent a significant shrinkage), the NOM site, an article on Edge by an award-winning journalist, and an article from the print publication The Windy City Times (which has a history about a quarter-century long). Some of the publications involved are gay themed, but it's understandable that these stories might get their deepest coverage in such press, and it does not make them illegitimate. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I was really looking at the first paragraph, sorry. It cites The Advocate, whose only source for the story is CAH, links to CAH, and cites a dead link. I didn't look carefully enough at the rest of the section, and assumed the rest was a disaster like the first paragraph... Teaforthetillerman (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The Advocate link is not dead at the moment. Given that CAH is making the accusation, CAH would seem to be the key source to indeed verify that they are making the accusation. - Nat Gertler (talk) 06:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the formatting fixes. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I propose to replace the outdated last sentence of the second paragraph in the Allegations section: "The result of the investigation is pending.{{citation needed} " Work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teaforthetillerman (talk • contribs) 05:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

NG fixed this. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This section seems to be undue weight. It reports the accusations in significant detail, and only notes in passing that the forms were released (and that Karger's claim about it being an LDS front group are apparently unfounded). Mormons tend to donate to ProtectMarriage.com rather than this group. I think this whole paragraph should be reduced to perhaps a sentence. Cool Hand Luke 18:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That they have now released the forms does not exonerate them, does not mean that they were not in violation of the law. As the article does not include Karger's claims about NOM being an LDS front group, there's nothing there to eliminate regarding that. - Nat Gertler (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That's simply untrue; it does include Karger's unfounded allegations, including the claim that it's a Mormon front group. And it seems to give undue weight to this claim—the only director identified with a religion is LDS even though most of the directors are Catholic from what I can tell. Cool Hand Luke 03:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right, the article does include the claims; the section in question does not. As for your claim that "Mormons tend to donate to ProtectMarriage.com rather than this group", I'm dubious about this as a current situation; ProtectMarriage.com only covers one state, and isn't exactly a current hotbed of activity (they've had one blog post in the past year.) - Nat Gertler (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Look at the donors to ProtectMarriage.com. Mormons. Look at the donors to this group in the California efforts. The top ones are the Knights of Columbus, John Templeton, and almost no Mormons in sight. I'm sorry that you're dubious, but Wikipedia requires reliable sources, not Karger's unfounded allegations and your dubiousness. Cool Hand Luke 05:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"no moral right to such marriage"

Although NG's edit is an improvement, this framing seems like a tricky issue. If I understand NOM's argument correctly (and I admit I'm mostly familiar with George's writings, and a little of MG's, rather than NOM's publications, so I may be erroneously extrapolating from that) they argue that marriage is inherently male-female (that is, that same-sex relationships can't be "marriages"). In that sense, it seems like it misstates their argument to say "there is no moral right to such marriages," because the "such marriages" language assumes the very point they're disputing in their argument. Would it be safer to quote the actual language of some published piece of theirs? Of course, there may be a cite for the current language that I'm not aware of; NOM's arguments obviously need not be George's, and I haven't studied them much. Footnote 1 doesn't seem to support this description of NOM's argument, at least not unambiguously, and footnote 2 is inaccessible (I've tried to find the AP story to which it's trying to link, both via google and via the website to which it links, but have been unable to. I am afraid I'll mess something up if I try to edit the footnote; I'm just learning this formatting stuff.) Sorry so many parentheticals in this comment. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

What about "argues that same-sex couples do not have a moral right to have their relationships recognized as marriages."? Awkward phrasing, I'm just putting it out there for suggestions... I also wonder if this descriptor of one of their arguments should go further down in the introduction (this is one of their arguments, I suppose, but their raison d'etre is to prevent legal recognition of SSM--just as a stylistic matter, it's weird to combine the two into a single sentence.) Teaforthetillerman (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

NOM chairman Robert P. George, evangelical former Watergate felon Chuck Colson, and Baptist divinity professor Timothy George, are the authors of the Manhattan Declaration. (I'm not certain if Robert & Timothy are related or not.) To publicize it, they hired the DeMoss Group, a "PR firm exclusively representing faith-based leaders, organizations, and causes." Maggie Gallagher, Charles "Chuck" Stetson, Robert P. George, Luiz Tellez, and Brian Brown, all of them NOM officials, are 5 of the 176 "Religious Leaders" signatories to the Manhattan Declaration. Mormons were excluded from signing, but "the signatories are happy to stand alongside our LDS brothers and sisters" and those of other faiths in other respects.

