Talk:2008 California Proposition 8/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

if passed?

I would be nice if someone who knows could add a little on the consequences if the amendment passes. Could it be challenged in court? Declared unconstitutional by any court? What would it take to repeal the amendment?--192.167.204.11 (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

An amendment can be repealed by another amendment. However, it is extremely likely that the proposal is not an amendment to the constitution at all. The real question now is, is the so-called Limit on Marriage "Amendment" really an amendment to the constitution (which would mean it adds something new) or is it revising the current constitution. As the final arbiter of the Calf. constitution has declared that equal protection requires gender neutral marriage according to strict scrutiny (as opposed to rational review or other lesser standards), it would seem that equal protection would altered. That is a constitutional revision, as it is changing the current law, which has already been definitively determined by the Court. The decisions of the Court are the last word in interpreting the constitution as it stands. The constitution, of course, may be revised to alter the constitution, but that requires a constitutional revision, not an amendment.

Regardless of viewpoint on the substantive issue, the basic premise has changed. The proponents of the "amendment" need to begin the process of revising the constitution, if the wish to to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.96.63 (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That point is briefly mentioned in the "Legal Challenge" section. It has not yet gotten much coverage, and inasmuch as we can't do legal analysis here on this page we may have to wait until there is some substantive coverage in reliable secondary sources. That may or may not become an issue before the vote depending on whether a challenge comes before then and the court can rule. If the amendment fails then the issue, and much of the rest of the things one might have to say about the amendment, become moot. It's a notable effort to change the state constitution either way, but the constitutional infirmities of a failed amendment are not nearly as relevant as challenges to an amendment that passes. Wikidemo (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no dearth of available commentary on what the courts may face if the proposition is adopted. See for example Vikram Amar's column. That said, I don't see any great need to get into that debate in any detail at this point. Wonderbreadsf (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Even still the question of whether the initiative amends or revises the constitution is a pending debate with legal ramifications; it's doesn't matter how much news coverage the controversy has received. I made several edits to this point. A wikipedia article should not use language like "amends" that aligns the article with one specific view point. Lets please describe the initiative as "changing" or "altering" the constitution rather than with terms that have actual legal meaning until there is some opinion on the matter that prompts general consensus.Netbenefit (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What was the "perfectly factual language" that existed before "some people replace[d] it with politcally charged language without discussing it with the rest of us"? Дҭї 21:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

See below. We have a whole section for talking about the POV tag. Netbenefit (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael Savage

As a WP:WEIGHT and relevancy concern, do random gripes like this[1] by radio shock jocks like Michael Savage add anything to understanding of the issue? If he actually did organize a massive protest it might merit about this much coverage. His threat to do so isn't terribly significant, or credible. I suggest we remove it again. Wikidemo (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Drop it. That's just bloviating at the moment. I'm not sure what possessed someone to restore that passage. Wonderbreadsf (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Savage's polemics add nothing and should be deleted. I would be interested to see why proponents of the "amendment" feel that it is indeed an amendment and not a revision. I realise the radical right is usually very challenged in this area, but a logical, legal argument on an abstract level would contribute something. Antics of talk show hosts are not helpful.

To frame the question another way, assuming Loving v. Virginia was not decided by the USSC, why could interracial marriage allowed by Perez be prohibited by an amendment via initiative, rather then by revision.

In essence, that is the question here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.70.235 (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There being no support, and some obvious displeasure, with this material, I've removed it[2] (including the new editorial comment) per this discussion. Wikidemo (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the unhelpful Savage comments are back again. I really think they need to go. It is getting to be crazy and rather unhelpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.102.165 (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed them once again. — Lincolnite (talk) 11:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

Yes, I POV tagged this page in response to OCNative editing out language preferring to refer to Prop 8 as an "initiative" that would "change" or "alter" the CA constitution and replacing it with the more politically charged language "amendment" and "amend." Regardless of how factually accurate OCNative thinks his/her choice of terminology is (and regardless of the Sec. of State's opinion) there is a legal challenge to this question that has not been ruled on and is less than a month old. I submit that the standard should be broad based consensus and in the absence of that consensus obviously less politically charged language should be preferred. What's more, there is NO disadvantage to the less politically charged language, because while it is in dispute whether Prop 8 amends or revises the constitution, we all agree that it is in fact an initiative that would change or alter the constitution. There is no reason for insisting on "amendment/amend" other than giving public credibility to one side of an ongoing political debate. That's not Wiki-friendly people! Netbenefit (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"Amendment" is a general term that covers changes made to the constitution or any other law or rule - it's completely neutral language. Using a term like "change" or "alter" is awkward. California seems to have a specific provision by which certain amendments are deemed "revisions" but that's a quirk and a term of art. Nobody ever talks about "revising" the US Constitution or a law. I think the default is common usage. Moreover, we should not add POV tags willy-nilly every time someone disputes something. This seems like a terminology issue, not a bona fide dispute over NPOV. Let's take the tag off and discuss the matter here. Wikidemo (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Your finding that the language is awkward is a matter of opinion. You should include some standard for determining what qualifies as "awkward" and who is going to make the call if something is "too awkward" if you are actually suggesting it as a publishing standard. As it stands, there is no requirement that the most factual description be the "least awkward," and I don't think you are giving a very compelling reason for using a specific (and at least in California, politically charged) set of terms. That California's provision is a unique feature to the state's constitutional law is irrelevant given that California's constitution is in discussion not the US constitution or that of any other state. The addition of this tag is not willy-nilly. The usage here sends massages that impact how readers might view the legitimacy of Proposition 8 when they read about it in multiple sources. Granting an initiative that many people think is illegal its legitimizing language (essentially endorsing its version of events) "by default" is most certainly an NPOV issue. Netbenefit (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Not personal preference and not POV at all. Common usage is highly relevant to how we word things - we try to avoid terms of art when they're unnecessary. "Amendment" is the standard word among lawyers, journalists, politicians, advocacy groups, analysts, etc., in describing changes made to laws and constitutions. "Change" is a nonstandard term that calls attention to itself and is not a clear meaning, hence awkward. I'm just going to assert that from experience because it seems pointless to try to source such a thing. Just a hint, though: "change to the constitution" generates 185K google hits,[3] "amendment to the constitution" gets 1.12 million,[4] and "revision to the constitution" gets a mere 7,400.[5] Play around with the phrasing and you get similar results. Also, don't forget that the amendment has been certified for the ballot; any party that wishes to claim that it is not properly certified is for the moment taking a position as an advocate and potential plaintiff in a possible lawsuit of unknown outcome. Even if we were to adopt California's specialized terminology it is for the moment a proposed amendment, that some people are claiming is incorrectly designated as such. Wikidemo (talk) 03:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to pay attention to the number of google hits generated by any search term! There is a current and on going legal and public debate about whether this proposition is legitimate that hinges on the specific legal meanings of the words 'amend' and 'revise' in California law. The article has an obligation not to present any single side of the debate as the "correct" one. The only standard that should be employed is whether the reader is presented with an experience that doesn't give undo authority to one view point, and the article CANNOT do that while it continues to use language preferable to one set of legal arguments by default. The specific meaning you are trying to establish is POLITICALLY CHARGED! You can't use it, at least not if you want to claim that you are presenting a NPOV. Netbenefit (talk) 04:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. - Asserting that the language is appropriate because the initiative was certified for the ballot is not a good argument. [A] That certification is what under contention in the legal challenge, so you are actually picking one side in a legal fight! And [B] the initiative certification process is not equipped to make a ruling something like this. Netbenefit (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm being NPOV (though personally I would strongly oppose the measure), the wording is NPOV, and I simply don't see your argument. Does anyone else believe that we should avoid using the term "amendment" to describe what is proposed in Proposition 8? If not we'll chalk it up to a simple disagreement and I'll remove the POV tag I think we should remove the POV tag as long as we're discussing and trying to resolve the question. If there is a credible disagreement we can't resolve we can leave the tag on potentially but we have to remove it if there's a consensus - can't leave cleanup tags on indefinitely. Obviously, if there's a consensus for some alternate wording we will go with that. Fair enough? Wikidemo (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm entirely unconvinced by Netbenefit's explanation that any usage of any form of "amend" is politically charged. On the contrary, both the noun and verb forms are so strongly associated with changing an entrenched constitution, particularly in the United States, that they are the most obvious terms in common usage.

While some of the edits originally introduced to excise all forms of "amendment" strike me as unremarkable ("amend change the constitution"), others are so jarring ("a constitutional amendment change") that the word usage draws attention to itself. As Wikidemo notes, that's a bad (even self-defeating) thing.

I understand the underlying legal dispute quite well. This article, however, is not a pleading before the Supreme Court, where the words "amendment" and "revision" take on peculiar meanings. This article is for a general audience who are unlikely to read anything particular into the familiar expression "constitutional amendment" (note that this encyclopedia even has an article so entitled).

This article may suffer from some POV, but that issue is one of content/weight, not word choice. If there's any need for a POV template in the article, it belongs only in the "Opponents" section. Wonderbreadsf (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As it is my edits that are disputed by Netbenefit, I should explain my rationale for my edits.

