Talk:2008 California Proposition 8/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Struck down 4th Aug 2010

So it looks like this is now ruled unconstitutional (three quick references: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/08/prop8-gay-marriage.html http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_15677141?nclick_check=1 and http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/04/MNQS1EOR3D.DTL&tsp=1); this should probably be added to the article but I'm not familiar with the minutae. Could someone whip up a new section? 7daysahead (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Native94080 *likes!* Native94080 (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

catsintheattic Yes, it should definitely be added. There appears only to be a link to the sfgate article, and not to the text of Judge Walker's decision or the video evidence (https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/) Catsintheattic (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 174.6.218.95, 5 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The article notes that exit polls are not considered reliable, and cites an article as proof. This is not true; exit polls are generally considered the most reliable polls. The article is a Republican-biased web article, citing no research to back up its claims.

Please correct the note about exit polls. The statement is absolutely NOT TRUE. The reference article is very reliable and Nate Silver does a great job but the person writing the Wiki article obviously doesn't understand statistics and misread fivethirtyeight. Furthermore, Nate Silver doesn't even say the word 'inaccurate' or 'biased'. Exit Polls have a higher variability and a clustering effect but the Wiki author's comment about bias and inaccurate is incorrect and those type of comments should be left to a statistician! There is a very big difference between inaccurate/biased and having a larger variance. Please correct article!!

174.6.218.95 (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Just who considers exit polls to be very accurate? Exit polls are generally used to measure specific demographics support/opposition, rather than the actual results. I'm not sure that it counts as a Republican bias to not consider exit polls to be unreliable... 68.227.169.133 (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: That appears to be a reliable source for this information, so you would need to provide reliable sources which support your assertion. Alternatively, you could ask over at the RS noticeboard whether this source is reliable for the content it supports. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

See also

Tyranny of the majority should be added to the "See also" section. --138.110.206.100 (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No, for two reasons. First, we try to keep 'see also' sections tightly focussed on a limited number of highly relevant articles - the 'Tyranny' article is too tangential. Second, linking to that particular article implies a particular POV regarding Prop 8. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The article, and the term, describe not so much the phenomenon whereby the majority makes a decision that is adverse and unfair to a minority, but rather a criticism of an inherent feature or limitation in the voting / democratic process, whereby such outcomes occur. If we just mean to say that the public enacted a mean-spirited law that unfairly hurt same-sex couples who, by virtue of being marginalized and few in numbers, lacked the votes to defend themselves, I think we could say so directly (and perhaps more neutrally than I pose it) without invoking this more abstract critique of the democratic process. But I don't think people conceive the issue here as will of the people versus tyranny of the majority so much as laws enforcing older social norms versus gay rights. If they do, and we can source it, it would make sense to work that into the text of the article in an appropriate section describing public perception and critiques of the issue. This comes up as a legal issue as well. The district judge, in the closing paragraph of one section of the opinion, referred to the limits the US Constitution places on the sorts of matters that may be decided by state action or popular vote, versus claims of judicial activism, will of the voters, etc. This will surely be picked up by the media if it has not already, and if it gets sufficient coverage it could be worked into an appropriate sentence describing the legal rationale and reaction to the decision. However, that may never satisfy WP:WEIGHT concerns, because this article is about the whole history of the proposition and not just this one ruling. Assuming the case plays out in the US Supreme Court, the case itself will probably get its own article someday, and if there is enough discussion of the "tyranny" issue, namely, does the public get to vote on who can get married, then it could be part of that article. But Hamiltonstone is spot-on, we don't use the "see also" section to link to the general issues that the article raises, it's a tightly focused and small list of links to things directly related to the article content. And the tyranny critique takes one side of a two-sided issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

In that case, Minoritarianism (Tyranny Of the Minority) must be included in the Legal Challenges section to maintain NPOV.174.25.8.116 (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC) A REDDSON

Tyranny of the majority is a biased term, and to use it in a discussion of a policy that effects the language and resources and policy options available to all residents of a state is a biased action. Proposition 8 applies equally to people of all gender, opening up to all people the option of marrying someone of the same gender. Lynn Wardle, a scholar who has studied marriage laws and phenomenon, has argued that creating same-gender marriage would lead to many people with no homosexual desires entering marriage for temporary beniefits while also still seeking marriages with people of the opposite gender. Beyond this, Wardle in his testimony for DOMA pointed out marriage is a public act and about public perception, and benefits, and thus effects everyone. see here [1] . A Tyranny of the majority see also link thus violates wikipedia NPOV policy. Here is another discussion of the point that marriage is a public issue, and so its definition is properly the domain of public policy, not judicial fiat. [2] Whatever else the merits of these arguements, they make the claim of "tyranny of the majority" a clear case of invoking a set of biases that clearly and certainly violate NPOV.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The reader has to know both sides of the argument. Most folks know that most laws can be made through a simple majority through the political process but do not know that the law of the land does not make that absolute. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson wrote:

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

We are a Constitutional Republic. And it is not mere Judicial Fiat. The Courts are appointed by elected officials, governed by established precedents based on the Constitution, and watched over by the superior courts. The article must mention both Prop 8 winning almost 53% of the vote and that not everything popular is constitutional. For example, on the state level, The California Supreme Court decided that banning interracial civil marriage was illegal in 1948. It was an unpopular decision at the time. In fact, it wasn't until 1978 that some mainstream groups removed their last impediment to interracial religious marriage. The majority is not always in the right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javaweb (talk • contribs) 06:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Needs to be updated in light of recent court decision.

not much else to say that can't be found on the google.

