Talk:Obergefell v. Hodges/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

5-4 decision

It's makes little sense to have the phrase "in a 5-4 decision" in the lead as the Supreme Court of the United States is not a democracy. A 'vote margin' as such is irrelevant. The ruling of the Supreme Court in a particular case has the full force of law while the dissents have no legal force or effect whatsoever (with the exception of somewhat vague rulings where the dissents can attempt to instruct lower courts on how to interpret a particular ruling). The info-box already clearly states the justices who were in the majority and the justices who dissented. A 'vote count' in the lead is unnecessary and antithetical to the manner in which the Supreme Court functions. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I object neither to the inclusion nor to the exclusion of the phrase. How “the vote” turned out is otherwise discussed in the article, at multiple points, and there is precedent for both the inclusion and exclusion of “the vote” in case article leads. I do realize that the information was last included (before the current skirmish) by an editor very likely attempting to qualify the legitimacy of the ruling, but the phrase in and of itself does not communicate that intent. So I’m equally fine with whatever consensus editors arrive at here. Antinoos69 (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Antinoos69: If what you say is true ("I do realize that the information was last included [...] by an editor very likely attempting to qualify the legitimacy of the ruling"), then it was added with bad intent and should be removed immediately. Moreover, as previously stated, it is redundant given the information provided in the info-box. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Btw, the information was last added here. Antinoos69 (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with this. The purpose of this article is not to solely document what has "the full force of law". It's to document the case and all of its aspects. Similarly, the purpose of the lead section is to summarize the body of the article, and we devote entire subsections to summarizing the dissenting opinions of this case. I was surprised not to see even a mention of Justice Kennedy's name anywhere in the lead, given that he wrote the Court's opinion. It is not a qualification of the legitimacy of the ruling to state simply that 4 justices dissented; that's a statement of fact, and the reader can draw whatever conclusion they want from that. I'm sure any legal scholar can tell you that dissenting opinions should never just be dismissed entirely as "irrelevant" in any critical examination of a Supreme Court case. Mz7 (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Dissents may not be irrelevant among legal professionals but it's also not the law and that detail is not needed in the summary of a Wikipedia article describing what a case is and its meaning to the public. As for the "5-4 decision" part, I don't think it needs to be in the lead, specifically not in the first paragraph, as it does attempt to qualify what the ruling of the case is. Teammm ^talk
_email 01:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The fact that it was a highly contested ruling even within the court is a significant aspect to understanding the context of the ruling. The for/against figure should remain. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Not in the first paragraph, in my opinion. After "Decided on June 26, 2015, Obergefell overturned Baker" would be more well-placed. Teammm ^talk
_email 08:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Not just legal professionals. Anyone who is more than mildly interested in this Supreme Court case would be interested in reading about the various opinions among the justices in the Court, not just the one that is the law. The vote is a clear, straightforward way of demonstrating how controversial a decision was among a Court. Including the vote has precedent in other Supreme Court case articles. Consider a case on the opposite side of the political aisle, Trump v. Hawaii, in which we not only mention the vote, but also (rightfully) mention briefly what Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion contained. Mz7 (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The overwhelmingly most common practice seems to be to refrain from delving substantively into dissents in case article leads. For the record, I would generally adamantly oppose any contrary practice. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I've restored this to the lead section, but have placed it in the second sentence of the lead, rather than the first line, which I think should allay any concerns.

• The vote tallies are obviously relevant to understanding the case. This is no different from Brown v. Board of Education (vote tally in first paragraph, third sentence), Roe v. Wade (vote tally in first paragraph, second sentence); or Lawrence v. Texas (vote tally in first paragraph, second sentence).
• One editor has again removed it "per talk" but there's no consensus here for that: I count three editors here who think it should remain (z7, NatG, myself), 1 editor who wants to put it further down in the lead section (Teamm), 1 neutral editor (Antinoos69), and only 1 editor who wants to remove it entirely from the lead (Justthefacts9).
• Moreover, including the vote tally does not cast doubt upon the ruling or "attempt to qualify what the ruling of the case is." I'm not sure how anyone would get that impression, which seems implausible even to a lay reader entirely unfamiliar with law.