1. As both Wikidemo and Wonderbreadsf noted, amendment is the common term. For example, constitutional amendment is an article that has been around quite a while while constitutional revision simply redirects to constitution.
2. The word amend is used in the article in reference to statute: "In 1977, the legislature amended Civil Code section 4100..."
3. Its current legal status is a constitutional amendment. If the courts stayed its status pending the resolution of the legal challenge, then it would make sense to use an unusual term like "constitutional change" in the article; however, the courts have not done so; it is still an amendment until the courts say otherwise. (If the courts declare Proposition 8 to be a revision rather than an amendment, I will gladly reverse my edits.) OCNative (talk) 10:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
4. I should also note the article had consistently used amendment until 99.175.101.30 came along and used the nomenclature advocated by Netbenefit. 99.172.101.30 took it upon themselves to alter perfectly factual language and replace it with politically charged language without discussing it with the rest of us. My edits just one day later reverted 99.172.101.30's changes back to the previous state of the article. OCNative (talk) 10:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Either way, the CSC has declined to hear EqCa's challenge to the measure, where they argued that it was a revision not an amendment. The Supreme Court has therefore decided it's an amendment and I've removed the POV tag accordingly. — Lincolnite (talk) 08:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Prop 22

Proposition 22 is intrinsically associated to Prop 8. The two measures cannot be separated. The two measures aim at legislating against the same practice. The two measure are identical in their wording. The history and background of Prop 8 is the history of Prop 22. The supporters of Prop 8 are the same supporters of Prop 22. The only difference is that Prop 8 may amend the constitution while prop 22 did not. To pretend that Prop 8 is a totally new piece of legislation is to rewrite history with a left-wing slant. Just 8 years ago, 61.4% of Californians voted to support prop 22. This is absolutely necessary to this article since that is the only concrete way of quantifying the support and opposition of Prop 8. While polls are simply an estimate (and often times skewed by the groups administering the polls), prior voting results on a similar measure are much more accurate and reliable. So Wikidemo, tell me what other Wiki article that deals with future legislation excludes prior voting tallies? from similar measures?? Is this not biased???? To state that this information is irrelevant is simply a cop out; besides I have just proven that it is extremely relevant. -Gaytan (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposition 22 is actually a statute regarding the conflict of laws (lex fori), not a law affecting material law (lex causa) of California. It was a totally different issue and any mention of it here should be avoided. In addition, Proposition 22 was a statuatory proposition which was unconstitutional itself. It would be as if some state would pass a law saying that all people with blond hair were slaves. This law would eventually (hopefully) be found unconstitutional by a State Supreme Court or the USSC. It can also be noticed that society does advance and evolving standards of decency change over times. Certainly, slavery was at one time (about 150 years ago) considered to be decent by a large portion of the population (approval concentrated more or less in what are now called the Red States). However, this view has - and I allow a value judgement here - thankful fallen by the wayside. (For the record, I am black, but not gay. But, I do believe that an injustice to anyone, is an injustice to us all). I just can't help but seeing the struggle for civil rights for blacks being mirrored here. It's almost like saying that gay people are equal, but not entitled to the same rights as other people. That makes my stomach turn, and I have to wonder whether I'm 3/5ths of a person or whether the back of the bus is fine, because it is separate, but equal. I am certainly glad standards of decency change.

Okay, that's clearly POV-pushing. Though on a related subject Prop 22 is not prop 8, and we shouldn't conflate the two. Stating percentage approval ratings and describing the "coalitions" that sponsor court challenges is POV-pushing all the way around (and by their comments here people are making clear their strong POV motivations), so I've removed some of that language. I know people have personal opinions about this stuff but we need to create a neutrally-worded article that sticks to facts. Wikidemo (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Prop 22 (and the 1977 enactment) merits a mention. But the vote percentage is only relevant in a discussion of public opinion. I can't see how any discussion of voter opinion could be unbiased without discussing more recent polls that relate directly to the question on the ballot (both LA Times and Field Poll released surveys in May; Field updated its poll again this month). Perhaps the article would be stronger with such a discussion. Absent the more relevant surveys, the vote tallies on Prop 22 smack of POV. Wonderbreadsf (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Prop 22 is relevant to the history of the Supreme Court decision and the introduction of Proposition 8. However, a more detailed history of Prop 22 beyond its relevance to Prop 8 is misplaced - we already have an article for that. In general, statements about public opinion percentages, polling, which "coalitions" bring suits, etc., are pointless exercises because as you note opinions change, and they're legally and practically irrelevant. When one mentions that a court made a decision despite public opinion to the contrary or a high margin of passage for the invalidated law, it's no more than an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the court's decision - and courts base their decisions on legality, not on voter opinion. At least in an ideal world. Attempts to paint courts as being under the sway of popular sentiment (or against popular sentiment) run counter to the very nature of judicial review and belong, if anywhere, in a discussion of courts rather than as a case-by-case critique of each controversial case. Wikidemo (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo, I support the edits you made (my primary motivation to adding to this discussion). That said, I'm not prepared to dismiss out of hand any discussion of public opinion as irrelevant (until November, when the election renders prior surveys moot). I don't feel any need to add that information to the article in the meantime. If someone else wants to take a stab at it, I'm happy to consider the treatment as it is written. Maybe it will be a worthwhile addition or just more mindless POV. Wonderbreadsf (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo, your position on this is simply out of touch with common sense. According to you, Wikipedians must deify the judicial system; any language hinting that the judicial branch is fallible should be anathema. Let's quit pretending we're all lawyers here and use some common sense in reporting factual information. The court has a view on this (obviously) as does the public; to exclude either is POV (I don;t understand how this can be denied). The best poll in recent history on this issue is the Prop 22 results. 61.4% of Californian voters approved Prop 22, a measure, for all intent and purposes, identical to Prop 8. This is Prop 8's factual history. To delete it repeatedly does not simply "smack of POV" rather it is outright POV. Now if other poll data is added to this, that is fine with me. Who said poll are not allowed on Wikipedia??? Where is the guideline to this??? Wonderbreadsf I would hope you see my point on this. - Gaytan (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

At this point we've got a content dispute - and Wikipedia convention is that you don't insert disputed material by revert warring. I see a few editors at least who object to quoting the Prop 22 passage rate, one (?) who says it's okay if other numbers are added for balance, and so far only you (I think) who just wants to include it. My position is strictly encyclopedic, not political. If we're going to describe legal proceedings we should describe the substance of the proceedings, not criticize how the law operates. Courts interpret law - they don't have a simple vote on things and by design they don't confirm, defy, or relate at all to the popular will on the subject. The observation that judges are swayed by their personal beliefs and politics is an interesting and very controversial one. Many books are written on the subject of "legal realism" but it is a distinct subject, not something we need to discuss in connection with every single court ruling people disagree with. Further, as a general matter people advocating policy often do cite polls, vote margins, and passage rates, but Wikipedia generally does not make a practice of it. Should we flag the numbers on every court decision, popular vote, and piece of legislation in the article? The circumstances of how Proposition 22 got passed covered in great detail in the Proposition 22 article. Repeating them here doesn't broaden our encyclopedic coverage. All it does is support a dubious argument that in overturning the law the court was defying the popular will. Wikidemo (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, there is nothing in Wikipedia stating that factual history cannot be included in an article's background section. Now if I were to have stated, "the Supreme Court overturned the will of 61.4% of California voters)" then clearly this would be POV. But to cite facts, such as the 61.4%, without any related POV language is simply adding to the background of this subject, of which Prop 22 is a part. Obviously, there is a line that should be drawn as to how much Prop 22 info should be included in this article before it is simply unecessary repetition. You agree that Prop 22 deserves mention. I believe it deserves slighltly more than that but I definitely do not advocate pasting in the entire Prop 22 article here as you imply. But you and I cannot agree on this subject. I believe review of this dispute (by others) is warranted. Gaytan (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, if biased (LA Times!) opinion polls have enough merit to be included in this article, then how much more worthy if inclusion is the fact that Prop 22 (exact wording of Prop 8) was passed by 61.4% of Californian voters back in 2000? We really need to resolve this dispute. We need a third party to state their opinion on this issue. Any other editors aside from myself or Wikidemo, please express your opinion on this issue in order to attempt to achieve some kind of resolution. Wikidemo and myself are both accusing each other of POV. Gaytan (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The only effect of citing Prop 22's passage rate is bias on an impertinent topic, to try to show that the constitutional resolution violates the will of the people. The reason to cite the current support level is to describe the subject of the article, which is relevant, although polls of any sort are fairly marginal and citing the latest poll measures is recentism of fairly low value. Wikidemo (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, we need third party intervention. I will remove polls of any sort if the 61.4% figure is not included as well. Prop 22 voting results is better than any recent poll; you cannot bias that. Gaytan (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Legal Challenges

I edited this section in order to comply with Wikidemo's assertion that "Stating percentage approval ratings and describing the "coalitions" that sponsor court challenges is POV-pushing all the way around". By extrapoalting this point, then details of a one side's view against this measure is also POV (as well as multiple news references to magnify a particular view). By that logic, we will quickly have an empty Prop 8 article! Thanks Wikidemo, your POV interpretations (or deletions) sure make things simple (but completely useless to Wiki readers). - Gaytan (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to the removal. I wasn't trying to be POV, but I think you're right. Restating failed legal arguments, or taking lines from legal briefs, isn't very informative. Just because a lawyer says it when making a case, or makes a claim hoping a judge will believe it, doesn't mean the argument is serious or notable. It would be relevant to an article or section that details the history of the litigation isn't all that important to most articles. Wikidemo (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

New Name for Ballot Measure

As expected the Attorney General rewrote the ballot title and summary (the version prepared for the petition was no longer accurate). The new ballot title is Eliminates Right of Same-sex Couple to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. That's quite a mouthful, and the petition name (Limit on Marriage) was the source of some contention here. Regardless, the name of the proposition as it will appear (subject to court-ordered changes) should be mentioned somewhere. Any suggestions? Wonderbreadsf (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Then we should find a cite and change the lead as follows:

Proposition 8, also known as the Limit on Marriage Amendment "Eliminates Right of Same-sex Couple to Marry" Initiative Constitutional Amendment (per the California Attorney General) or the California Marriage Protection Act (per the initiative sponsors)...

Is "Initiative Constitutional Amendment" part of the official title? I mean, we should use the exact wording of the official title but it's fair to distance Wikipedia from any implication that we thought up such an awkward way to phrase it. Wikidemo (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

OOPS!. "Couples" should be plural. I'd hate to make the title any more akward than it already is.

The AG's convention for naming ballot measures is to start with a descriptive name, followed by a period, then the type of measure ("Initiative Constitutional Amendment" in this case), and end with another period. That works fine for a title, but is pretty clunky in prose/body copy. If we're comfortable taking a little editorial license, I think this would work well enough:

Proposition 8, also known as the Limit on Marriage Amendment "Eliminates Right of Same-sex Couples to Marry" Amendment (per the California Attorney General) or the "California Marriage Protection Act" (per the initiative sponsors)...

The slightly unbalanced quote marks (excluding "Amendment" in the AG's title) is a little weird, but at least suggests that only the quoted portion is taken from the AG. If that's too weird (it may be), then I guess we should include the full monty ("Initiative Constitutional Amendment"). The parenthetical attribution for both names is a helpful addition no matter how we present them--thanks.Wonderbreadsf (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone happen to have a link to the new ballot measure name? I cannot seem to locate the new name on the web sites of the California Attorney General or Secretary of State. I cannot find it in the Sacramento Bee, either. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Public Review of November Ballot Materials. Note that a couple of the Prop-8 related files prepared by the Legislative Analyst were written prior to the AG's new title and summary. I presume those old references will be excised as the ballot materials are consolidated for publication. Wonderbreadsf (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Alanraywiki (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The Sacramento Superior Court should issue its decision on the ballot-title controversy today. If the title remains intact (the court seemed reluctant to tinker with the title itself), we should certainly incorporate the ballot title here. The lead sentence is already pretty convoluted. I'm proposing that we simplify the structure by breaking up the description from the various titles:

Proposition 8 is an initiative measure on the 2008 California General Election ballot that, if passed, would amend the California Constitution to affirm provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, thus prohibiting same-sex marriage. The ballot title, prepared by the Attorney General, is "Eliminates Right of Same-sex Couples to Marry." The initiative sponsors refer to the measure as the "California Marriage Protection Act."