Read it [9] and see if you still think the religious and moral nature of their argumentation should be downplayed/soft-pedaled/de-emphasized. - Outerlimits (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to equivocate here between "religious" and "moral," and I'm not sure what you're getting at. I haven't argued that any aspect of their argumentation should be downplayed/soft-pedaled/de-emphasized. Is there an argument here? I'm reluctant to try to read between the lines. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You've argued both that they are not a Christian organization and that their sole purpose is legal opposition to marriage equality; they've signed an exclusively Christian document and their opposition on moral and religious ground rather than exclusively legal argumentation is also manifested there. - Outerlimits (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Who is "they" in this comment? NOM? Teaforthetillerman (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I have not argued that NOM's sole purpose is legal opposition to SSM, but neither do I see how the personal stance of part of the board would contradict that position. I guess I don't understand what view of the article you're trying to attribute to me or what you propose as a case against it! Does all of some portion of the board's positions necessarily dictate the mission of the organization? (So George, for example, believes same-sex relationships can't be marriage both for secular natural-law reasons and for revalatory religious reasons; when he's talking to religious people he appeals to revelation, and when he's participating in the public policy arena he offers more publicly accessible reasons; why couldn't he engage in different efforts for different purposes? I think I must not understand what you're trying to say.) Teaforthetillerman (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you may not see an organization headed by "religious leaders" as a religious organization; I think most people would differ with you. This is an organization that has prepared different lists of talking points for Protestants, Catholics, and Jews; they're clearly religious in a way you seem to want to downplay. - Outerlimits (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you call "Americans United for the Separation of Church and State" a religious organization, since Barry Lynn is a religious leader? (Or is it a particular ratio of "religious leaders" to others that makes an organization religious?) I can't figure out what standard you're trying to apply. Are you arguing now that it's a generally religious organization instead of a definitionally Christian organization? Teaforthetillerman (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the majority of the board of AUSCS religious leaders? In any case, National Organization for Marriage certainly seems to be a front group for the religious right. Now, perhaps they want to downplay that, and perhaps you'd like to help them out on that, but it remains true. - Outerlimits (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so your standard is whether a majority of the board are religious leaders? I don't know what you mean by "front group for the religious right." You know what a front group is? How is this allegation relevant? Teaforthetillerman (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's clear that the publishers of the Manhattan Declaration see NOM as a religious organization; that's why someone like Maggie is on their list of religious leaders, and her credential to support that religious leadership is her role in NOM. - Nat Gertler (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It may well suggest that they think this, but I'm not sure it's "clear." I suspect that someone might call Jesse Jackson a religious leader, listing his work for the Rainbow/PUSH coalition. That is, he's termed a "religious leader" because he's an openly religious person taking a prominent role in a moral battle, rather than because the group for which he's known is itself institutionally religious.

"Religious leader," as the MD people use it, is itself a confusing term; presumably every pastor-type person is in some sense a religious leader, but they don't list them all on that page. They seem to mean something like "Christian public intellectuals." OTOH the other affiliations listed on that page are largely religious affiliations. But it still doesn't seem clear to me that the MD signers' perspective on NOM is that it's a Christian organization. (Especially since apparently the MD signers don't see LDS people as Christian...) Teaforthetillerman (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC), who just learned that "Mormon" can be considered pejorative.

I'm not sure how "Christian public intellectuals" could have sounded accurate.