Neutrality^talk 15:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

As for myself, and in the interest of accuracy, my claim was and remains that the intent behind the last inclusion, rather than the wording itself, was to qualify the legitimacy of the ruling, which is rather obvious. Just look at my last discussion above with that editor, the timing of that editor’s edit, and that editor’s profile page. The point is plain, so let’s not perform shock, complete with clutched pearls, at the notion of bias here. There was bias. The only issue is whether that bias made it into the wording of the article, which it didn’t. Okay? Antinoos69 (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Antinoos69 and understood where he was coming from. I just want to note that I meant that it shouldn't have been placed in the first sentence the way that it was done, in an attempt to belittle the decision in a sense as "only 5-4", which is clearly what the editor's intent was. Including the vote count in the lead is obviously important, it's just a matter of how it was written in the lead. I have no problem with how it's currently written. But it can be better. :) Teammm ^talk
_email 07:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Also in the interest of accuracy, not to mention fairness, Justthefacts9 removed the phrase several days after no one had shown up on the talk page specifically to defend it. Objections were made here only after that removal. Although I have been around Wikipedia long enough to anticipate some common editor tactics and backlash, the edit does not strike me as particularly unreasonable under the then-current circumstances. Just saying. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Photos

Mike McConnell and Jack Baker, the plaintiffs in Baker v. Nelson, seen here in 2016

There is an overabundance of photos of men in suits or black robes in this article. At least it's not old photos of courthouses, but we could do better. Previous discussions of photos included suggestions that we have more plaintiffs and ordinary people affected by the case. I added a photo of the plaintiffs in Baker v. Nelson, the key precedent overruled by this decision, in the section discussing that. It was promptly reverted by an editor who has been extremely resistant to improvements to this article. Rather than edit war, I'm posting here. Jonathunder (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Your tone obviates engagement. You will have to either content yourself with my edit summary or adopt a more inviting tone. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I invite other editors to give an opinion. The article doesn't belong to one person. Jonathunder (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Unless and until other editors do chime in, it’s just you and I. If you wish to get anywhere with me, which I can only assume you don’t, you will have to change your tone towards me, and that last post of yours failed miserably. These are just facts. I shouldn’t have to remind you of WP:GF and WP:CIVIL. Nor should I have to point you above to the extensive work I’ve been doing of late seeking consensus around here. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I will agree that the link to this particular couple is too tenuous, they aren't even brought up as humans (rather than as a case name) in the text. However, I will also agree that the photographs used here are out of balance. There are plenty of those who made the decision, but too few on those who it impacted. We have two photos of gay couples, both male (and both relevant) shown while celebrating the decision. There are zero women clearly pictured despite women being among the Supreme Court justices making the decision, among the plaintiffs in the combined cases, and very much among the folks whose rights were increased by this ruling. A picture of, say, a lesbian wedding in a state that was opened up to such by this ruling would be on mark, if we don't have (or in addition to) any of the more specifically involved females. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Finding suitable photos of the plaintiffs without copyright issues has been a problem since early on. Last time I checked, I couldn’t find any more, despite how much I have always wanted them. Btw, you can thank me for the photos we link to in the “External links” section. If you or anyone else can find additional plaintiff pics we can put in the article, including of women, do by all means have at it. I’ll be the first to applaud you. But be careful about replacing photos with photos of non-plaintiff women, as several of our photos are of plaintiff men. Antinoos69 (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC) Oh, and don’t forget about racial, ethnic, and age diversity, not to mention any visible or known plaintiff diversity I may inadvertently have left out. Antinoos69 (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

a male couple, a widower, and a funeral director

I recently tried to cut the first comma and everything after it from the line "Two cases came from Ohio, the first ultimately involving a male couple, a widower, and a funeral director", only to have Antinoos restore it with the edit summary "Restored information and summary statement."

Let's look at this as a "summary statement":

• "ultimately involving" - this was a case involved many people, including a governor and various other officials.
• "a couple, a widower" - the combined case ultimately involved two widowers, Michener and Obergefell
• It doesn't tell us what the cases were actually about.