I'll be offline for most of the weekend. If we have consensus on how to treat the title (anything along these lines is fine with me), feel free to forge ahead in my absence. Else, I'll drop by on Monday to see where things stand. Wonderbreadsf (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable...depending on the actual ruling of course. Most likely the court will rule the name is okay, but we shouldn't jump the gun. Wikidemo (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to invite a premature change (glad no one took up that unintended invite). I did (try to) clean up the section on the ballot title & summary arguments just now. Wonderbreadsf (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-Neutral Intro Paragraph

The introductory sentence states that:

Proposition 8, also known as the Limit on Marriage Amendment or the California Marriage Protection Act,[1] is an initiative measure proposed for the 2008 California General Election ballot that, if passed, would amend the California Constitution to affirm that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, thus prohibiting same-sex marriage.

One of the disputed issues in this debate is whether Proposition 8 is a valid proposed amendment to the California constitution. A number of opponents of the proposition have argued that, given what it purports to do, which is restrict the application of constitutional protections of civil rights, it is such a fundamental change to the California constitution as to be a constitutional revision, not a constitutional amendment, and thus ineligible for the initiative process. Now, maybe these claims are true, maybe they are false (no one can really say, since the courts have not yet directly addressed this specific issue, and unless the proposition actually passes are unlikely to do so). But Wikipedia should be neutral with respect to them. Now, the current intro sentence is not neutral with respect to those claims, since it endorses their denial, i.e. the claim that the proposition if passed will amend the California constitution. If the opponent's arguments are right, it will fail in its purported effect, and in fact have no effect whatsoever. Thus, the intro sentence needs to be qualified, e.g. "that, if passed, and held to be a valid amendment by the judiciary", or maybe "that is claimed will, if passed, amend the California Constitution". I will change the article to address these concerns. --SJK (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The default position is that it does exactly what it purports to do - amend the constitution. One could qualify every constitutional amendment, vote, and legislative act in the same way (and they all have opponents): "if passed and if upheld by the judiciary." The opponents already sued on the basis you described and the court would not hear it. I am therefore going to revert it. Please leave the article as-is unless you get consensus for a change, but we have considered this issue a few weeks ago and accepted the straightforward language as is to be the most neutral so I doubt consensus has changed on that point. Wikidemo (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

What makes one side's position the default position? I don't see any talk of "default positions" in the NPOV policy....

As to the lawsuit, we have to look at why the court rejected that suit -- was it because they rejected the underlying arguments, or were they simply exercise judicial economy, not wanting to rule on the validity of a proposition that may well fail with the voters, in which case their ruling would be moot anyway? They didn't give any reasons, so we can't say for sure, but quite a few commentators have thought the second case. So, the fact that the court rejected the lawsuit, isn't really relevant, unless we have some reason to believe their rejection of the case was a rejection of its arguments, which we don't.

Also, yes, every proposed law could be held by the Courts to be unconstitutional if passed. But this one is different, because what is being claimed essentially is not that the content of the proposed amendment is unconstitutional, but that the procedure being used is invalid. Normally, if there is controversy of the constitutionality of a legislative act, it is over the constitutionality of its substantive content, not its adherence to the procedural requirements of the constitution. That is why this one needs to be qualified in a way that others do not. --SJK (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Several editors have discussed the underling issue above (see the discussion's "POV tag" section). Despite the back and forth here, I remain unconvinced that there is anything inherently POV about saying the measure would "amend" the constitution--especially in the intro paragraph. The lead isn't the place to present every wrinkle in the various points-of-view surrounding the article.

Obviously, the Supreme Court's summary order denying the petition doesn't speak to the merits of the revision vs. amendment issue. As far as the lead is concerned, however, I believe it is relevant that no court is entertaining this challenge at the moment (and won't until after the election, if ever). If editors want to introduce this rather technical argument, it belongs further down in the article.

That said, someone has since rewritten the lead to read "if passed, would purport to amend." Someone should probably explain what the contention is down in the "Legal challenges" section.Wonderbreadsf (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Does the intro really need the last half of the paragraph?

The measure was submitted for the ballot by petitioners with the title "California Marriage Protection Act."[4][5] The title and summary were revised by Attorney General Jerry Brown to more "accurately reflect the measure."[6] The Superior Court of California ruled in favor of these revisions, stating, "The title and summary is not false or misleading because it states that Proposition 8 would 'eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry' in California. The California Supreme Court unequivocally held that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution." [7]

That information is already addressed in the History and doesn't contribute to summarizing or explaining Proposition 8.EmeryvilleEric (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's surplus to requirements. I suggest amending it as follows:

“ The title and summary were revised by Attorney General Jerry Brown to more "accurately reflect the measure,"[6] with the Superior Court of California upholding those revisions.[7] ”

Any thoughts? — Lincolnite (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Why have it in the intro at all? EmeryvilleEric (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think its previous title ("California Marriage Protection Act") should be in the introduction (given that that is how it was once known). If we're going to include its previous name, it's probably worth giving a brief description of why it's no longer called that. One sentence (as above) would seem enough. — Lincolnite (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Explanation section

I think it would be useful to have an in-depth explanation of the issues on this page. For example, I would like to see some of the arguments of both sides. I also think it would be helpful to explain the ramifications if this passes, like what happens to the rights of same-sex couples in California as well as those already married. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. It's two sections, I think. First is an explanation of the expected effects. "Likely" may be the wrong word - that implies WP:CRYSTAL and we should not prognosticate. In cases where all the reliable sources and commentators agree we can simply report it. If there's a non-partisan difference of opinion we could cite the range of mainstream opinion (e.g. that some think there will be no fiscal impact; others think the state stands to lose a small but noticeable amount of revenue from out-of-state couples that would otherwise come for their marraiges -- not sure if that's right, just giving an example). The second section would be an explanation of the arguments on either side regarding what they say the effects would be - partisan positions, legal reasoning, etc. For example: XXX has commented, in opposition to the measure, that the availability of marriage to same-sex couples would create a wave of divorce and other legal issues over child custody, division of community property, and inheritance that the public and courts are poorly equipped to deal with -- again not saying this is true, just giving an example of a position that a group might take for or against as opposed to an agreed-to explanation. Hope that helps. Wikidemo (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Homophobia

This article is very clear-cut homophobia topic. Anything that specifically gives LGBT less rights than people in general is discriminatory, and intentional discrimination on the basis of LGBT pairings is homophobia. It is impossible to try to discriminate against LGBT people without having an inherently homophobic position. This kind of denigration practically mandates Category:Homophobia. - Gilgamesh (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought homophobia was the of bigotry itself, whereas this is the expression of a discriminatory policy. Whether or not the cause of discrimination is always homophobia they're still different things. Isn't there a more focused category like gay rights, or anti-same sex laws? Wikidemon (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Homophobia is a fear of, aversion to or discrimination against LGBT people. Some definitions qualify with "irrational", depending on the social or cultural context. However, when a deliberate discrimination seeks to ensure LGBT people have specifically fewer rights than heterosexuals, it's a human rights violation, as it treats people as deserving less rights on that basis alone. And on Wikipedia, to presume on its face that a group of people such as this is inherently undeserving of equal rights is a pretty big POV. So if such an assumption is irrational by Wikipedia standards, then it surely qualifies as homophobia, hence the category. But since definitions of homophobia do not always require discrimination to be thought of as "irrational" to be homophobia (presuming either that its rationality is irrelevant or that it is never rational to begin with), then by that definition, discrimination against LGBT people is homophobia even without considering Wikipedia standards. - Gilgamesh (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This bill does not discriminate against LGBT people. They would still have the right to marry just as much as anyone else. This bill defines marriage as being between a man and a woman regardless of sexual orientation. LGBT have always been able to marry a member of the opposite sex, and that right will continue even if this bill passes unchallenged. Many LGBT people have entered into mixed-orientation marriages and have reported high levels of satisfaction. The sponsors of the bill have stated: "Proposition 8 does not discriminate against gays... Proposition 8 does not take away any rights from gay and lesbian domestic partners. Gays and lesbians in California can already enjoy all the legal rights and benefits of marriage."[6] This claim has gone unchallenged by the opposition. I have searched the No On Prop 8 website [7], and not once did they state that this bill was discriminatory towards LGBT people. Several times they said it was discriminatory against same-sex couples, but you can be in a same-sex couple regardless of sexual orientation. They closest they get is "LGBT people also wish to be treated equally and to have the same basic freedoms as others," but not once did they state this bill didn't do just that. It is significant that not even the organizations on the forefront of the campaign do not claim it discriminates LGBT people. Unless you can provide solid evidence from a reliable resource that this is homophobia, the category must remain off this page. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"This bill does not discriminate against LGBT people. They would still have the right to marry just as much as anyone else. This bill defines marriage as being between a man and a woman regardless of sexual orientation. LGBT have always been able to marry a member of the opposite sex, and that right will continue even if this bill passes unchallenged. Many LGBT people have entered into mixed-orientation marriages and have reported high levels of satisfaction."