"If the courts or the legislators redefine marriage, our children will be taught that gay marriage is a great good and it will become very difficult to do what we have to do: transmit an authentically Christian marriage culture to our own children," ::said Gallagher. "Our children are being relentlessly propagandized even as our own voices are being silenced and repressed." http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.5075687/apps/s/content.asp?ct=6648937

Directly from Maggie Gallagher on NOM's very own website. There are other examples. And I don't see how one could not find the Manhattan Declaration a purely religious document, nor can I even comprehend how NOM doesn't exist for the sole purpose of preventing same-sex couples from marrying. Your burden of proof is far and above wikipedia's, judging from all of the comments I've seen from you over time on wiki. NOM should also be given the accurate "Christian" descriptor once more, and I'm going to go ahead and add it back since you are literally the only one I've seen object the term on their article over the course of the past several months. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 07:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Latter-day Saint/Mormon

I reverted a change that switched reference to Orson Scott Card from being a "Mormon novelist" to being a "Latter-day Saint novelist". The person who had made a change referred to the "LDS style guide"; I thought he was referring to this church document, but he may have been referring to WP:MOSLDS. If the former, it's an inappropriate basis for shaping the reference (organizations do not get to dictate how we refer to their members); if the latter, it's a misreading of that policy (which recommends the label of Later-day Saint for the church, not for its members). Both documents indicate that "Mormon" is an acceptable descriptor of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Later-day Saints, and references that appear to cast Card as a "Saint" would violate the goal of NPOV. - Nat Gertler (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm referring to WP:LDSMOS. "Latter-day Saint" is not POV, and I've never seen anyone claim that it is before. It's the preferred term for an adherent, "Mormon" being considered a mild pejorative. I'm going to restore it with "Mormon" as a parenthetical. Cool Hand Luke 02:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course calling someone a "saint" is POV. Card himself embraces the Mormon descriptor. Mormon is also the more generally recognized term outside of LDS circles, making it more straightforward. The current version you have up, using "LDS", goes against WP:MOSLDS, which calls for avoiding that abbreviation for the first invocation of the church on a page. I am returning to Mormon, but leaving in your link to the LDS church page. - Nat Gertler (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

They're not being called a "saint," but are called "Later-day Saints" which is a specific term meaning members of the LDS Church. That's simply what members are called, as in Category:American Latter Day Saints (note that Category:Mormons redirects to this page). It's not negative or positive.

Can you explain to me why Card is alone in having his religion identified? Cool Hand Luke 04:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that they choose to call themselves Saints does not make it NPOV; and when there is an NPOV term available such as Mormon, it seems wiser to go with that. No, I cannot explain to you why Card is alone in having his religion identified; I have neither introduced that specification into the article nor deleted any references to the religions of the other board members. - Nat Gertler (talk) 05:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

And to follow that up - the Mormon belief is that LDS followers are truly small-s saints (in contrast with, say, New Orleans Saints, whose use of the capital-S Saint does not reflect any belief that they are small-s saints). They use the term "saint" in a somewhat different sense than its more common use in the larger culture (the worker of miracles), but it's a term still best avoided as a descriptor of an individual, particularly when there's an acceptable alternative. - Nat Gertler (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that I might have some idea what I'm talking about? Members of the LDS Church have not used small-s "saints" since they moved to Utah because multiple denominations claim this heritage. Only the term "Latter-day Saint" (not "Saint," but "Latter-day Saint" with a hyphen and small 'd') is unique to members of the LDS Church.

"Mormon" is considered a pejorative, and it has been since the term was coined. It's also imprecise because it applies to members of several churches—some of which hate each other. "Latter-day Saint" is not a neologism, but is in fact the preferred usage in several newspaper style guides as you can see with a simple google search.[10] The term is capitalized and is also the preferred term on Wikipedia (hence the category and even article names).

Would we use the label "queer" to describe every gay man who had ever embraced the term? I doubt it. And if I were to argue that we should call people "homosexuals" and not use the term "gay" because it's not a NPOV term and we shouldn't defer to what "they choose to call themselves," what kind of argument would I be making? I tend to think it would be a bigoted and ignorant argument.