Article already reflects the results of the case. Ultimate impact of case is yet unknown, pending end of stay, appeals. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we get the schedule added to the article? It's been pretty hard for me to find the court schedule (I looked here first) but I finally found a copy of it third-hand.

"The previously established briefing schedule is vacated. The opening brief is now due September 17, 2010. The answering brief is due October 18, 2010. The reply brief is due November 1, 2010." [3]

(I apologize for my lack of proper formatting. I haven't contributed to wikipedia in a long time and I've forgotten all the tags, also I don't have a log-in yet. I hope it's not a problem on the discussion page.) 64.85.248.115 (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be enlightening to note in the paragraph overturning Prop 8 that Judge Walker's objectivity has quite reasonably been questioned due to his obvious vested interest in the establishment of same-sex marriage. This is highly relevant and should be briefly included to allow the reader to form his/her own opinion.50.10.99.70 (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It is already covered in the article for the court case , which is the proper place for this. In this article, we are covering the broad outlines of the case: which court it is in and any outcome. If we cover this here how do we keep out every other twist and turn in the case?

--Javaweb (talk) 05:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Under "Campaign Funding", the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is incorrectly called the "Mormon Church". It seems like a minor edit that I would've made myself.. but the article's locked. It's correctly called "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" under the "Religious Organizations" heading.

cf http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/style-guide —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanlds (talk • contribs) 10:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops I forgot to sign. I'm not used to using the talk section. Sorry! Nathanlds (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I've edited this in part, it's not usual WP style to repeat the full name consistently, and "LDS church" is the usual compromise here after the fully-spelled out version is provided, and consistent with usage in the rest of the article. Thanks for the catch. --j⚛e decker^talk 11:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No disrespect, but "usual compromises" are a little insensitive when dealing with religious, cultural, or ethnic groups. Brevity does not seem to trump sensitivity. A more respectful compromise might be 'the Church' but that can be confused at times with the Catholic Church which is the most common group identified that way. Still there is no such entity as 'The LDS Church'. I believe it is equally insensitive to refer to the Jehovah's Witness church as 'JW'. In fact by abbreviating it as the 'LDS Church' you are removing the name of Jesus Christ from reference which is quite concerning to Latter-Day Saints (who as a collective people might be respectfully identified as LDS).--Canadiandy talk 07:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes because they conflict with or are unnecessary per Wikipedia's Manual of Style; please work to change the policy if you feel they are sufficiently insensitive. AV3000 (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Canadiandy1: While I agree AV3000, I do have to add that my phrasing was poor, I should have been more clear, as AV3000 was, that I was referring to a policy and not some offhand compromise. My apologies for the confusion and unintended offense. This manner of style rule is not uncommon in publications outside of Wikipedia, for example, you can see a similar pattern of usage in this New York Times article. [4], or this article from the Deseret News. I'll note also this book passage from Orson Scott Card, self-described member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and, relevantly enough to this article, a board member of the National Organization for Marriage. You seem to be finding offense where standard American practice and usage within the described community itself suggests no offense is intended, and I would politely ask you to reconsider your views based on this evidence. And to the extent that we should change our style guidelines, I encourage you to reopen a discussion as AV3000 on the manual of style, if this *does* need to be changed, it's a change which affects hundreds if not thousands of articles here and should be discussed and implemented broadly, not just here. --joe decker^{talk to me} 17:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

For future consideration I would refer you to the Church's Style Guide page at http://newsroom.lds.org/style-guide . It is quite clear there that the respectful form for shortening the name of the Church is 'the Church' or 'The Church of Jesus Christ'. Associated Press seems to concur. I hoped this might not be a contentious point, but when given more sensitive (fairly reasonable) options I'm confused why you would want to do it differently. I would understand if the name request was "The Religion formerly known as The Latter-Day Saint Church in the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times" (I made that up) but how is 'the Church' or 'The Church of Jesus Christ' problematic?--Canadiandy talk 06:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, the proper place to discuss Wikipedia policy on this nomenclature is where that policy is established, at WP:MORMON. We here should just follow that policy. As for the group's style guide, we do not let everyone demand their own style; otherwise, I'd have my style guide say that the proper way to refer to me is as The Great And Sexy Nat Gertler, Who Should Be Given Cupcakes. And the problem with "the Church" or "the Church of Jesus Christ" is that either of them could refer to a large number of different organizations (as seen here). --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Great And Sexy Nat Gertler, Who Should Be Given Cupcakes, thanks. I don't agree about your last point, though. Once the original identifier (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) has been given and there has been no shift in topic, there would be no confusion as to which church ('the Church')was being identified by the shortened form.--Canadiandy talk 01:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Map in Results Section

The map of California in the Results section is very difficult to see for someone with red-green color blindnes such as myself. Can someone change it? Red and blue are standard colors for this sort of thing. Bender2k14 (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Using red and blue tends to run into problems regarding political partisan implications, and it isn't standard at all. Other color combinations might work though. --kurykh 20:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have more-or-less fixed the problem. The maroon "yes" value is now a maroon and white crosshatch so that if you don't see in color those areas should appear as a series of crosshatched areas instead of solid. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