...you can't be serious. Brokeback marriages? Even the Church no longer recommends those, and they pushed them for decades, but brokeback marriages that function stably are in the impractical minority—the whole reason they're no longer recommended. What about the right of people to marry who they wish, providing mutual and informed consent? That's the whole point to LGBT civil marriage. Besides, protectmarriage.com is not a reputable source, as it implies a threat against something (heterosexual marriages) that is not threatened. To glibly denigrate the concerns of another group of people and codify that denigration in law is blatant discrimination. - Gilgamesh (talk) 06:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, you must forgive my incredulity. I mean no disrespect. As an editor I endeavour to understand all the points involved and be as impartial as possible. But as a gay man, I found the reasons you presented...absolutely impossible to comprehend or justify. Most gay men I know would never prefer to marry a woman. It would be loveless and at best a business arrangement, and impossible to justify in terms of the reason most people prefer to get married—for love. I obviously cannot use only myself as a reference for a Wikipedia article, but the common wisdom among gay men (as well as in straight cultures that are fully accepting of gays—the Church tends not to be one of them), finds those kinds of presumptions ludicrous. If you don't mind my saying. Can there be no common ground and compromise? It's obviously homophobia to a great many gay people and their allies, and yet you believe it's not homophobia. I cannot even think in the terms you speak of, nor can you seem to think in mine. What can be done to resolve this in a fair and orderly manner suitable for Wikipedia? Does Wikipedia have set criteria for categorizing homophobia, arguments for and against notwithstanding? - Gilgamesh (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The proposed law obviously against gay people - the argument that gays are free to marry opposite sex partners just as straights are does not wash with common sense or the courts. That's like saying that disabled people don't need wheelchair ramps because they're free to climb the stairs just like the able bodied people - it' an argument that gays are free to be straight. Silly. But I do think we're going to run into contention here on Wikipedia if we define homophobia to include discrimination, and not just fear / hostility / aversion. Regardless of what the word might mean in one context or another, the category would be very contentious. 40-45% of the electorate seems to support the proposition and so accusing a position held by 40-45% of the people of being homophobic is just asking for dispute. You might analogize it to racism, where there are lots of things that can have a discriminatory effect but aren't necessarily indicative of people being racist in their hearts (e.g. environmental racism, societal racism, simple disagreements over fairness, and so on). Would we apply a "racism" category to people who want to undo affirmative action? Wikidemon (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your first part was the kind of thing I wanted to express, but didn't really have the words for. As for the rest...I don't know. Being a gay man, homophobia vastly complicates my life in ways that make it impossible for me to be truly detached from the issue, as hard as I certainly try. In my life, there is effectively never any good entrenched opposition to LGBT people on the basis of being LGBT, no matter how common it may still be in societies—when it violates human rights, it violates human rights, and that's all there is or can be to it. As for the rest...perhaps Category talk:Homophobia needs a far more serious discussion on how the category is appropriately applied. As for opposition to affirmative action...yes, I would personally say that is racist if a desire to dismantle it offers no alternative to redress the gaping inequalities of entrenched social racism. For instance, if someone doesn't like affirmative action quotas, they can still suggest perfectly unracist things like, say...reparative aids to compensate for the social disadvantage an applicant has from being discriminated against by society to begin with. Of course, I am also handicapped, and have zero sympathy for ableism, which may color my sympathy for at least some practical form of affirmative action as well. I mean, people who affirmative action helps are not handicapped (they can do just as well as anyone else given the proper opportunities), but they find themselves denied many opportunities by a wide variety of social prejudices pressed against them that make it far more difficult for them to succeed with the same amount of work as those who do not face as much prejudice. - Gilgamesh (talk) 11:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I decided to look up homophobia on dictionaries[8]. Besides the definition given at the top of the Wikipedia article that includes discrimination, the definition from Merriam-Webster that says "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discriminationagainst homosexuality or homosexuals", the American Heritage Dictionary has definition 1 as "Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men." and definition 2 as "Behavior based on such a feeling." Going out of ones way to discriminate against LGBT people is a behavior, and the AHD definition also does not require such fear or contempt to even be thought of as "rational". Dictionary.com Unabridged's definition "unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality." does not mention discrimination and requires that it be unreasoning. WordNet says "prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality", which does not mention discrimination but does not mentioning it having to be reasoned. Wiktionary's entry for homophobia's definition 1 is not related to LGBT, while definition 2 is "Fear of homosexuals or of becoming one." and definition 3 is "Antipathy towards homosexuals." It seems that the exact nuances differs between these definitions. Some require it to be thought of as reasonable or rational (presuming there is such a thing when it comes to opposing entire groups of people), and other definitions don't require it to be thought of as reasonable, whether that means its rationale is irrelevant or that it is presumed never to be reasonable. Also, some definitions include discrimination, while others may imply discrimination as being under behavior, while others do not specifically mention that. It seems that the definition of homophobia can easily be tied to culture, and its prevailing attitudes towards LGBT people and what is thought of as reasonable and acceptable. Unless consensus can agree on the applicable definition of the word, it may be too vague a word for a category. However, as Wikidemon pointed out, common wisdom and understanding makes it painfully obvious that the topic of this article is an intentional discrimination against LGBT people, and that no amount of sugar-coated excuses can negate that it is a cynical and antiempathetic attempt to ensure that gay men have less rights to marry each other and that gay women have less rights to marry each other than those rights afforded to heterosexual people to marry each other, because LGBT people aren't trivially free to be straight. Doesn't work that way at all. So, while the applicable agreed definition of homophobia is debated, this article would certainly fit a category like "Discrimination against LGBT people". And if you believe that homophobia implies not just feelings but actions motivated by those feelings (such as discrimination), then this topic is certainly categorizable as homophobia as well. And especially from the standpoint of LGBT people and their allies, any intentional discrimination against LGBT people on the basis of their LGBT nature and way of life is homophobia, regardless of whether it driven by a reason. I mean, regardless of what any individual may believe or feel towards LGBT people and their lives, isn't it grossly POV to presume by default that LGBT people are automatically less normal or less well adjusted or less deserving than heterosexuals (see heterosexism, which is already in Category:Homophobia), and that discrimination against them can ever be thought of as inherently more justifiable than discrimination against people by race, religion, gender, etc.? Afterall, individual religions and cultures can say one thing, but ultimately, where NPOV counts, we listen to accredited dispassionate experts—the psychiatric community, where consensus since the 1970s has resoundingly decided that there is absolutely nothing wrong with being LGBT. So it any deliberate discrimination against people based on ethnicity is racism, and if any deliberate discrimination against people based on gender is sexism, then any deliberate discrimination against LGBT people is homophobia, just as any deliberate discrimination against heterosexuals is heterophobia, etc. - Gilgamesh (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Legislation which seeks to harm gays and lesbians by uniquely limiting their equal protection under the law is, de facto, homophobic. The fact that some homophobes object to the term is natural and to be expected. To the extent that such an objection may be verified, it should be noted. (For example, homophobes claim that they don't "fear" gays but merely dislike them, or hate their presumed religious "sin", or fear the slippery-slope effects of gays and lesbians' full societal enfranchisement.) Whatever the homophobic objection, it does not invalidate the term itself, which is universally accepted--except among homophobes. Rangergordon (talk) 08:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So it seems agreed. In terms of common wisdom, this is homophobia. (And brokeback marriages almost never work.) I actually hoped Joshuajohanson, who raised the objection, would have spoken up more in this discussion, and I really expected him to. But for some reason he didn't. I really wanted to give him that chance to have a proper discussion. How long should I wait for him before reinstating the category? - Gilgamesh (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead and reinstate the category for this article--or, indeed for any article which may be categorized under the category as it is described on its page. Any discussions relating to the validity of the category itself belong on the category's talk page since, if the whole concept of homophobia could be shown to be invalid, then the category would need to be removed from all articles. Rangergordon (talk) 04:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. Whatever the word's implications, I doubt the common sense regarding that definition is universally shared. Again, saying that a bill supported by 40-some percent of the California electorate (and comparable bills by a majority in other states) is "homophobia" is going to be rather divisive. Some day people may look back and say that their opposition to gay marriage was homophobic, just as they look back today and see that everyone supporting segregation and anti-miscegenation laws (a majority of the enfranchised voters at the time) was racist. I won't revert because I tend to agree, but just want to urge people to keep their eyes open that some who consider themselves to be sincere will be offended by the category. Anyway, we're talking about a category, not a word definition. If I do look at the inclusion standards at Category:homophobia they do not seem to envision the category as a directory of anti-gay legislation.Wikidemon (talk) 06:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, as a gay editor, my good faith must still be presumed by default. And a blanket opposition against LGBT people would seem to preclude that. I suppose it may be possible there's a gap in my logic, but that would seem to make homophobia as a motivation for editing unacceptable in Wikipedia, and would enshrine a respect (if perhaps not outright support) for LGBT people as equals in every way to be mandatory. Afterall, as discussions in Category talk:Homophobia have pointed out, homophobia is no mere loose accusation against people with differing viewpoints—it is something now considered objectively measurable, seeing as LGBT is scientifically declared normal and healthy. To try to edit otherwise anymore is akin to trying to prop up intelligent design articles as scientific studies. All that said, it is less important what one believes in private, than how professionally that editor behaves. And everyone makes mistakes from time to time, like my lapse of jawdropping incredulity further up. But soon after doing so, I tried to seek any kind of common ground and consensus with the editor who was debating edits with me as well as with the greater community of editors involved here. ...and I've begun to ramble. Considering I've just lost my train of thought, I'll sign my signature here. - Gilgamesh (talk) 07:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(unidendentied) Sorry for taking so long to respond. I was out of town for Labor Day weekend. Your common sense argument is not sufficient. Protect Marriage may not be a reliable source to say it is definitely not discrimination against the LGB community, but I think it is sufficient to show that your common sense argument is not as common as you would believe. You need a reliable source to claim Prop 8 is homophobic. Protect Marriage are the sponsors of the bill, which I think means something. Gilgamesh refers to most gay men that he spends time with, which is a unique segment of the population. I would venture to guess that most gay men he spends time with are part of the gay community, which research has shown is NOT representative of those having homosexual feelings or behaviors.[9] The people I spend time with who have homosexual feelings likewise are not representative of gay people. Most of them are either celibate or faithful to their opposite sex spouse. The claim that their marriages are "loveless and at best a business arrangement, and impossible to justify in terms of the reason most people prefer to get married—for love" is discriminatory and shows a lack of understanding of these relationships. Anyway, I never said LGBT people should marry someone of the opposite sex, I simply stated barring same-sex marriage does not bar them from marriage in general. It does not bar them from a fulfilling and happy marriage to someone they love, and I know many LGBT people who have chosen to take advantage of that. Whether they choose to enter said relationship is up to them, but in the long run, banning same-sex marriage will have more positive consequences for LGBT people than negative. There is no evidence from a reliable source that it is a homophobic, and the "common sense" arguments provided on this page contradict the sponsors of this bill which explicitly state this bill is not discriminatory against LGBT people. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This comment itself has weasel/POV phrases ("Most of them", "I know many"); the referenced notes regarding homosexual feelings vs. gay people are vacuous since bisexuals are included in the set of people who have homosexual feelings but not in the set of gay people; and no justification whatsoever is provided for the opinion that "in the long run, banning same-sex marriage will have more positive consequences for LGBT people than negative". Part of the definition of "homophobia" is "discrimination against homosexuals", and irrespective of history (or any purported benefit) it's difficult to grasp how the word "discrimination" doesn't apply to banning a group of people from a legal institution. --EqualRights (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It does not ban them from a legal institution. Homosexuals can still get married, and same-sex couples can still legally enjoy all the rights afforded to opposite sex couples even if this passes. I haven't seen any proof from anybody that it discriminates homosexuals. Even scouring "No on Prop 8"[10] there is no mention of discrimination against homosexuals, only against same-sex couples. All I ask is for a reliable source that says it is homophobia. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"[W]e conclude that strict scrutiny nonetheless is applicable here because (1) the statutes in question properly must be understood as classifying or discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, a characteristic that we conclude represents — like gender, race, and religion — a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose differential treatment, and (2) the differential treatment at issue impinges upon a same-sex couple’s fundamental interest in having their family relationship accorded the same respect and dignity enjoyed by an opposite-sex couple", per Supreme Court decision. I've restored the category. --EqualRights (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)]