How about we simply remove the adjective. No other officer's religion is identified, and it's clear to me that it's only mentioned to advance the "Mormon front group" theory (which actually is POV). If you insist on naming his religion, let's use the syntax that virtually all politician's articles use—call him a a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("Mormon"), which puts the pejorative in quotation marks, where it belongs. Cool Hand Luke 03:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they use Saint to separate themselves from other saints, but it does not appear to intended to distance themselves from being a saint. It seems to be more a trademarked brand of saint, if you will. As to the pejorative nature of "Mormon", the church itself deems it an acceptable way to refer to a members of the church (“Mormons” is acceptable.) Wikipedia policy does not presume that what people prefer to have themselves called is always acceptable. There are people who view the term "Jew" as a pejorative; that does not mean that we shouldn't use it to refer to Jews... even in cases where we could be more precise and call someone a kohen or a Karaite, because Jew is a more common term and more apt to be understood. And if someone prefered to see them refered to as The Chosen People, it would be quite reasonable to claim that that is unnecessarily POV language.

Having said that, I have no objection to the removal of the references to OSC's religion (which should not be taken as a statement for any other editor of this article.) - Nat Gertler (talk) 05:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with this. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No, they don't use "Saint" at all; they use the complete term "Latter-day Saint," but this sounds like a good solution. What I found most concerning is using the bare pejorative term for the religion in conjunction with identifying the religion of none of the other directors. If that problem is fixed, I think the article will be more NPOV. Cool Hand Luke 18:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You may want to explain that to the folks at LDS.org; they seem to disagree. "Let’s be honest with ourselves: The Saints really do cry a lot." "There is safety in being a Saint." As to whether they consider themselves"Through the ordinance of baptism, we take upon ourselves the name of the Lord and covenant to be saints in these latter days." - Nat Gertler (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No, not really. [11] did you notice that this is a speech based on a Billy Joel lyric (a lame parody claiming that members of the church do a lot of crying, or something) and that the term "Latter-day Saint" is used several times for members (even though the audience is presumptively Mormon)? [12] Did you notice that the use of lower-case "saints" here is actually a scripture quote, followed by an alliterative phrase and then clarification that members are known as "Latter-day Saints," a term which is used 7 times? As for the last one you cite: [13]

The last word in the title is Saints. I smile when I remember a comment made after my call to the Quorum of the Twelve. A doctor friend relayed a report made at a professional meeting that “Dr. Nelson was no longer practicing cardiac surgery because his church had made him ‘a saint.’ ”

Such a comment was not only amusing but revealing. It evidenced unfamiliarity with the language of the Bible, in which the word saint is used much more frequently than is the term Christian.

He then goes on to explain how the term is not actually an honorific. It's not. Mormons do not identify themselves as "saints," nor does anyone else; the Commonwealth census forms categorize them as "Latter Day Saints," which is the broader affiliation that Mormons mark.

The term is used throughout this site; every LDS member is categorized as a "Latter Day Saint." I have edited LDS topic for over five years, and I've been in a lot of nomenclature disputes. I've argued, for example, that "Mormon fundamentalist" is a description for polygamist sects, even though the LDS Church positively loathes the term; I'm not an LDS apologist. This is the first time I've ever seen anyone claim that 'Latter-day Saint ("Mormon")' is POV—even though this nomenclature it includes both the academic and the popular name for LDS adherents. I'm just surprised by the claim. Cool Hand Luke 15:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the first time I've ever seen anyone claim that 'Latter-day Saint ("Mormon")' is POV—even though this nomenclature it includes both the academic and the popular name for LDS adherents. ??? You're saying that as if I had made some specific complaint about that combination, which I neither recall doing nor find myself doing in this thread. The logic that by using the term "Latter-day Saint" they are not using the term "Saint" eludes me - it is right there in the phrase, and meant to be taken as the noun. It's like saying that if I say something is a blue whale, I'm not saying that it's a whale. If this is the first time you've seen someone complain about folks being labeled Saints, then welcome to another perspective. - Nat Gertler (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The capital letters tend to tip off most readers that it's a term of art (namely, the academic name for adherents). To use one of your examples, I doubt you would argue that the "New Orleans Saints" are POV. At any rate, you're right that I never asked (although that was one of the versions I edited). Do you see a POV problem with using Latter-day Saint ("Mormon")? If his faith is again identified, it should be in that form, or the more cumbersome "member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("Mormon"). Cool Hand Luke 19:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)