Talk:2008 California Proposition 8

Problems with the Very First Line of the Article

"Proposition 8 (commonly abbreviated Prop 8) is an initiative measure on the 2008 California General Election ballot titled Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry"

First off, Proposition 8 (and the various other state Propositions) are not "commonly abbreviated" as "Prop. 'X'." Sometimes radio and t.v. commercials will use the shortened term "Prop.," as "proposition" is a four-syllable word, and abbreviating it to "prop" makes it easier for them to squeeze more info into their 30-second ad slots, but as someone who's lived in this state since 1972, I can assure you people do not go around referring to "Prop. 8."

In any event, I have visited the Wikipedia articles for numerous state propositions in recent days (due primarily to the fact that I authored recent articles on two of them), and none of the other articles I visited included this "(commonly abbreviated as Prop 'X')" parenthetical in the first line. In my opinion, this is just one of those foolish things that gets added to an article when a bunch of people who don't normally edit articles suddenly jump into the fray. Not being one of those people, and within the spirit of bringing this article into conformity with all/nearly all other articles on California ballot initiatives, and by way of removing something that seemingly has no innate value to the article, I am going to delete the paranthetical in question. I'm confident no good argument for its inclusion can be made, but in the event I am mistaken, it can always be replaced. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, so there's more than just one problem with the first line.

"Proposition 8 is an initiative measure on the 2008 California General Election ballot titled Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry."

The first link in the article takes one of the initiative article (as a redirect from "ballot initiative"), while the second link takes one to the Initiative and referendum article (as a redirect from "ballot measure"). Not only is this sloppy and redundant, but it also perhaps calls into question whether those two articles ought not be Merged. Since I find it very difficult to believe that a consensus would dispute my principal assertion from the previous sentence, I am going to take action to further improve that first line, thus eliminating the redundancy (as well as any unnecessary redirects, which presumably contribute, however slightly, to inefficiency within the site). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with your removal of the abbreviation (it's trivial/trivia), but I do disagree with the premise that it's not common; I've been hearing things like "prop 13" all my adult life, and Google hits for the "prop 8" abbreviation are currently >5X the full form. —EqualRights (talk) 13:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

In conversation, everyone calls it "Prop 8". The signs say "No on Prop 8". If you type "Prop 8" into the Wikipedia search, you're directed here. For the sake of clarity and definition, it's important to say somewhere that "Proposition 8" and the "Prop 8" are the same thing. — AssataShakur (talk) 11:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Italian

Can you please add the italian page it:California Proposition 8 (2008)? 84.103.208.134 (talk) 11:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Cultures of influence

Honestly, I think the sub-section called "cultures of influence" is the weakest part of this article. It relies on opinion polling data that's very fluid and that varies from pollster to pollster. I've just removed a sentence that said African-Americans supported the proposition because it conflicts with the latest poll (from Survey USA) which shows African Americans are equally split on the measure, 45–45%. Similarly, I've removed a sentence about Latinos being in favor by a six-point margin because the latest poll suggests that margin has almost halved to the point where it's within the margin of error (which, for the whole poll, is ±4% but will be significantly higher for demographic sub-groups which have a smaller sample size). Is there any merit in leaving in the rest of this paragraph if it includes only Asian-Americans? — Lincolnite (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

We're thinking alike. I was about to post a question, exactly what is a "culture of influence"? The term seems to have some minor currency as some kind of new way to think of or describe ethnic / racial / cultural group thinking. But it's inherently POV to analyze opinions as racially based. What does race have to do with same sex marriage anyway? Why are some races "of influence" and others not? Why are some groups' views important - why say that African Americans think differently about this than others? Why not say that insurance executives, or suburbanites, or people from single-parent households, etc., have divergent views? If there is sufficient weight in the reliable sources that there is a racial component, fine, it's notable. For example it is very notable, and well covered by the sources, that blacks have a certain level of support for Barack Obama. But are we going to report the black vote separately from the white (and other) votes on every single issue? To report the intersection of race and politics as a matter of course seems divisive and unencylopedic. Wikidemon (talk) 07:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What about something like "Straw polls by ethnicity" ? Although that too sounds rather absurd. I mean, I can see what the section is trying to do, but the section title makes it kinda weird. Pandacomics (talk) 06:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

difference between a constitutional revision and a constitutional amendment

In the Legal challenges section it says: "The question of whether Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment or constitutional revision remains unresolved." I have never heard of a constitutional revision before, and would have guessed that it is the same thing as a constitutional amendment. The difference between these terms should either be briefly explained in this section, or there should be a link to an article that explains the difference. Can some one explain the difference to me? Thanks. Noldoaran (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