We should mention the district court decision at the top

The district court overturn should be mentioned in the first or second sentence, rather than at the end of the first section, in order to keep broader summaries nearer the top. The sentence that currently appears at the bottom of the 1st section could be the 2nd sentence, or a shorter version could be used, there68.2.47.164 (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC): United States district court Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger.[10] Judge Walker issued an injunction against enforcing Proposition 8 and a stay to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal.[11][12]

Respectfully disagree. The article's purpose is to first describe what Prop 8 was, what it did, and how it came about, and only then what happened to it. Also, placing the court case at the end of the opening section gives it emphasis. Shalom, --Wikibojopayne (talk) 03:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Prop 8 restricted marriage by same-sex couples

Prop 8 said "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." (see article). Existing law was less restrictive and the whole purpose and outcome of Prop 8 was restricting marriage by same-sex couples. The former text was clearer so I undid the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javaweb (talk • contribs) 02:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Javaweb (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Javaweb

Edit requested April 14 2011

Please correct the note about exit polls. The statement is absolutely NOT TRUE. The reference article is very reliable and Nate Silver does a great job but the person writing the Wiki article obviously doesn't understand statistics and misread fivethirtyeight. Furthermore, Nate Silver doesn't even say the word 'inaccurate' or 'biased'. Exit Polls have a higher variability and a clustering effect but the Wiki author's comment about bias and inaccurate is incorrect and those type of comments should be left to a statistician! There is a very big difference between inaccurate/biased and having a larger variance. Please correct article!!

While this isn't a proper-format edit request, it did get me looking at the section. There is nothing in Silver's article that connects it specifically to this poll; placing it here is WP:SYNTH, so I've removed the reference and the content which it supported. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Urgent Update needed~

Major announcements on this case were made on 17 November 2011! Why is this article not reflecting this???! Aligator-woman (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Because it takes more than a few minutes for news to propagate and for some editor to choose to address them. The fact that the state supreme court has opined that the proponents have standing has now been added. There may be some expansion on that due. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Move Full Text towards the top

Given that this is an article about the ballot initiative/amendment to the CA Constitution, and that readers (like me) are fairly likely to be visiting this page to see what the Prop says, shouldnt the full text of Prop 8 be at the top? This isnt supposed to be an article primarily about the campaigns that went on, but the way it reads now, it's almost assumed that the reader knows the content of the amendment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.230.88.85 (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The full operative phrase of the amendment is quoted in the first paragraph. The rest is legal structure. While this is a relatively short law, in the general case laws are more importantly covered in addressing their intent and impact, rather than their precise wording. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Difficult to edit because of high traffic

Traffic to the article is so heavy, that I get proxy errors when trying to save changes. -Mardus (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

New chart colors still have NO keyed to RED

See this edit. User:Marck, please fix. YES keyed to GREEN yet color on chart are different. --Javaweb (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Where is this title found?

"Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry"

I used the Wayback website to look up the CA document about Prop 8 just before the vote and can't find it on anything related to it. Absolutely nothing about "Eliminates Rights." 184.7.167.28 (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The official title with that wording is found here. Jerry Brown changed the title to that from "California Marriage Protection Act" when he was Attorney General. 72Dino (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Color discrepancy between two legends/keys in "Election Results by County" box

That map on the right and near the top of the article has a discrepancy between on the one hand the colors on the map and one key (light blue for yes and dark blue for no), and on the other hand the color in the key below (green for yes and red for no). I lack the proficiency to eliminate the unnecessary and incorrect second color key (green/red). Could someone else do that? Thanks :) Peace, --Wikibojopayne (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Dead Links

Hello. There seems to be a high number of dead links in the references. At the moment, I counted 38. It would be great if there were some more people to help me remedy that issue. Thank you! Teammm ^{Let's Talk! :)} 21:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Dead link 51: suggest replacing it with http://old.usccb.org/comm/archives/2008/08-187.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.248.242 (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing

Note that Mr. X was canvassed to come here and interfere with the RfC.[5] I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

At the head of this page it says with clarity: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the California Proposition 8 article." Logic says it should be limited to that. You need to judge contributions on their merits, not on their sources. Or do we now need a citation to state ^{[This person was not influenced in any manner to come here]} when anyone comments? Too much bureaucratic nonsense and barrack room lawyering is what loses editors here.

If 250 people come here with an incorrect view and only one is correct that correct view should prevail. Regrettably the alleged wisdom of crowds cannot usually see the wood from the trees. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I think WP:CANVASS speaks for itself in this matter:

Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement).

Enough said. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately Still doesn't understand WP:CANVASS, nor many of the other blue link G+P he often cites. Pay him no mind.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It is unimportant, though it was not civil behaviour. Only a fool counts the number of opinions expressed anyway. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion on the lead first paragraph does not go far enough

I am not looking at this as anything other than a technical piece of writing. The problem I see with this article is not the initial paragraph. It is that the lead section is enormous. There are six paragraphs and they go into enormous detail. A lead section is meant to summarise, in as few paragraphs and words as possible, the article itself, letting the reader who comes upon it casually to judge whether to read or not.