Look, esteemed Joshuajohanson, you can say this same thing until you're blue in the face. The problem is, you need more than just your own references. At first I had my own references, but then I requested comment from third parties as to whether my assumptions were sound or not, as per WP:Consensus. The scientific method does not support your argument. The courts do not support your argument. The sources you use can be thought to be in good faith to begin with so as to be respected for their comment, but good faith is not solely enough to be believed—they also have to be factual. And in this case, they can't be presumed to be factual. See the many pages of debates in Category talk:Homophobia that argues this issue extensively. For your argument, because of the serious issue of brokeback marriages, you would have to cite proof that most of the people who live happily in those arrangements are actually exclusively homosexual, and not merely bisexual, or perhaps even lying about their happiness. I mean, what is the longterm rate of separation and divorce too? It's pretty orthodoxly understood that the vast majority of exclusively gay men (for whom female form and character do absolutely nothing for them) are either not happy or not consistent in marriages with women where a healthy sexual element is expected of them. - Gilgamesh (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The reference is the California Supreme Court declaring prohibitions on same sex not only discriminatory (which is obvious), but unconstitutionally so. I'll throw out another analogy - one might pass a law that prayer is only sanctioned at Christian services, then argue that it does not discriminate against Jewish freedom of worship because Jews are free to attend Christian services. Of course many people have Jewish religious thoughts, but they can lead a perfectly satisfactory existence if they deny them and lead a Christian life. But this isn't the place for soapboxing arguments that forbidding same sex marriages does not deprive gay people of any rights. We're talking specifically about the category "homophobia". I think the people who created the category wisely limit its use to "organizations or individuals that are particularly noted for being involved in the subject". It really is going to be contentious to start labeling legislation and other discrimination to be "homophobic" - far better to choose a category that relates to gay rights or same sex marriage. That's enough to satisfy the purpose of the categories, to give people a good indexing system to find articles. Wikidemon (talk) 07:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, that's not the sole scope of the category. The article Section 28 is already in the category also, which was British legislation to forbid anything that might officially promote homosexuality in the United Kingdom. It's since been repealed (first in Scotland and then in the whole U.K.) and is now a disgrace. California Proposition 8 would seem to have even more reason to be in this category than Section 28, as the courts and California public policy have acknowledged banning same-sex marriage as homophobic discrimination, and Proposition 8 is no less homophobic just because it seeks to reinstate that discrimination by force. Even if it somehow were to pass, all it would do is seek to legitimize the discrimination by law. It would still be discrimination, and it would certainly still be homophobic, no matter how legal and idealized and reasoned away it is. The bill's proponents denying homophobia and discrimination does not fly with this legal recognition, third party analysis and the scientific establishment confirming that it is exactly that. It wouldn't matter in the slightest bit how right and just the proponents feel in their entitlement to it, or even if they felt it commanded to them from on high on pain of eternal damnation. Homophobia is real, and its characteristics are etched in stone. So, instead of someone trying to deny that this is homophobia because homophobia is seen as an ugly word and they believe the bill is right and morally mandated, they should instead decide for themselves whether they believe homophobia is right or wrong, and accept the word's application. It being the ugly word it is doesn't make it any less applicable when correctly and dispassionately applied, and is something one must live with. - Gilgamesh (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The California Supreme Court, third party analysis and scientific establishments did not use the words "homophobic". They said it discriminated same-sex couples, and was unconstitutional. This proposition will make it constitutional. It is important to note 48 other states do not find it discriminatory to ban same-sex marriages. In fact, 25 states have the ban in the constitution. California supreme courts do not outweigh the constitution of the other states. Most Americans object to same-sex marriage. Does that mean most Americans are homophobic? I agree homophobia is real. It is a horrible evil and must be fought at all costs. There are people who believe homosexuals are somehow inferior and less capable than heterosexuals. That is not the case with this proposition. You so liberally say section 28 is a disgrace. I do not think that is generally accepted.

Even if we were to blindly believe California Supreme Court and reject the rest of the United States, their ruling does not necessarily constitute homophobia. The Californian court ruled that the "State’s Interest in Preserving the Traditional Definition of Marriage Is Legitimate", but that the right of same-sex couples to marry outweighed that legitimate interest in preserving the traditional definition of marriage. That doesn't sound like homophobia. As Wikidemon pointed out, the homophobia category is for "organizations or individuals that are particularly noted for being involved in the subject."

I'm not arguing the fact that some people think it is discriminatory. I am not arguing the fact that some people think it is homophobic. (There is a difference between the two.) I am saying that it is not generally accepted to be homophobic. Evidence that four supreme court justices in California dissent from the laws and constitutions of the rest of the United States in saying it is discriminatory against same-sex couples is not the same thing as saying it is generally accepted that this is homophobia. If I wanted to write "this is not homophobia", then I would need a reference. That is not what I am doing. You are trying to categorize this as homophobia. For that you need a reference. If this is so obvious, why can't you find a reference?

As for mixed-orientation marriage, I do not pretend that most people in a mixed-orientation marriage are happy any more than I pretend that most people in a traditional marriage are happy. I do not know the stats, since it is hard to estimate. Most of the gay men I know are discreet with their sexual orientation, or closeted. The ones you end up hearing about are the ones that get divorced. The ones that stay married usually aren't as open about it. I don't know about the exact figures, and I don't know how many of them are happy. My point is that happy mixed-orientation marriages exist.[11] About.com states "Don't assume that your marriage is over. Some straight/gay marriages are happy unions." They then estimate 20% of gay men and 40% of lesbians are currently in mixed orientation marriages.[12] What percent of gay men and lesbians are in same-sex marriages in places where both options are open up to them? It seems that there are more gay men are married to women than men and likewise more lesbians married to men than other women.

This is where discriminating Jews from praying analogy breaks down. Because it seems that there are more Jews praying in Christian churches than in the Jewish synagogues. Another problem with the analogy is Jews are completely and 100% allowed to pray in their synagogues. The Christians aren't calling them Christian churches, as well they shouldn't. They are Jewish synagogues. Same-sex couples legally have ALL the same rights as those who are married. The sponsors of this bill don't disagree with these rights. The just don't want to call it marriage. As the Supreme Court pointed out, the state has a legitimate interest in preserving the traditional definition of marriage. Marriage is much more than just an expression of love. It is a sacred institution that strengthens society. It strengthens those who preparing to bring children into this world and discourages children from being born out of wedlock. Same-sex marriage does not do this, and debases marriage to simply an expression of love one to another rather than an obligation to cherish and to hold. It has serious ramifications as people marry and divorce as they fall in and out of love, rather than view marriage as a societal obligation to love one another and to only bring children into this world within that bond of marriage and raise them together as a couple. Obviously there are heterosexual couples who don't have children, and both types of couples who adopt. But the primary purpose of marriage is not an expression of love between people who don't have children or those who adopt. In order to build a strong community, an environment must be created where as many children as possible are born into a family that stays intact. Marriage is much more than simply an expression of love. It is a sacred obligation, the basis for our society, and must be protected at all costs. As the Supreme Court ruled "Marriage is more than a “law,” of course; it is a social institution of profound significance to the citizens of this state, many of whom have expressed strong resistance to the idea of changing its historically opposite-sex nature."

This bill does not discriminate gays and lesbians. They may enter into a happy marriage if they so chose. If they would rather have a same-sex partner, they may still have all the rights of those who are legally married. They have the right to be legally bonded to the person they love. But marriage is more than that. Marriage, as defined by the constitution in most states in the US, is between a man and a woman. You may disagree with that, but refusing to accept a definition that changes our understanding and purpose of marriage is not necessarily homophobia. There are legitimate reasons, as declared by the Californian Supreme Court, for doing so. I have listed a few, but I do not have to spell out every reason people have for opposing this bill. There is a huge debate across the world on this issue, and you are acting as if it were already decided. Wikipedia does not take sides. I do not have the burden of proof. You do. In order to keep this category, you must prove that Prop 8 is homophobic. You have not. Until you provide a reliable source, the category will remain off this page. Joshuajohanson (talk) 09:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, there is something I agree on, and this comment will be solely about that. That it shouldn't be called marriage. However, I don't believe ideally that a religious institution such as marriage should be an issue with civil government. I'd rather abolish all civil marriage, only register civil unions (straight and gay alike), and leave marriage as purely a matter for individual religions to decide. But as long as there is civil marriage, then its discriminatory application is patently offensive to gay couples. Either it applies to all, or it applies to none, equally and fairly. If marriage is treated as inherently religious in every case, then a civil marriage implies an establishment of religion, violating the separation of church and state. Now that it's no longer illegal for anyone to be gay, or atheist, or pagan, or Hindu, etc., then civil marriage either has to be divorced from religious connection, or be replaced by civil unions in its entirety. The thing is, even many gay men routinely call their companions husbands, and lesbian women call their companions wives, and that they're married, and that it means something to them. And they have every right to feel that way. Equally, every religion has the private right to disagree with other religions, spiritual traditions or lack thereof. That's freedom of conscience. But people do not have the right to force someone else to conform to different norms just because they don't agree with them. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. People don't have the right to force heterosexism on LGBT society simply because not doing so would be offensive to someone's religion, regardless of if those who feel offended constitute 40%, 50.001% or even 99.999% of the vote. Pride, zeal and hurt feelings do not and cannot ever trump fully equal civil and human rights under the laws of any land that wishes to call itself free. (Also, if you notice, heterosexism is also in Category:Homophobia.) Now, if I have thoughts on other subtopics, I'll speak on them when the time is right. - Gilgamesh (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The state has a vested interest in facilitating children to be born to parents who are committed to each other until the time the children can fend for themselves. Marriage does that, and homosexuals can participate in that undertaking. Same-sex marriage does not directly add to or detract from that goal. There is disagreement on whether it does so indirectly. The state does not have a vested interest in celebrating the love of two individuals. If marriage were simply an expression of love between two individuals, I would agree that Prop 8 is homophobic, because it denies same-sex couples the right to express their love for each other. However, as the Californian Supreme Court noted, marriage is much more than that. Marriage, as defined by most of the US, is a legal contract between a man and a woman. It is not simply an expression of love between two individuals. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Judging the length of this talk section tells me there is definitely some contention here with POV on both sides. Like I said, everyone is biased. Pure objectivity is best left to an ideal world with no important practical use in the real world. Why don't Wikipedians just admit it and take off the high and mighty objectivity cloke they put on here every day.

