Talk:Obergefell v. Hodges/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Display name 99 (talk · contribs) 23:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I am relatively inexperienced in reviewing good articles, but will do my best to help take care of this article. Anyone else who would like to join in is welcome to do so. I believe that the article can soon be made a good article, but there are several minor issues that I would like to see fixed prior to this occurring. 

1. The section of the article recounting the decisions of lower-level courts that eventually led to the Supreme Court decision were rather long and, in my opinion, somewhat confusing. Section 3 of the GA Criteria, requiring that the article does not go into unnecessary detail, may mandate that this section of the article be revisited and shortened. There may need to be another article created from this to exclusively contain state and local-level decisions leading up to the Supreme Court decision. As it stands, I believe that this section is too long and confusing. 

2. In the "Merits beliefs" section, the two questions that the Supreme Court was supposedly trying to address are unsourced. 

3. I am somewhat confused about a statement under "Dissenting Opinions," in which the article states that certain justices wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by other justices. However, I was under the impression that each of the dissenting justices wrote their own opinions. The confusion may simply stem from a lack of knowledge on my part about how Supreme Court decisions work, but would someone please clarify this, either in the review or in the article? 

4. Under the "Support section," there is an image of the White House being illuminated in rainbow colors, but there is nothing about that in the body of the text. I would recommend adding a bit about that with a source.

Please consider these revisions and notify me here once your work is complete. Display name 99 (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Though I've been involved in editing, let me make some comments here on the Talk page. The following point numbers correspond to yours.

1.  I can sympathize with your confusion. The simple fact of the matter, however, is that the procedural history of the case is confusing and complicated. You'd be surprised just how much. Discussions of very complicated matters, even by expert scholars and professional writers, tend to be complicated and confusing. Getting rid of those qualities typically means diluting the material or, as here, engaging in some historical misrepresentation and revisionism. Those wishing to understand the procedural history simply must brace themselves a bit. Other than the Ohio cases, I don't see how the discussion can be substantially abbreviated without misrepresenting what happened and who is actually involved. Yet it must be noted that the Ohio cases are the most complicated of all. Simply shoveling all this material into a single separate article, in addition to being unprecedented for a court case article as far as I am aware, would also convey an erroneous impression of this history, rendering it as the Jim Obergefell show.

2.  In the "Merits briefs" section, the two questions under review are sourced. See note 89. Notes 89 to 91 are meant to cover all preceding material in the section, including the two questions. There is no point in cumbersome repetition. 

3.  Justices and judges may join each other's opinions and dissenting opinions regardless of whether they write any themselves. This is basic and standard practice and info. It does not require clarification, let alone here.

4.  Fair enough. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you and I agree. I am also somewhat concerned about this section of "Majority opinion:"

"The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach," the Court declared, "a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity." [source] Citing Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court affirmed that the fundamental rights found in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause "extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs," but the "identification and protection" of these fundamental rights "has not been reduced to any formula." As the Supreme Court has found in cases such as Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, and Turner v. Safley, this extension includes a fundamental right to marry."

I am concerned that the final sentence could give the impression that the article is endorsing the Court's decision, and thereby violating the policy of neutrality. Perhaps it could be reworded to say that the Court came to the conclusion that the right of same-sex couples to marry was a part of the extension, rather than "realized" it, as is implied in the current version. Display name 99 (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

If I may add my two cents about the bolded passage above: the word "found" is a term of art in legal writing that is synonymous with "concluded" or "adjudged" (see Black's Law Dictionary's definition of "finding of fact" at page 646). As it is written now, the sentence is an accurate and neutral description of the Court's ruling. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. However, I encourage you to take a closer look. The statement reads "As the Supreme Court has found..." Whenever someone says "As he said" or "As she said," it's generally presumed that the person will follow it with a statement agreeing with whatever that person said. It then reads, "this extension includes...," thereby indicating agreement with the Court's findings regarding the 14th Amendment. Even with the word "found" meaning what it does, the sentence does not seem neutral enough to me. Here is what I would suggest:

"The Court found, as it did in Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, and Turner v. Safley, that this extension includes a fundamental right to marry."

I would also like to hear from the nominator. I have left a note on his/her talk page yesterday informing the user that the article was under review, but so far have heard nothing. Display name 99 (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Not to nitpick, but: Your version states that the Court was doing some actual "finding" in this regard in Obergefell, whereas it was quite explicitly only applying past "findings" to the instant case, as the original text of the article would have it (see corresponding note, omitted from your quotation). The verb to find really is a very technical and specific thing in legal discourse. The tense used makes no difference. The Court itself uses the very same tense of the verb to hold, a largely synonymous legal term, at the start of its discussion of this matter in its decision. Legal types are very exacting about what courts actually find or hold. Antinoos69 (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You may alter slightly what I had written above if you choose. However, the Court did do some finding in Obergefell v. Hodges by determining that the right to marry applied to same-sex couples as well as other groups. Regardless, I will not pass the article should the current version stand. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Display name 99, can you clarify why you think the passage quoted above is not neutral? If you read page 11 of the slip opinion, the you will see that the Court wrote: "Applying these established tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution." The Court then cites Loving, Zablocki, and Turner as examples of cases in which the Court affirmed the principle that the right to marry is protected by the Constitution. As it is written now, the the sentence is a perfectly accurate description of the Court's ruling. The introductory clause of the sentence ("As the Supreme Court has found ...") is simply used to make a comparison -- a comparison that the Supreme Court made in its opinion, not one that Wikipedia would be making in its own voice (see Merriam-Webster's definition of the word "as"). Also, one quick note about the GA nominator: they have not been an active contributor to this article, and I believe they have only made a handful of edits. Antinoos69 has been the primary editor here since last July. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the note about the nominator. I am perfectly willing to work with whomever has been contributing the most to the article in order to improve it. In most cases, that is the GA nominator, but in this case it does not seem to be so. Regarding the sentence in question, I will quote it once more:

"As the Supreme Court has found in cases such as Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, and Turner v. Safley, this extension includes a fundamental right to marry."

"This extension" is not referring to the Court's decisions in previous rulings, rather the 14th Amendment. Prior to this statement, the article quotes a ruling from another Court case in which the Court made a ruling regarding what the rights given in the Amendment "extend to." In then says, "as the Court has found," that the rights given by the Amendment include the right to marry, implicitly applying that to same-sex couples. It's basically saying:

"As the Supreme Court has found in cases such as Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, and Turner v. Safley, the 14th Amendment gives gay people the right to marry."

If we can't agree on this, I can close the review and either you or Antinoos69 can renominate it immediately afterward and give someone else a chance to look at it, or invite someone else in now to mediate or, perhaps, finish the review himself. Display name 99 (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, I must agree with Notecardforfree above—who, if I recall correctly, actually holds a JD. At this point in its argument, page 10 through the very top of page 12, the Court is discussing the right to marriage in general as rooted in the Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment in particular. Same-sex marriage will have to wait just a bit. So the Court here is not making any "findings" but applying the "findings" of its previous cases to the instant case and point regarding marriage in general. If you can't understand that, then perhaps this article would be better served by a reviewer better versed in legal discourse and argument. After all, the real objective here is to produce a good article, not one merely declared good by some process imagined as official. (Btw, I hadn't imagined myself the "primary editor" of this article, but I suppose I will have to accommodate myself to the reality that that is what I've become.) Antinoos69 (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Display name 99, I don't want to make any editorial decisions about what this article should or shouldn't say -- I will leave that in the capable hands of Antinoos69, whose tireless work to improve this article should be commended. I do, however, want to take a moment explain why I think your interpretation of the passage quoted above is mistaken:

It sounds like the central premise of your argument is that quoted passage from this article misstates the court's ruling by arguing that the court's conclusion in Obergefell was derived from the Fourteenth Amendment. However, this premise is flawed in several respects. First, it overlooks the fact that the rulings in Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, and Turner v. Safley all held that the substantive due process protections of the Fourteenth Amendment include a fundamental right to marriage:

• In Loving, the Court held: "The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations." (388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967)).
• In Zablocki, the Court held: "More recent decisions have established that the right to marry is part of the fundamental "right of privacy" implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause." (434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978)).
• In Turner, the Court held: "[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right under Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374 (1978), and Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967)" (482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987)).

Second, your argument overlooks the fact that the Court's opinion in Obergefell was itself based upon the Fourteenth Amendment's substantive due process protections. I encourage you to read paragraph that begins with "Applying these established tenets ..." on page 11 of the slip opinion, which explains the relationship between these cases.

If I have mischaracterized your argument, please let me know. It wouldn't be the first time I have misunderstood an argument. That said, I hope you can understand where I am coming from, and I hope you can appreciate that my perspective is based upon my familiarity with the subject matter. I am confident that we can all reach an amicable solution to this, and I look forward to working with you. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Notecardforfree, I believe Display name 99 may simply be confused about what is being discussed at this particular point in the decision and article. I may well be mistaken. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

With all respect, I have decided to withdraw myself from the review process of this article. I have placed the failed good article template on the talk page. I encourage you to renominate it and work with whomever else will review it to see what should and should not be done. I placed the failed template on the talk page so that another reviewer would not pass this article by on the nominations page, believing that it was already being reviewed. Thank you for your efforts to improve this article. Display name 99 (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

As Display name 99 has withdrawn from the reviewing process rather than having failed the nomination for cause, I am going to put the nominated article directly back into the reviewing pool, so it does not lose its seniority. It had already been waiting since September; it would be a shame to let that seniority be lost. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nominator here: I apologize as I didn't see the note until now - I didn't contribute to the page at all but came across it and as I read it, I was very impressed with its detail, sourcing, and other factors. Thus I decided to nominate it for GA. I'm really disappointed that it "failed" over what appears to be disagreement over one sentence. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Wikimandia, as I noted immediately above your post, your nomination has not actually been failed, but put back into the nomination pool where it is waiting for a new reviewer. Perhaps, when the next review begins, it will last long enough for you to be able to participate in the review process. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh sorry,—Мандичка^YO 😜 01:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC) I misunderstood your comment BlueMoonset, I thought it failed but you renominated it. Thanks!

I apologize for failing to take into account dates of seniority when I marked the article as having "Failed." I was simply concerned that someone reviewing it might pass it by, thinking that it was already under review when it actually was not. I'm sorry for the confusion. Display name 99 (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)