Looking at he first two paragraphs of the current half dozen it seems to me that they summarise the article reasonably well, though may require tweaks (some of which are being discussed above). The balance need to be considered for redistribution in the body of the text, or need their own section heading at the very least.

I came to this article as someone interested in LGBT matters, but I have found the article to be somewhat impenetrable. It needs to be worked on to enhance precision and simultaneously to enhance interest. It may be a somewhat technical article, but nothing prevents it form being interesting save for the way it is written. I'm not arguing for dumbing down. I'm arguing for opening it up and welcoming the reader in. My fear is that the RFC above is too precise and stops the experts here from seeing the wood form the trees. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Lead "by proponents" addition

It seems some are desirous to add the designation "by proponents" to the originally titled proposition. This is redundant, as the proposers of a bill are the original designators. This also removes neutrally from the statement for no benefit. If there was a controversey with the name (and I don't doubt that there was) then this can be mentioned in a different way instead of a hatfield vs mccoys setting.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively the extra title need not be mentioned at all, considering that it is not an official alternative title. --Scientiom (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Considering the text of the law states that "This measure shall be known and may be cited as the 'California Marriage Protection Act.'", I would say that including that title is pretty official and important. 72Dino (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

When finalized, the title was not official - it was only what was submitted by proponents. We can mention the proponent's title, but it should be made clear that it was as the proponents titled it. --Scientiom (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

We can also mention an opponent, such as then-Attorney General Jerry Brown, changed the title to reflect his own political leanings. 72Dino (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Attorney General Brown was elected by the people of California to represent them. They then elected Attorney General Harris with identical views and promoted Brown to Governor. Regardless, the title the proponents proposed was just that -- the title they proposed. No one elected them to title it. Rather, they alone titled it to imply that Gay Marriage would destroy families and the duly elected representative decided that that was not the official position of the state so he changed it.

--Javaweb (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

@Scientom the phrase is a WP:WEASELly one as well as being redundant. It also indicates weight that original title was controversial (it might have been) but we would need to a) find sources to back this sentiment (they might exist), b) determine if the weight is sufficent enough to put this in the lead and c) state it in terms of the title being a controversy. But until a+b+c can be established, that is a non-starter. What is at hand is the inclusion of this phrase, of which I have yet to see any reasonable justification.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The name of the Act, the proposed law, is the California Marriage Protection Act. That name, as well as the new section 7.5 added to the California Constitution, was part of the proposition presented to California voters and approved. This is part of the text of the proposition, and assigned by the proponents.

The name of the Proposition, the initiative presented to the voters, was assigned by AG Brown as part of his duties under Article 2, Section 10(b) of the California Constitution. ("A copy shall be submitted to the Attorney General who shall prepare a title and summary of the measure as provided by law", [6]), and that title was Eliminates Right Of Same–Sex Couples To Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Both titles should be included in the article, the first because it is the name of the Act as voted into law; and the second because it is the name of the Proposition that was presented to the voters. There should not be a misstatement that Brown changed the title (he didn't; the original title remained in the text of the proposition as presented to voters; Brown provided a title to the proposition as required by law), or innuendo that he did some liberal switcheroo by adding a title to the Proposition (he didn't, he was following a constitutional requirement, and nothing in the constitution suggests that the AG should use the proponents' title; indeed, that would be contrary to the constitutional decision to vest that task with the AG). TJRC (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have a good grasp of the situation. What would you suggest?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe something along these lines:

Proposition 8 was a 2008 California ballot initiative that proposed the enactment of the California Marriage Protection Act to amend the California constitution.[cites] The Proposition appeared on the November 2008 ballot under the title Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. It passed with 52.24% of the vote.

Wikilink and revise surrounding sentences to taste. TJRC (talk) 04:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks!   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the proposal, but it seems a tad too much words - could you trim it appropriately please? And additionally make clear the title which was given by proponents in text? Thanks. --Scientiom (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The current proposal is more succinct than the current text. Also your desire to attribute the title of one element does not appear to extend to the other element. We would have to add them both and then this makes the sentance a mess. Wikipedia does not state approval or disapproval of either of the titles in voice, so I fail to see your insistence that this must be included.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The proposed wording appears neutral and factual to me, and does not appear too wordy to me. I support it. 72Dino (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

One title is by an official of the State of California, the other is only by proponents - official titles are just that, official. Looks like we need an RFC here too if this is going to get stuck in mud. --Scientiom (talk) 17:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what only means here. The name of the act, like the rest of the proposition, was drafted by the proponents, submitted to the voters, and voted into law. It doesn't get much more official than that. Both titles are "official": one because it was the name that was part of its "official" text of the act; and the other because it was the "official" title of the initiative assigned per the constitutional duty of the AG. I think you're looking to carry too much in the lede, which is, after all, supposed to be a summary of the article text per WP:LEDE. However, this discussion does show that there is enough interest in the naming that perhaps it ought to have a section in the body. That would be an appropriate spot for this level of detail. TJRC (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I added the text per consensus. If the naming of the ballot/act/initiative was notable, then we can add that to the body with references  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I added back a couple of references. It's possible they should be moved around with the new wording, but they should stay in the article. 72Dino (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure. That was a mistake on my part.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Objection - How does 2 editors opposing changing the paragraph and 3 editors favouring it constitute a consensus? How's about coming up with an acceptable compromise through discussion instead of turning this into a battle of sorts? --Scientiom (talk) 09:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Read more about what Wikipedia:Consensus is and is not. It is most definitely not about compromise. Now if you want to continue talking about the issue of keeping "by proponents" in the lead, please do so and try to gain a new consensus.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