Just to let it be known, the term "homophobic" is purely biased in and of itself in favor of the the homosexual community in order to demonize the traditional, religious community. I my book, using that term is discrimination against God-fearing, family loving heterosexuals 99% of the time. The only acceptable case in which use of the word is jutifiable is when homosexuals are beaten, robbed, murdered, or harmed by truly detestable hate-mongers. To use this term on this anywhere in this article (even through links) would clearly be POV.Gaytan (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Homophobia#Etymology and usage. If no one can come to some kind of consensus of the word's NPOV use, then maybe the category needs to be renamed, such as "Opposition to LGBT" or something. Also, even the language you used in that comment was esoteric. "Homosexual community" is considered insensitive—"gay community" or "LGBT community" is not. "God-fearing" is also esoteric largely to evangelical Christians, as not even all Christians (who may or may not also oppose LGBT issues) believe in fearing God. "family loving" (as well as "pro-family") is also politically loaded, as it is considered offensive to functioning gay families (families with gay parents, families with a happily gay family member, etc.) As for hate-mongering, the problem perceived is that the people who do the hurtful or violent acts often feel instigated by traditionally-referenced scripture or sermon. Old Testament passages such as in Leviticus are especially incredibly divisive because in the pre-Christian Mosaic purity code, execution was often prescribed, and following that to the letter would practically necessarily mandate violence against LGBT people and an active opposition to their very existence, let alone rights. When it comes to the New Testament, Jesus is actually entirely silent on the issue, and most opposition comes the evangelist Paul. This is significant because some Christians don't treat Paul as doctrinally infallible, and read Paul's writings as nothing more than his personal evangelist opinions. It wouldn't be my intention to necessarily force a change of minds on the issue if someone has decided it. But a hard-line disproportionately-weighted emphasis of a few anti-LGBT scripture passages quite certainly has a homophobic motive (whether in personal opinion or in cultural tradition) and a homophobic effect, especially when not all devout observant Christians everywhere believe in opposing the domestic, legal and civil pursuits of LGBT people. Therefore, with all due respect, it would certainly be helpful and respectful to me and others if you clarity what you mean in less esoteric terms. Please, speak like a scientist and academic. - Gilgamesh (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And I think it is homophobic to assume that just because someone is attracted to someone of the same gender that means their domestic, legal and civil pursuits are automatically contradictory to a traditional family. It is homophobic to assume that LGBT people will inherently have to have sex with people of the same gender, which is what you are implying when you apply those Biblical versus to LGBT people, because those versus don't have anything to do with a homosexual orientation. There are many families with a gay parent or happily gay family members that are traditional families, consisting of a father and mother who love each other and are faithful to each other, and to say LGBT people are incapable of making a happy mixed-orientation marriage is homophobic. As you pointed out, homophobia includes irrational discrimination, and to say a straight Catholic priest can be celibate, a straight guy should be able to go without ever lusting after a woman, as Jesus directed, but that an LGBT person is incapable of controlling their sexual expression seems very discriminatory to me. As Orson Scott Card commented "In my opinion, all homosexuals should be enraged at the notion that of all human beings, only homosexuals cannot control their sexual behavior by conscious choices."[13] As you complain of a manner speech that you find to be offensive, please watch what you say that gives offense to others. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That...(*blink*) I'm sorry to say, didn't make the slightest bit of sense to me. - Gilgamesh (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Gilgamesh. You have no constitutional right saying you cannot be offended. You and I are polar opposites on this issue (and likely many others). You offend me in so many ways, but hey, that is your right to freedom of speech. Well whether you like it or not, I (and pro-marriage folks) have that same right as well.

Your casual use of the homosexual community’s favorite word (“homophobic” or any variant of it) is very offensive to me. Your hatred and intolerance of evangelical Christians and other conservative faiths is extremely offensive to me. Your trashing of the Old Testament (OT) is equally offensive to me. Your assumption that Christ’s perceived silence on same-sex marriage equates to His implicit approval of it is tremendously offensive to me. Your failure to mention Christ’s high regard for the OT as demonstrated through His many references to it is offensive to me. Your belittling of the Apostle Paul is offensive to me. Your condescension towards myself and other pro-marriage Wiki editors is offensive to me.

Now, if you want to discard the entire OT and a majority of the NT, go right ahead, that’s your choice. Or even if you want to simply white-out the references to homosexuality in your Bible only, that's fine with me. As for me, I will keep and revere as much of God’s revelation as I possibly can and I won't try to correct it according to my personal preferences. So Gilgamesh, please don’t patronize me with your suggestions about “speak[ing] like a scientist and academic.” None of us here are academics in this or any related field, for if we were, we would be offering our services to respected journals of relevance. So don’t try to act like a respected academic in this area because clearly… you are not. Gaytan (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