In the external links, REPLY Reply Brief in BENNETT v. BOWEN (HOLLINGSWORTH) S165420, includes an explanation on page two. Also see California Constitution Article XVIII —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmeryvilleEric (talk • contribs) 19:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The second link you listed doesn't explain the difference between an amendment and a revision, and the first one is 41 pages. No one wants to wade through that big of a document to find the difference between the two. Either there needs to be an brief explanation of the terms in this article, or there needs to be a link to a source when the information can be viewed quickly. Can someone please add a link, or explanation? I would, but I haven't the slighted clue what the difference between an amendment and a revision is. Thanks, Noldoaran (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the REPLY brief argues that an amendment that defines marriage as that between only one man and one woman should be put before the voters in a deliberative revision process. The argument proceeds however, that some fundamental rights questions should not be put to the voters at all. In short, the REPLY argues that the Constitution requires revision to go through a deliberative process. Since Prop 8 is an initiative to amend, then it doesn't go through a more deliberative revision process, or so goes the argument. The BRIEF argues that the initiative should be a revision. While the initiative restricts the rights of all citizens as far as marriage goes, it has more of an effect on a certain people-group. The BRIEF also argues that a revision would ensure that voters would better understand the issue. That the law will inevitably apply only to same-sex couples because they're the only ones wanting to marry same-sex partners is the crux of the argument which also asserts that the deliberative safeguards to aid voters in that understanding are important. ElderHap (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

An amendment is a change to the state Constitution that seeks to elaborate or improve upon existing constitutional principles. Whereas a revision makes changes to the "underlying principles" upon which the Constitution is premised (Livermore, supra, 102 Cal. at pp. 117-119) and makes "far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan" (Amador Valley, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 223). EmeryvilleEric (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

So, it seems to follow that a probable attack on the amendment will be premised upon an underlying principle that same-sex couples always had the right to marry and that that right is a fundamental right.

Regarding ballot title

With reference to a self-deleted comment, for the benefit of new readers now joining us:

This matter has been extensively discussed in archived discussion [1] and this has been the consensus wording for some months. The paragraph refers to the official title of the proposition on the ballot (please see the referenced citations) and outlines the history of why that language appears there. The "Ballot summary language" section also outlines this history and explains where that title appears. Please consider presenting something here other than a bare demand for revision of already settled language. Mike Doughney (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Results

Does anyone know when thr results are made public? 92.0.0.46 (talk) 09:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the local NBC affiliate I watched this morning, and depending on how close the tally is, the results may not be certified until as much as a week after today. Bastique ^demandez 16:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

According to http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/map190000000008.htm , it is currently leaning yes at 52.7% vs, 47.3%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.192.223.127 (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I edited the sentence regarding the effective date. Just to remove the passive voice in the grammar. But, looking at the Constitution, it seems that the Electors must first vote. Has that occurred? ElderHap (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What in the world is this?

According to Joan Hollinger, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, "Constitutional scholars agree that the amendment cannot be effective retroactively."[27] This is a reference to the prohibition of ex post facto law by Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution.

Huh? That makes as much sense as quoting a law professor as saying that the amendment would apply on Tuesdays, because scholars agree that all amendments apply on Tuesdays unless they specifically say otherwise.

The only way this could be more than an irrelevant remark is if there was debate over whether the amendment was retroactive. However, no such debate is mentioned in the article.

I suspect that the intent of this paragraph was to say that existing marriages cannot be invalidated because laws aren't retroactive, but that you can't get away with making a WP:SYNTH like that, so it was whittled down to this pointless-by-itself quote. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ex post facto laws of the federal Constitution deals with Congress passing laws that makes an act criminal that was legal before the law was passed. This change to California constitution doesn't deal with a criminal act, so it doesn't conflict with ex post facto. If ex post facto applied to non-criminal retroactive changes to a constitution, then that would be very significant and novel. However, I would not bet on it or attend any additional classes being taught by Joan Hollinger.

Actually if you read the Wikipedia quote carefully, only the quote itself is attributed to a professor. The interpretation that it refers to the ex post facto laws in the US Constitution isn't attributed to anything at all.

I'm deleting it. The ex post facto part for being unsourced (and as you say wrong), and the quote itself for being irrelevant unless it was intended as a WP:SYNTH. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Title of proposition is wrong

What is provided and cited in the article is the summary, not the title. You can see here that it is actually titled the "California Marriage Protection Act," and not "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry." 67.135.49.198 (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how it looks on your screen, but about three inches above this section is another section titled "Regarding ballot title" and I'll again repeat this chunk of text from that section for reference.