And what about my first comment? You need to read WP:Consensus yourself - Consensus is NOT merely 3 editors in favour and 2 against. It is a not a vote of sorts. --Scientiom (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

And it's also interesting how you failed to see the part of the policy which says that consensus IS about compromise in part. You need to read it yourself! (It's pretty easy to see, especially since there is a diagram on the policy page). --Scientiom (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the process is about "seeking compromise". One was sought, discussion had.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You have not sought any proper compromise between all editors here whatsoever. The policy also says "The goal in a consensus-building discussion is to reach a compromise..." - it's not merely to seek one, but to actually achieve one. Please do read the policy properly. --Scientiom (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Can I point out one bigger problem with this in the lede? The intro is supposed to be a summary of the contents of the article, but the body of the article does not cover the title situation, at least not with any clarity. The appropriate section would be the "Challenge to title and summary" section, and that should lead with the statement that the prop had been submitted with title thus'n'such, but had been changed to this'n'that by the AG office. Otherwise, that section is missing key data and presents what it has in an odd, tough to follow order. Once we include the info somewhere in the article, then it's a separate question as to whether it needs to be in the intro (I'm not sure it does; it's a bit more of a detaily point) and whether it should read with the "by proponents" or "proposed as" (I'm in favor of the latter; the former is just stiff and seems to be trying to push an obvious detail.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if the titles were an issue they should be in the body. However the analysis by TJRC seems accurate, and the sentance he drafted works better then the one in place, and more importatnly is neutral.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Note - to resolve this matter, I've initiated a Request for Comment - which a neutral administrator can close with a verdict upon its conclusion. --Scientiom (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the first paragraph of the article's lead be maintained as it is or should it changed? And if so, how should it be rewritten? (Make proposals below). --Scientiom (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Maintain the lead as it is, with minor revisions if necessary, as required by WP:Lead & WP:Weight - the current first paragraph is a concise, properly weighted, and proportionate. The addition of text in the lead regarding the wording of the title of the proposition is not accordance with WP:Lead & WP:Weight as there is little to no mention of it in the body of the article. The current first paragraph of lead provides a proportionate, accurate, and precise summary of the contents in the body it summarizes. If needed, minor alterations can be made. --Scientiom (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

And the current version contains the NPOV phrase you insist upon.  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  22:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Change the lead to this different version as more accurate and more neutral as it removes the phrase "by proponents". The title of the act is just as important, if not more so, than the ballot title. 72Dino (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Maintain the lead' per scientiom Pass a Method talk 16:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Change to the version 72dino mentions, this is a bad faith RfC by the nominator and sanctions should be considrered.  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  22:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Change to: 'Proposition 8 was a 2008 California ballot initiative that added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The Proposition appeared on the November 2008 ballot and passed with 52.24% of the vote.' The jockeying that took place to pick a title for the initiative can be described in the History section. It isn't needed in the lede. --agr (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Move parenthetical title discussion to body - it's wordy and distracting in the lede sentence, which would be better without it. In the "full text" or similar section we can explain that the title was DOMA as proposed (as opposed to saying by proponents, which is obvious but beside the point), and even spend a sentence events surrounding the change to the title, which was in fact litigated and is a minor but relevant part of the history. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC) There is certainly no call to retain the POV title used by proponents while removing the actual ballot title. I am indifferent as to whether both are or neither is are included. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Change the current wording Propositions are notoriously pointy and biased. Use only the official title in the lead at all and in the article discuss what the proponents called it, assuming they gathered signatures and advertised under their preferred name and who changed the official title and if that change was opposed/contested (it wouldn't surprise me if it was). You could even note if most official titles change or if that is a rarity all backed up with RS's. Insomesia (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Just for clarification, are you proposing the official title of the act or the official title of the ballot be in the lead section? Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Sorry, the ballot title. Insomesia (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the clarification. 72Dino (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC) I just want to point out that this position misapprehends what happened with the proposition. Nobody "changed" the title. The proponents gave a title to the act that was proposed, and when it was qualified for the ballot, that title stayed in the text of the proposal, unchanged. When the proposition qualified, the AG assigned a title to the proposition, as required by the California constitution. TJRC (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Actually, Brown did change the title, in as much as the petitions that were submitted included a title... but it was not the title that this article is saying it was. Rather, the title was "Limit to Marriage". That fact should be covered in whatever body text we come up with, but does not merit place in the lede. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Move title discussion to body - Wikidemon makes a lot of sense. Although I'm the editor who drafted the proposed text, I do agree that if there's this much of an issue about the titles, that material should be moved from the lede to the body and dealt with there. It's asking too much of the lede to deal with it; the lede is supposed to summarize the article. At this point, the lede should not deal with the titles at all. It will just bog it down. I think it's pretty clear that both titles should be included in the body. Both are "official" and it makes no sense to omit either. Of course the name drafted by the proponents is biased. That doesn't change the fact that it was the actual title presented to the voters and voted upon. And the title Brown put on the proposition itself is the official title of the proposition, and also ought to be included. Any snark that Brown somehow "retitled" it should not be included; that's way too POV and misses the point that Brown had a constitutional duty to assign a title to the proposition; and at the same time, he had no authority to change the text of the proposition, which included the title of the act, and did not do so. TJRC (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Create terminology section in body of the article. Leave the WP:LEAD to the most common name of the subject, that being Proposition 8. This way the verified neutral coverage of the proposition name can be written about with more depth.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Alternative (since what people were saying was the proponents' name for the ballot initiative never actually was): Proposition 8 was a successful 2008 California ballot initiative which added the California Marriage Protection Act to the state constitution, eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry. - that gets the proposition, the law it added, and the effect all in the first sentence. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Question - I'd like to offer some thoughts, but the wording of the RfC makes it hard. It refers to "Maintain the lead as it is", but that was written on 1 Sept, almost 3 weeks ago. Could someone offer two or three alternatives (and label them A, B, C) so they can be compared? From the discussion above, it appears that the crux of the issue is what title(s) to give the proposition in the Lead, true? --Noleander (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Read the section above the RfC header. One editor saw consensus slipping away from keeping the somewhat POV phrase "by opponents" in the article and called an RfC to quash it.  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  21:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Thanks ... didn't see that before. --Noleander (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Use prose, not formal titles - Formal titles are potentially misleading to readers because - like many legal initiatives - the wording of the titles are skewed a bit to make a political point. Better is to simply state the effect of the proposition in plain English, and leave the upper case titles to the body of the article, where they can be put into context (and identified as "by proponents" etc). For example, the lead could start by saying " Proposition 8 was a 2008 California ballot initiative that proposed an amendment to the California constitution to restrict marriage to a man and a woman". This is a neutral, objective way to start the Lead. --Noleander (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Change to version mentioned by 72Dino.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Need for distinction between LDS Church and its members