But how is that relevant? In Wikipedia, we are not to make personal attacks, and I have been endeavouring to treat other editors with respect, even if they differ from me in personal views. It doesn't matter in the slightest if discussion points happen to be personally offensive to another editor. Please, calm down. Now, when I said that the other comment didn't make any sense to me, I meant exactly that—something about it went over my head. And when I mentioned that there is disagreement over the way scripture is interpreted, I was not actually offended, but I was concerned that the tone of the discussion was being misunderstood, as discussion pages are not pulpits, and I wanted to illustrate that that the comments I read would sound confusing to some other editors in terms of tone and relevance, particularly if they are not themselves from the same background as the person who made the comments. (When it comes to religious doctrine, sometimes it helps to speak in more secular language for other editors who might not understand the nature of the words of another tradition.) As for whether we are academics, we may not all have accredited degrees from an institution of higher learning, but part of the Wikipedia experiment is that it doesn't require that—our edits and sources—not our individual personal accrediations—are judged on their merits. As for being polar opposites in issues like this, it doesn't matter. We are trying to seek consensus, and a plurality of polite discussion points could do nothing to hinder that end. Yes, I do admit, my personal origin and religious comprehensions tend to be from what could be considered the Christian left, but that should be no more relevant than anything else that is personal. Our backgrounds tend to shape how we approach things in thought, but just because they are fundamentally different does not and need not constitute an insult to someone who has a different approach of thought. In the end, all that really matters is that what goes into articles is of sound neutral content from a proper source. And though, admittedly, people may have different kinds of common wisdom, it is still common wisdom that we largely start out with. So even when editors have a plurality of backgrounds, it helps a great deal in general to endeavour to assume good faith as best as we can that we at least have the same ultimate goal of improving the articles for the better of all. So, is this clear? Can we be calm? - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking. Since this thread began, I've been sensing...quite a lot of antagonism from a couple other editors on this issue, with some very visceral arguments that seem to have risen stress levels. And it seems to me that this is very unnecessary. In trying to be polite, people can try to discuss as neutrally as they can, and often inevitably still speak colored by their own life experiences and personal understandings of what neutrality fundamentally means. One editor's orthodox baseline understandings can be anathema to another's, but need not constitute bad faith. Please, I've been trying to be respectful on this issue, but still have a lifetime of my own experiences and understandings. It is possible that I frequently speak without tact, but speaking with perfectly graceful tact is not my intuitive strength. Nevertheless, I mean well. You must understand that speaking in conservative religious terms is not necessarily offensive to me, but just very very confusing to someone else who does not think and may have never thought in that particular mode. I actually am Mormon (as Joshuajohanson and Gaytan also are), and have been raised so since birth, but I am culturally from nowhere near the Jell-O Belt, my immediate family has always been quite liberal by Jello-Belt standards, and the Jell-O Belt's culture is still quite foreign to most of us even after having moved to Utah Valley 15 years ago. Even in what can be thought of as the same religion and even possibly the same geographical region, it is still possible for different editors to be so fundamentally different in background as to find one another's discussion points difficult to understand, and I believe that's been happening here. It doesn't necessarily mean either side has discussed in bad faith, but just that they probably have to try harder to provide solid foundation for discussion points. Two-way sensitivity is sometimes difficult (it can be too easy to speak in terms another side might consider pejorative without having necessarily intended it), but still very important in a smooth calm discussion flow. I expressed concern to try to better understand another perspective's foundation and justification (which admittedly in this case I've never been very good at), and some editors perceived it as a direct personal attack to everything they believe in. Don't. I am still trying to seek a neutrality, which for us in this situation does not look like it will be a trivial matter. In fact, I haven't tried this hard to think outside the box in a Wikipedia talk page in a very long time. - Gilgamesh (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your attempts to compromise here Gilgamesh. I was offended as noticed above and I am still trying to move past it. But I admit that NONE OF US are very tactful and ALL OF US are biased. If we try to make sure we treat each other fairly, without any condescension, we will put together an adequate article. But if we speak down to each other, NONE OF US has the tact to get through the incident politely. Gaytan (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't presume I'm condescending. I just speak unorthodoxly. I don't speak specifically up or down. I just speak. - Gilgamesh (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Like I said elsewhere in this talk page, it all depends upon the eye of the beholder. I my view you were condescending, which is why I came off the way I did. In your view, I should not have been offended.Gaytan (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In the course of studying Category:Wikipedia dispute resolution, I came across Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks. Granted, I wasn't aware of this until now, but it sounds like a good idea. There really ought to be none of this in discussions like these, where we talk about our own experiences. It makes sense...who we are, is largely irrelevant to Wikipedia, except maybe if there's a conflict of interest. I've been trying to be neutral on this issue, but my own experiences make that virtually impossible. As a conflict of interest, perhaps it's better if all editors with an interest in passing or defeating this legislation excuse themselves from this discussion altogether. I should excuse myself now. - Gilgamesh (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I can understand where you are coming from Gilgamesh. But I feel that if I walk away from editing this article, all hell will break loose since my check and balance to the article will no longer be in place. Someone sympathetic to your view of this issue can feel the same way. Together we provide checks and balances on each other, or better said we together provide for a division of power on this Wiki article, just like the American constitution aims to achieve. Without you it may slant too much to one particular side. I won't walk away from this article so I don't think you should either. Let's just try to leave personal experiences out of the discussion.Gaytan (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I have my own opinions about the article which I am happy to share, but I don't feel strongly enough about them to watch dog over them. I've probably said a few times already that whatever the real-world implications of the word "homophobia" it's divisive to use that category on Wikipedia as a designation for everything that is believed to negatively affect gay rights. I think the category definition itself hints at this when it suggests that it is only for things generally accepted to reflect prejudice. I personally think the passage rate of Prop. 22 is irrelevant because constitutionality is decided by courts, not votes - and "will of the people" arguments aren't very germane. The opinion polling on the current measure is more relevant but it's still marginal because polls change, they're not perfect predictors of outcomes, and frankly they don't really get to the issue. Polls and passage rates often stand in as proxies for supporting or opposing the validity of something and we try to be neutral. None of this really makes much difference in the long run, although people who are not involved in the issue will probably raise an eyebrow to see a current, certified proposition coming up for a vote labeled as pertaining to homophobia. A "gay civil rights" or "gay marriage" category would be far more instructive in my opinion. Wikidemon (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to reiterate that the article may be categorized under "homophobia" if it satisfies the description given on the Category:Homophobia page. (E.g. that the proposition seeks to deny equal protection in a way the courts have already ruled unconstitutional, so it has no legal justification apart from its proponents' dislike of gays and lesbians.) If the validity of the "homophobia" category in itself is to be discussed, it should be on the category's talk page rather than on the talk pages of each article included in the category. If the very concept of homophobia is to be discussed, there is a talk page for that, too. Rangergordon (talk) 04:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's fair to discuss the category's meaning and what the category means when applying the category. Even if there were a consensus on the category page here that isn't binding on us here on this page. But no, I don't think it fits the description on the category page. The category page does not define homophobia at all, it simply links to the homophobia article. It cautions that it is for things "particularly noted" [emphasis in original] for being involved in the subject, and not for "related actions" that are not "considered widely known" for homophobia. None of that gives a bright line but it's clear that the category is not really meant to cover controversial cases. The measure does not seek to do anything unconstitutional. Though we may speculate that the motivations behind the sponsors and the 40%+ of California voters who support the measure are blind prejudice, we cannot reasonably assume such a thing. True or not, it is not widely known that 40% of the population is homophobic. If so we could apply the tag to each person known to support the bill. Wikidemon (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds...surprisingly logical. I certainly had never thought of it in those terms. You're right...some of things are probably beyond our reasonable capacity here to assume. - Gilgamesh (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It is an interesting distinction. I agree with Wikidemon that, in a world full of human variety, it is mathematically unreasonable to make general statements of the form all X are Y. But, if it is widely known that 40% of the population is (or admits to being) homophobic, it is reasonable to assume that Proposition 8 will find widespread support among that demographic. Were you to dig deep enough, you could likely find that there is some number of Proposition 8's supporters who are acting out of various motivations other than homophobia. And, by the same token, it is unreasonable to assume that fully 100% of homophobes will vote for the measure. Without speculating on their motivations, however, it is reasonable to assume that such individuals are "statistical outliers." That is, the percentage of homophobes voting for the measure--and that of non-homophobes voting against it--can reasonably be expected to approach totality. If the litmus test for categorizing a ballot measure as homophobic is to demonstrate that the actual number of its non-homophobic supporters equals zero, then it is extremely unlikely that any ballot measure could ever be considered "homophobic." To the extent that a proposition can be considered homophobic at all, it seems more reasonable to judge it on how congruent its goals are to those sought by homophobes, and how narrowly it targets gays and lesbians. After all, if it weren't for that 40% homophobic demographic--whose shared motivation is congruent, focused and determined, unlike those of various outlying non-homophobic supporters--Proposition 8 could not have made it onto the ballot. (Regarding constitutionality: Of course ballot measures such as this one are perfectly constitutional. The purpose of this one, however, is to implement a policy that has been ruled unconstitutional.) Rangergordon (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Obsessive watching and editing can be very bad for an editor's stress levels as well as objectivity. To be afraid to stop watching and editing for a fear of other viewpoints too opposed to ones own is a significant sign of conflict of interest. I read the guideline. If a topic becomes that passionately important, then it's too important. I know I'm often editing too passionately myself, but this is wrong—a lack of passion is the order on Wikipedia. I mean, before I started editing this article, I was absolutely certain that what I thought correct was itself NPOV, as the courts had decided, psychologists had decided, and even the original coining includes situations like this. I also feel opposition to equal LGBT rights and emancipation is a radical fringe, in terms of respecting human rights and human beings and their cultures and assuming good faith and being civil, if not always in numbers of opinions in some parts of the world. In the scientific method, dispassioned, empirical, skeptical analysis is used. Homophobia is often defined as opposition to LGBT issues that is reasonable, but in the scientific method, using religious justification or cultural dogma towards an NPOV is not reasonable in the slightest—even respected scientists who are religiously devout know you can't confuse religious conviction with empirical evidence for or against something. And all this said, I am often aware (almost always after the fact) that I am quite arrogant at times, but at least for me it's pathological and not an act of bad faith. But sometimes even I know how to take a step back if it's painfully obvious I'm too personally involved in the fate of an article. When you edit on Wikipedia, it ultimately doesn't matter how you want the article to end up. When you start to personally want for an article to go a certain way, then you're probably in too deep already. When you start to personally need for an article to go a certain way, you're certainly in too deep already. - Gilgamesh (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Obsessive watching is one necessary tool of Wikipedia - "my watchlist". If we did not have any obsessive watchers, the accuracy of Wikipedia articles would degrade quickly. One obsessive watcher for an article is bad news since it will definitely be slanted. Multiple obsessive watchers will help keep the article balanced. So I think the more obsessive watchers we have the better; the less we have the worse. And let's just admit it (why say otherwise?), most of us are obsessive watchers. Gaytan (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Joshuajohanson, Let me replace a few words in your original argument, pretending we're having this debate sometime last century, and let's see if you still want to associate yourself with it: "This bill does not discriminate against black people. They would still have the right to marry just as much as anyone else. This bill defines marriage as being between two members of the same race regardless of their race. Blacks have always been able to marry a member of the same race, and that right will continue even if this bill passes unchallenged. Many black people have entered into marriages with other blacks and have reported high levels of satisfaction." Do you still think this initiative is not discriminatory? EmergentProperty (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that in history and historical cultural studies too. It seemed to be a common grain in much of Christianity of European cultures to believe in the curse and mark of Cain, and for whatever reason, entire cultures used it to justify the complete internal segregation if not outright discrimination of the "races". By tradition, people believed that the central tenets of their religious faith absolutely demanded it. A 1959 Virginia judicial verdict leading up to Loving v. Virginia echoed common ingrained belief: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix." It was also an ingrained attitude of Afrikaner Calvinism providing a strong religious justification for Apartheid. With the ugly faces of racism exposed for the whole world to see during the Civil Rights era, this once culturally orthodox religious view became increasingly hastefully abandoned. And yet even then, many found this religious tradition so sacred they refused to abandon it for years to come, such as with Bob Jones University's infamous racial policies and associated lawsuits. But even the majority of the mainstream organized Christian establishment today—much of which held so many of these same views at varying times in history—have declared this an evil disgrace. But tell them that decades or centuries ago, and they would think you blasphemous. And what they say back to you might be perceived as grossly medieval, unethical, immoral and blasphemous to you in the same measure. And when multiple people fundamentally disagree on religious, cultural and personal grounds, the best compromise tends to be dispassionate consensus of the scientific method. It in and of itself is not a replacement for individual faith, but is solely appropriate in that it can be attested with empirical accredited sources and broad peer-reviewed consensus, with zero regard to how bland or harsh or unpopular their social and cultural impact is. This is what Wikipedia's aim is all about. - Gilgamesh (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Race is innate and fixed, whereas sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime.[14] It isn't a fair comparison. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

But how likely and common is it for gay people's orientation to change in adulthood? As I understand it (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), all babies regardless of ethnicity are born with blue eyes, which then develop pigmentation after a time. - Gilgamesh (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The American Psychiatric Association says it develops across a person’s lifetime, whereas eye color has most of its change at the beginning. Remember, a homosexual orientation isn't just the underlining attraction, "it also refers to an individual’s sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them." [15] So using that definition, you can change your orientation simply by changing your behaviors and the community you associate with. Lisa Diamond found "considerable fluidity" in lesbian women's attractions, behaviors, and identities.[16] I think the Western notion of sexuality wants to put us into little boxes with labels, whereas non-westernized concepts of male sexuality allows more flexibility. I think these boxes are dangerous and I believe one of the harms of same-sex marriages is that it makes those distinctions more concrete. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Dangerous? You believe? Harms of same-sex marriage? Could you please clarify what you are trying to communicate, so that we're all clear? In particular, please cite hard scientific fact that an individual's fixed sexuality is dangerous or that same-sex marriages cause direct harm in any way that violates another person's personal civil liberties or human rights (or their own mental health) that opposite-sex marriages do not. Besides, out of curiosity, how is it merely about changing ones outward behavior? Wouldn't a true orientation apply to inward feeling and identity as well? - Gilgamesh (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is dangerous to assume orientation is fixed when in fact it develops across the lifetime of the individual. Truth liberates. Lies are dangerous. I don't know what "true orientation" is. Maybe that is a topic for the sexual orientation page. Sexual orientation, as defined by American Psychological Association, includes membership in a community. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If the definition is truly there, I wouldn't dispute that's why they hold. But it certainly seems farfetched from a LGBT perspective. A man can be gay even without the presence of other human beings, so long as he finds men physically and mentally arousing while not finding women as such. It is the common wisdom of many LGBT people that what constitutes what you would call same-sex attraction and what others would call men who have sex with men qualify as being gay, regardless of the status of relations or relationships or affiliation with community structures. I have no immediate citations of fact on this issue (so I won't pretend that I do), but it is certainly many a lifetime's experience of understanding and perception. Anyway, your statement about the American Psychological Association's position on the issue certainly warrants further investigation. Do you have a link substantiating this? - Gilgamesh (talk) 22:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Same-sex attraction and men who have sex with men are completely different. Same-sex attraction refers to being attracted to someone of the same sex, regardless of sexual identity or behavior. For example, someone can be happily and faithfully heterosexually married without identifying as gay, while still having same-sex attractions. Likewise, someone who identifies as gay and has sex with men also probably has same-sex attractions. To be MSM, you need to have sex with men. However, sexual orientation "also refers to an individual’s sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them." [17] Gay, same-sex attraction, men who have sex with men and homosexual orientation are all different aspects of homosexuality. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Presuming that is indeed the case, what about common perception among LGBT people? A great many are not going to see the difference, and might even consider it splitting hairs to do so. When it comes to what is "gay", people (including LGBT people themselves) tend to better understand simpler rules of thumb of what constitutes it. But that said, I'm not really sure I can better explain it than that. There seem to be gaping cultural gaps between those who oppose LGBT matters and those for whom it is a part of their lives. A great deal of common wisdom does not seem to be shared. I can appreciate that people believe what they believe, and desire what they desire, and seek what they seek, in regards to their opposition to LGBT matters. But should not the attempt of sensitivity and impartiality go both ways? I mean, I doubt I could ever get a San Francisco liberal to sit through even civil explanations of the rationale of a Topeka conservative or vice versa. But isn't that precisely what we should be doing here when there is a conflict so that different discussing parties can reach a civil, plurally sensitive understanding and seek ground for consensus? It can't be a maximally either-or struggle. That's not consensus. - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