If we need a summary here, ", the first being a merger of two cases calling for the inclusion of same-sex spouses on death certificates" would give us a much clearer picture than this confusing flourish. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I can only conclude you engage in this nonsense on purpose. I am interested in summarizing the plaintiffs, what actually matters here. If you read through the district court section, you’ll notice that I begin by discussing the plaintiffs in each case, adding a summary statement regarding them. This particular subsection is a bit messier, both historically and because it is comprised primarily of material predating my involvement. The couple is the original plaintiff couple comprised of Obergefell and Arthur. The widower is the original plaintiff widower, Michener. And then there is the funeral director. I have full faith you can grasp that. I really do. Btw, I have no idea who inserted the colon; that was rather odd. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I aim to improve the article on purpose. I don't care what you are "interested in summarizing", and I don't see why loose and confusing descriptors of the plaintiffs are "what matters", particularly compared to describing the issues at hand. The sentence as it stands is unclear, poorly represents the case, and is largely unnecessary. (The colon was added in 2017 by an IP user.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Given that what I am "interested in summarizing" reflects a major structural feature of the entire district courts section, anyone interested in editing that section had better care about it. And if you’re still fixated on the statement summarizing the whole case, then I can’t help you, not beyond making abundantly clear that I oppose your edit. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

It's a poor "structural feature", and particularly poor here. But yes, your choice to rely on being insulting as your response had made it clear that you oppose the edit. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The opinions of dubious internet personae cannot interest me. You could make yourself useful by providing evidence in the next section below. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Could you consider making this discussion about the quality of the material rather than your attack strategies on other editors seeking to improve this article? (If you are unfamiliar with WP:CIVIL, I recommend giving that a read.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Physician, heal thyself. Antinoos69 (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

United States Reports Page Citation

Someone recently added a page citation for the case in the official reporter. Problem is, I have been unable to verify it. No page citation has been provided on the Supreme Court’s official website. Can anyone verify this information? If not, I will have to remove it in a few days. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Removed. Antinoos69 (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the information because I have now verified it. See Ramos v. Louisiana, No. 18-5924, slip op. (U.S. April 20, 2020) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring, at 2, 3; Thomas, J., concurring, at 7), published as, 590 U.S. _____ (2020). Antinoos69 (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Sentence in article summary regarding what Obergefell v. Hodges required

Hi. I saw that my edit to the article summary was twice reverted, the first time without any explanation, and the second with the comment from Antinoos69 saying "if you would bother to peruse the article, you would see that the statement is an accurate summary."[1] My edit was based on a review of the article text, as well as sources cited.

The third paragraph of the article states, "Decided on June 26, 2015, Obergefell overturned Baker and requires all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions." The "Holding" section of the infobox says, "The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex, and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State." And the Majority opinion section of the article says, "The majority held that state same-sex marriage bans are a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses." It's true that marriage equality is the law in the District of Columbia and most of the territories, but as the sentences I just cited demonstrate, that didn't come out of the Obergefell decision.

As for verifiability, the source cited in the opening paragraph provides the text of the Obergefell decision ([2]). It reads on page 1, "Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State."

My edit, therefore, accurately reflected the content of the article as a whole, and was consistent with the source citation already present. - Walkiped ^{(T | C)} 08:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

It can be difficult to jump into a five-year-old and often heated discussion, though you are the first to bring up your particular issue. To begin with, the citations after the disputed phrases were added, if I recall correctly, to deal with the “on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples” part, which was then at issue. Both citations address that matter. Secondly, you need to look at the “Compliance” (U.S. Territories) section of the article for what is largely being summarized. Lastly, you must consider that it is very common knowledge among legal types, as among many others, that (a) Supreme Court decisions on constitutional matters are generally binding on D.C. and all U.S. territories and (b) neither D.C. nor the territories are states. Hence the more accurate phrasing in the lead. (Yes, of course most of the sources are going to speak solely in terms of the states because those sources know perfectly well most Americans generally couldn’t care or know less about the territories and are perfectly aware that D.C. is bound by SC decisions. So what?) Antinoos69 (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)