The introduction to the article states: "The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 respectively raised $39.9 million and $43.3 million, including over $20 million from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

I followed the link to the source and discovered that the authors disclose in the footnotes that the $20 million was from donations of individuals who belong to the LDS Church, not from or through the church itself. (See footnote 15 on page xiii of Emily R. Gill and Jason Pierceson's Moral Argument, Religion, and Same-Sex Marriage: Advancing the Public Good.[7]) I think this is an important distinction to make, and that since the current wording implies that the donation was from the Church itself, it should be changed. Here is my proposed sentence (changes in bold): "The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 respectively raised $39.9 million and $43.3 million, including over $20 million from individuals who belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Jescapism (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I'll make the edit. Ylee (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The figures in the summary are different from those in the body. The ones in the body have more detail so I'll use those. Conversely, I'll move the mention of the LDS Church out of the summary; that sort of detail belongs in the body. Ylee (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Map has redundant and incorrect legend

In the {{Referendum}} template at the top of the article, underneath the map, there are the words "Yes" and "No" next to green and red squares, respectively. But the map itself uses a different pair of colors, and contains a legend to those colors. So we just need to remove the "Yes" and "No" at the bottom of the template. Yet this seems easier said than done; I've made failed attempts at the Sandbox. Perhaps the original template needs to modified to address this. ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 13:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I tried to address this a few weeks ago, but it was too complicated. The issue arose when someone raised a concern about the standard red and green legend being an issue for colorblind people.

It was brought up here Talk:California Proposition 8/Archive 11#Map in Results Section. I'm not sure why that map was colored light- and dark- teal, but in my opinion we should do one of the following:

1. Change it back to red and green, with one color crosshatched for clarity
2. Change it back to red and green and provide a link to the data for red/green colorblind users
3. Change the template so that these maps are consistent and useable by red/green colorblind users

– MrX 13:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Let me add my (anonymous) voice to support whatever change will clarify the map. As of today's date, the legend is still disappointingly confusing at first glance.184.41.39.91 (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be easy to change back; the file is still available here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CA2008Prop8.svg There should probably be more discussion on it so we can come to a consensus on what do about the map. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Someone has changed the red to maroon, which is at least closer to the legend and should address the color blindness accessibility issue. There really needs to be some Wiki-wide standards and/or an easier way to change the legend. - MrX 13:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This seemed pretty uncontroversial, so I boldly made the change. - MrX 22:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 December 2012

Note 18 (Supreme Court granted petition on December 7) should link to the primary source document, not to Yahoo! The order can be found here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120712zr_3f14.pdf

Prophet icculus (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure - Why do you think this brief summary is a better source than the Yahoo article? Generally, we prefer secondary or tertiary sources.

The source you linked is merely a summary:

HOLLINGSWORTH, DENNIS, ET AL. V. PERRY, KRISTIN M., ET AL. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. In addition to the question presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: Whether petitioners have standing under Article III, §2 of the Constitution in this case.