But this is the very root of the disagreeance. I think the common perception among LGBT people is that people with same-sex attractions should have sex with people of their own gender, and if they aren't they aren't being true to themselves. Hence they blur the two groups. It is that idea which most conservatives find dangerous, and people with same-sex attractions who do not have sex with the same gender find oppresive. Randy Thomas has said "As a former homosexual, when I was involved in the 1980s promoting the gay agenda, our only focus was to seek tolerance, whereas today's political activism has moved from true tolerance into political domination and power. It's an amazing thing to watch a group that said they were oppressed become oppressors."[18] Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

But that seems incendiary. To pressure people into having sex is almost like rape. The very notion of a gay agenda is also incredibly incendiary. (That article is itself already in Category:Discrimination in the United States, Category:Homophobia and Category:Conspiracy theories. It has no credibility outside its active promoters.) I mean, in my perception, being gay usually includes some kind of sexual activity but not always. I know very openly happily gay guys who have gone for years without sex. If it's made solely a question of "He's gay? Who's he having sex with?", it belittles the complex social lives of a great many gay men. A lot of guys don't just want to jump into sack with any guy they think is hot. A lot of guys like to socialize, and from there develop either platonic friendships (having gay personality perspective in common) or date, and perhaps even have long slow courtships, just like an heterosexual couple. Men can even go into their 20s, 30s and 40s in virginity while dating and not having found the right man. My goodness. I'm trying hard to assume good faith here, but I hope you understand now that what you just mentioned has the capacity to be perceived as so incredible as to be nauseatingly insensitive and denialist to the lives and concerns of gay people. Now, since I must assume you mean good faith, I am going to assume you weren't actually quite aware of that. - Gilgamesh (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

And here I burn out. My wikistress is red. Don't bother replying, I won't be here. This is all I can do now to preserve my civility. - Gilgamesh (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This discussion may have started on topic but it's now way, way off topic. We don't care what an editors opinion of homosexuality is, we only care how we can improve this article. Random rants about how evil homosexuality/"the gay agenda" or same sex marriage are as well as rants about how badly LGBT are treated or how bad homophobia have no place here Nil Einne (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Arizona and other states' similar measures

EqualRights has added a sentence about a related Arizona effort. I have reverted this edit twice for the following reasons: 1) This article is about the California effort, not Arizona's (this talk page will show that this page is about California any edits about people or measures outside of California is routinely excluded); 2) The sentence was added to the Proponent section of the article; Arizona has absolutely nothing to do with well-known proponents of Prop 8; 3) Any discussion about Arizona's failure to pass a related measure would require mention of the other nearly 30 states which did pass such as measure in order to remain NPOV (such a thing would take too long a section to adequately cover so it doesn't belong in this article anyways). I have removed EqualRights edit; it should not be re-entered until a more detailed discussion of this on this Talk page is had. Gaytan (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have a strong opinion either way on the question of including/not including the Arizona fact but to say "Arizona has absolutely nothing to do with well-known proponents of Prop 8" is plainly ridiculous. The reason the line about Arizona having rejected Prop. 107 is included is because Sen. John McCain's (R–Arizona) quote refers to the efforts in "[his] home state" (which, I hope you'll agree Gaytan, is Arizona). It's therefore quite reasonable to include AZ but not every other state that's voted on similar propositions. — Lincolnite (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

EqualRights included the following statement in the proponents section - "Although Arizona prohibits gay marriage by statute, a similar Arizona constitutional proposition failed in 2006." Problems are as follows: 1) just because McCain is from AZ does not mean that Prop 107 is worth mentioning in this article -- even McCain himself has no direct role in the Prop 8 outcome -- if we applied this logic (indirect relation) to other parts of this article, this page would have to be huge; 2) the word "similar" is misleading since Arizona's proposition was distinctly different in that it restricted domestic partnership rights as well; 3) is clearly POV when inserted without any other qualifying ideas - how anyone can argue that this statement can be made, with absolutely no hint of the fact that nearly 30 other states (no need to name each individually) in the last 5-10 years have approved of some kind of legislation to limit marriage between individuals of opposite sex, and not be considered POV is beyond me. Gaytan (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This edit is awkward, whether included or not. The McCain quote obviously makes a reference to something that happened in Arizona. That reference is apparently to the failed 2006 proposition (the prepared statement is so poorly worded in this regard, I hesistate to say with certainty). I certainly echo Gaytan's objection that the Arizona proposition differs substantially from Proposition 8 in California. That concern could easily be addressed by striking the word "similar" from the offending sentence.

As I am probably in a tiny minority of people who doubt what the McCain camp was referring to, perhaps simply linking from the relevant portion of the quote to the Wikipedia article on Prop 107 is a reasonable compromise. It seems worthwhile to give the reader some clue about McCain's reference. Wonderbreadsf (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with either removing "similar", changing "similar" to "related", or simply linking back to the 107 article; in any case, the point remains is that McCain's statement is either misleading or false, depending on how it's read. Do we need a quick poll? --EqualRights (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything misleading or false about what McCain said. He supports Californian's effort to maintain traditional marriage. My line of thinking on the issue of including Arizona's marriage propositions is similar to the problems I had with mentioning Prop 22 results in this article (there was fierce opposition to my inclusion of the Prop 22 voting results as seen on this talk page). The argument against me was basically, "this is Prop 8 not Prop 22 and we already have an article on Prop 22". I'm simply applying that same logic on this issue. I think a reference or link can be made to the Prop 107 article but stating most any details about the Arizona effort belongs in another article. The only reason we kept the Prop 22 results in this article was by placing them into the polling section and because the Prop 22 wording was exactly the same as Prop 8. If either of these were not the case, the Prop 22 results would not be found on this article either, since some editors considered them POV. Since Prop 107 is only indirectly related to Prop 8 (through McCain who is not even Californian), it's results do not have any place in this article and are POV.Gaytan (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As Lincolnite already pointed out, the misleading/false part of McCain's statement is "just as we did in my home state of Arizona"; the people of his home state rejected a proposition that would have "recognize[d] marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman". --EqualRights (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain was clearly speaking about his support of the "efforts" of Californians to maintain the traditional definition of marriage. His home state of Arizona did do likewise. They tried, through their efforts, to also maintain the traditional definition of marriage. I still see nothing misleading/false about that. So EqualRights, quit playing politics with this quote. We are not here to campaign for Obama or McCain, so let's just move on.

While you did respond to the politics of McCain's statement, you failed to acknowledge any of the points I presented about keeping Prop 107 results out of this article. So to reiterate, EqualRights, Prop 107 is only indirectly related to Prop 8 through McCain (who is not even Californian). Therefore it's results do not have any place in this article and are POV. This is one major tool editors of this article have used in order to screen all newly added material. Gaytan (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I remind you to assume good faith and be civil. There's nothing POV about attempting to correct or clarify an erroneous or misleading statement, and I am not the only editor who views McCain's statement as such, so it is not clear at all that McCain was referring to the "efforts". Grammatically, the phrase "just as we did" refers to an action (verb); "recognize" is a verb, whereas "efforts" is a noun.

I'll propose another way to resolve this issue, using an ellipsis to distill McCain's statement to its important essence: "I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman [...]. I do not believe judges should be making these decisions." --EqualRights (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Bonus prize for EqualRights. Let's omit the troublesome clause from McCain's quote. Whatever McCain may have been referring to, it added no meaningful context to his expression of support for Prop 8. There's no need to parse his campaign's horrible grammar (or grapple with what may have been a odd deceit).Wonderbreadsf (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with employing the ellipsis. As for my charge of POV, I was not talking about your claim that McCain was misleading since I don't care for McCain anyways. Like I said, we shouldn't play politics here. My charge of POV is for any edits which insert too much info about Prop 107 on this article. Gaytan (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Votes need

Neither this article nor the California Constitution article appear to state what percentage of votes is actually needed for the amendment to pass. Is it only a simple majority? Or higher? Based on how often they seem to amend their constitution I'm guessing it is just a simple majority but who knows, because I sure don't from reading both articles. Nil Einne (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, a bare majority is all that's required (little wonder California amends its constitution every other year). I added a preface to the opinion poll data to that effect. Thanks for the suggestion. Wonderbreadsf (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Religious groups (proponents & opponents)

I find citing some religious groups among the proponents and opponents unremarkable (in a series of recent additions). I'm concerned about the weight of the LDS discussion. The discussion is much longer than any of mentions in this section. Also, as matter of population, there are far more Roman Catholics in California than Mormons (and the RC bishops have certainly given their full throated support to Prop 8 ). I propose that the LDS passage be trimmed down (a lot). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonderbreadsf (talk • contribs) 16:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I partially agree. The LDS section is too long; it should be trimmed. As for the citation of religious groups, I find it offensive that early citations were removed while only politicians or political activist citations remain. What happen to freedom of religion and speech? Does the 1st amendment imply that religious individuals are barred from political activity (voting, political activism, political speech, political contributions)? If so, then that is simply discriminatory against all religious groups and individuals. Roman Catholics, Mormons and Evangelical Christians are big supporters of Prop 8 with much more influence than any politician, including Nancy Pelosi. To completely exclude them (and other major religious groups) from this article would be outright POV. Gaytan (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have edited this and cut it down to be a more balanced and comprehensive paragraph. Another editor should now add the major organizations (ACLU and others) against Prop 8. Gaytan (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that including the political involvement of the Catholic Church and Mormon Church is important. According to the WSJ it appears the Catholic Church has raised $1.25M and the Mormon Church asked their membership to support the proposition, donate and the membership has dutifully responded with over $5.3M of the ~$15.4M raised on the Yes on 8 side. Also of note is that the Mormon Church is tax-exempt 501(c)(3) and has issued this statement on political neutrality, "The Church does not: Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms". A Mormon has been been threatened with excommunication for public opposition to the proposition. There is a site which attempts to catalogue Mormon donations although I am not sure of its reliability as a source. I think all of this would be relevant to the Proposition because of the religious nature of marriage and the separation of church and state issues. I will add some of this to the article but agree that it should not be too long.Jonahtrainer (talk) 07:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Biased?

It seems to me that this entire article is slanted to support detractors of the Proposition.

Has any one noticed this, and can it please be addressed?205.155.5.122 (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Do you have any specific sections or sentences in mind? — Lincolnite (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, we have worked hard to keep this article unbiased. Just look at the talk page to see both sides of this debate hammer at each other. Like Lincolnite said, let's get specific if you believe the article is biased. Gaytan (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)