I think it would be better to find a news source that provides an analysis of this. - MrX 22:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Although that box actually has the whole text of the Supreme Court's order, not just a summary, I agree. Per WP:PRIMARY we should use secondary sources, because it's a lot easier to misinterpret or make mistakes when relying on primary sources. While the meaning of the Supreme Court's brief order seems to be clear, I still think it's best to stick to others' interpretations rather than our own. AgnosticAphid talk 22:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware about the rule regarding primary sources, my apologies. In light of this, I simply think the article should provide some sort of link to the order, as it makes researching the case easier to research, especially for law students who are looking for the exact words used by the Court, and not the analysis of a secondary source. Prophet icculus (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done It's not a firm rule; more like a preference. I have added the additional ref per the original request, in addition to keeping the news article ref. - MrX 01:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

US Supreme Court consideration

The Supreme Court is scheduled to consider the petition at its September 24 conference.

This date is now in the past. What happened? Hairy Dude (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I've updated it with the lack of news from the court. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

the court in September held the case over until its October conference, and at that conference held over the case for the November 20th conference (along with the DOMA cases). Hopefully they will make a decision then and not just hold it over for another month. You could verify this here: http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/10/court-grants-four-cases/ If they do decide to hear it soon I think it would still be calendered for this term, which would mean a June decision. AgnosticAphid talk 02:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Update: Pushed back to 11-30 per [8]. AgnosticAphid talk 19:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Missing data. The Supreme Court also told the parties to say what about the 9th court decision is unconstitutional, IOW, why the case falls into the SCOTUS purview under Article III section 2. If they don't do the assignment, is SCOTUS going to revoke accepting the writ? If they don't prove there's a constitutional issue, is SCOTUS going to decline to review? People need to understand this issue because SCOTUS is saying just because you don't like the decision of a lower court doesn't mean it's our job to play referee.

71.163.114.49 (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that SCOTUS asked the parties to brief whether the official proponents have standing to appeal under art iii section 2 because (1) it's an unsettled question whether an initiatives proponents can appeal when the state itself declines to do so, and (2) the justices may want to avoid deciding the actual gay marriage issue. The parties will brief that issue, as instructed; they won't refuse "the assignment." You can read more about it in Hollingsworth v. Perry, which is more about the case, although I am inclined to agree that this topic could use more exposition somewhere. AgnosticAphid talk 14:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Broken Link

I noticed that the link in citation 20 doesn't work anymore. In case the numbers change, I mean this cite: ^ a b "Supreme Court will hear gay rights cases over Calif. marriage ban, right to federal benefits". Star Tribune. Retrieved 7 December 2012.

Since I don't edit wikipedia much I'm not really sure what to do about this, but I think that http://www.startribune.com/nation/182619461.html might be a working link to the intended article (or an updated version thereof), so hopefully someone here who knows better can either edit that in or label the link as broken or whatever the standard protocol is.

I've updated the reference. Thanks for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Broken Link: District Court Order

The following link is broken:

10 ^ "Ruling by United States District Court". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved August 4, 2010.

I found another PDF of the ruling here: http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/08/04/Perry%20Trial%20Decision.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.135.180.116 (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC: the term "traditional marriage" is not neutral when used in U.S.-specific context

B

a RFC arguing that the term "traditional marriage", as used in discussions of marriage in western, predominantly/historically christian, countries -- and, specifically, the United States -- is not a neutral term and should not be used without explanation/contextualization, has been logged on the Traditional marriage Talk page.

the term "traditional marriage" is not a neutral term when it is used by advocates of a certain position in regards to California Proposition 8, it refers to the evangelical christian concept of "traditional marriage", which is between one man and one woman -- usually permenantly, until death. globally, however, there are myriad forms of "traditonal marriage"... therefore, it is imperative that wikipedia -- as a global, neutral source -- specify precisely what is meant when the phrase "traditional marriage" is used to advance a very narrow point-of-view, which implies that orthodox christian marriage is the "default", "normal" and "immutable" familial arrangement for all...

the meaning and connotations of the phrase "traditional marriage" when used in U.S.-specific controversies, such as the California Proposition 8 are only self-evident to those who live in cultures where the term "traditional" equals a very specific understanding of "christianity"... if this article -- and any other article that refer to "traditional marriage" where what is meant is a "traditional christian definition of marriage" -- is to be truly neutral and universally understood, it is imperative that the term "traditional marriage" either be explained/contextualized, or replaced by an alternate term, such as:

• traditional Christian definition of marriage
• orthodox Christian definition of marriage

note that the term "orthodox Christian definition of marriage", might be an acceptable neutral alternative, as there are an ever-increasing number of christian denominations who have expanded their understanding of marriage...

the wikipedia entry for "traditional marriage" provides a rock-solid basis for a wiki-wide consideration of a nomenclature change/clarification when the term "treaditional marriage" is used in a U.S.-specific context... oedipus (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It's still not neutral. Using the preferred term from a propagandist is not always appropriate. Usually you do want them to self-identify, but you should not use their language unless you intend to not be neutral. This is what scare quotes are good for, or choosing a neutral term. 174.62.69.11 (talk) 04:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Bad neutrality:

"No On 8" signs at the Clovis Unitarian Universalist Church were torn up, with Reverend Bryan Jessup alleging that his church experienced vandalism "every night"

It would be more neutral to say 'he reported' and probably shouldn't have the scare quotes around 'every night' unless it is a quote, and then it should have a comma. Bad grammar has no excuse on a moderated page 174.62.69.11 (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Where is a link to the lawsuits about hiding supporters of proposition 8?

This is what I actually came to wikipedia for: The lawsuits trying to skip reporting requirements of monetary supporters seems an important after-issue. Such as http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=6481 I remember there being a similar lawsuit in Washington State... 174.62.69.11 (talk) 05:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Solano County

The Prop 8 map on the top of the page incorrectly shows Solano County as having voted against prop 8 when it did vote for prop 8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.238.16 (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I've confirmed this and notified the Commons editor who produced the last iteration of the map. TJRC (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Simplified version of article

i was trying to learn what prop 8 is all about but wow none of you can apparently handle making a SIMPLE to read version i'm not reading multiple paragraphs for somehting that could be put into 3 sentences or less. please someone make short summaries thesis for the article at the beginning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.164.123 (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You may prefer to read the article on the Simple English Wikipedia: see simple:California Proposition 8. TJRC (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

That being said, '123 makes a good point: this has been tagged with {{lead too long}} for 8 months now, and the lede just keeps growing: it's six substantial paragraphs long now. Hacking it down to size is not straightforward, because, contrary to WP:LEDE, it looks like it has some material that is only in the lede, and not in the body. It really does need to be cut down substantially, and unique bits integrated into the body. TJRC (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Reaction

Reactions to Supreme Court ruling

The Family Research Council which had filed an amicus brief in the case responded immediately expressing disappointment that the court had not provided a definitive ruling on the constitutionality of the issue.

For the moment I thought it best to move this to the talk page for discussion as it seems too early to begin a section on "Reaction" with just this amount. Who's reaction should be covered in this section?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I've added the line below so the editor's reference shows up. --Javaweb (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Javaweb

There are several problems with this. One is that the description given does not seem to match the heart of the source. Another is, of course, that this represents just one reaction from one side. But perhaps most of all, we an basically assume that those involved in a case will be happy if they were on the winning side and unhappy if they were on the losing side; that seems unworthy of coverage. -Nat Gertler (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Break for separation

This article states that "Prop 8" will be dead as soon as the US District Court removes it's stay. I don't think thats fair to say, since Section 3.5 of the CA Constitution requires that an Appellate Court rule that a statute or CA law (such as the CA Constitution) rule it to violate the US Constitution before it becomes unenforceable. I am quite sure the legal wrangling is not going to be over anytime soon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.157.90 (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

We go by the reliable sources for these statements, but confusion seems to be coming from a number of individual statements made by lawyers on the opponents side following the decision. Legal maneuvering is attempted all the time in these situations and what is supposed to happen in California, has not always been followed. Case in point, I don't believe the plaintiffs appealing the decision had no true standing in California courts but were given the opportunity as a sort of allowance by the by the other side and the courts. I don't know how this was phrased when this post was originally made but I know there has been a good deal of editing over the last 24 hrs.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

And you're also incorrect. Section 3.5 of the California Constitution refers to the power of an administrative agency to overturn a statute or declare it unenforceable. As you know, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is not an administrative agency. Judge Walker has issued an injunction that is binding on most of the state's officials and those under their jurisdiction. Attorney General Kamala Harris has already examined the laws and concluded that the decision applies to all county clerks in California. So, when the Ninth Circuit lifts the stay on the District Court decision, all court clerks will be required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Teammm ^talk
_email 07:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 June 2013

Reading about the ruling of Hollingsworth v. Perry in the intro contains too much legalese and has an incorrect pronoun. Instead of stating: "did not have the legal standing to appeal the California lower courts' rulings in federal court, since the state refused to defend it." It should say "did not have the legal standing to appeal the California lower courts' rulings in federal court, because California officials are responsible for enforcing California’s marriage laws; however, these officials were not those petitioning the Supreme Court."

Eractnodi (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The implication is that they did not hold up their responsibilities. This is an opinion. However, the people of California elected a Governor and Attorney General that promised, if elected, not to defend Prop 8. Their rejected opponents said they would support it. In November of 2010, the voters elected the ones that said Prop 8 violated the constitution. They performed as promised. No surprise there. The original can be understood by readers just fine and is more accurate. -- Javaweb (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Javaweb

I would say that they did not uphold their legal responsibilities. Whether or not they had some sort of overriding "moral" responsibility is another question. If the CA Attorney General of CA thinks they have the right to simply not defend any citizen ballot initiative they don't like, then the whole CA citizen ballot iniative is in deep trouble, given the SCOTUS decisions that the Prop 8 proponents did not have standing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.157.90 (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The California Supreme Court ruled the proponents's did have standing in STATE court.

The US Supreme Court did not rule on this so Prop 8 had its day in court in the California system, even if the elected officials performed as they promised the people.

The Supreme Court was ruling solely on Federal standing.

In general, you have to be an elected official or show you have been harmed to bring a case to Federal court. --Javaweb (talk) 01:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Javaweb

I arrived at the wording for the edit after reading the actual Supreme Court ruling, I don't believe I'm being partisan, I am only paraphrasing the citation. There is no implication, unless you believe that the ruling also included this implication. Eractnodi (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)66.43.16.227 (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

"and naming as defendants California’s Governor and other state and local officials responsible for enforcing California’s marriage laws. The officials refused to defend the law" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eractnodi (talk • contribs) 14:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --ElHef (Meep?) 18:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)