This matter has been extensively discussed in archived discussion [2] and this has been the consensus wording for some months. The paragraph refers to the official title of the proposition on the ballot (please see the referenced citations) and outlines the history of why that language appears there. The "Ballot summary language" section also outlines this history and explains where that title appears. Please consider presenting something here other than a bare demand for revision of already settled language. Mike Doughney (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Mike Doughney (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I provided a reference explicitly stating the title of the measure. I'm not surprised you overlooked/ignored it. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I note your IP address places you in Minnesota... I suppose you couldn't see for yourself what was on the California ballot yesterday, but all the references in this article indicate that the ballot title was that which is stated in this article, and this article goes into excruciating detail at least twice as to the differences between the proponent's title, the state's titles (two of them), and why the titles appeared as they did. Mike Doughney (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ex post facto reasoning

I've added a citation needed tag to the sentence after Professor Hollinger's legal analysis. The Advocate article doesn't give ex post facto as a reason for the Professor's previous sentence, and ex post facto analysis is complicated. But, as a general rule, the ex post facto clause does not apply to civil actions, only criminal laws. See Calder v. Bull. It's likely that the Professor's referencing more general due process concerns, or perhaps the contracts clause of the constitution, or California constitutional doctrine.

I don't know the answer, but the ex post facto explanation is questionable at best, and deserves a citation if it's going to remain.LH (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The ex post facto reasoning is flawed and Professor Hollinger did not make that claim. Her reference is more likely to state law. Ballot initiatives are not retro active unless they state that they are. The exact language is citable, I think the exact language is in the ballot statutes language or it might be in the Secretary of State initiative process instructions. To further complicate the issue, Prop 8 doesn't state that it is retro active, but the "rebuttal to argument against Proposition 8" mentions "...only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in California, regardless of where or when performed" and the Proponents mentioned it again in their acceptance press release. As was mentioned during the campaign and is also citable the first legal battles will be over what effect, if any, the argument statements have on the retroactivity of the amendment. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The text of the proposition says only marriage between a man and a woman "will" be valid or recognized in California [that is from this point on]. So this has nothing to do with retroactively affecting gay "marriages" directly. In other words it doesn't do anything to them in the form of penalties or whatnot. It basically states that they don't count as marriages now. The ex post facto argument is completely unrelated to the nature of this amendment. EmeraldElement (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding off topic comments

That is a fine explanation, but I do not think this is the best place to post it - this page is for suggesting and working out improvements to the article. Perhaps there is an article devoted to varying Christian beliefs about same sex marriage. Wikidemon (talk) 06:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for the posting of lengthy tracts or diatribes that have nothing to do with editing the article. I've removed the tract to which you replied. Such comments may be removed immediately, as they tend to spark flamewars and other unproductive activity. Editors are reminded of these guidelines via the header at the top of the page. The user who has posted this material has been reminded of the talk page guidelines on their user talk page. Mike Doughney (talk) 06:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

did it pass?

!St. Puid, Head of Assisi 12:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably, but not done counting; see http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/59.htm —EqualRights (talk) 12:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

As of 1222 my time (UK), CNN.com tells me - 90% Precincts reporting. YES 52% NO 48% doktorb _words^deeds 12:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"passed with 52.1% of the vote, against 47.9% opposed, with 94.6% of precints reporting." WSJ.com --Pmsyyz (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The Associated Press is reporting that the measure has passed (see [3])

The article has been updated with data and cite from the California Secretary of State's office, which still shows only 96.4% reporting. Presumably not enough left uncounted to change the outcome, which is why and how the AP calls it. I would prefer to make it clear in the article that these are still incomplete and unofficial results. Mike Doughney (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Editors are quick to finalize things, but it may be worthwhile to note that the Secretary of State said that number of mail-in and provisional ballots won't be known until Thursday. Third-party estimates on the number of uncounted ballots range from 2-4 million. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It passed, but was promptly swatted with a lawsuit over the legality of the method of changing the Constitution. California has pretty silly laws, after all. 204.52.215.13 (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

What happened at the 1st lawsuit? Mr. Invisible Person (talk) 04:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If by "first" you mean the lawsuits filed before the election they were all decided or dismissed - it got on the ballot and there were no pending suits as of election day. Previous legal challenges did not take it off the ballot. The current status is that upon official certification of its passage (I don't know what that involves) it immediately alters the constitution, unless and until a court decides otherwise. At present three new suits have been reported. Any litigation over its validity could get dismissed quickly, but if not dismissed would take many months or even years to go through the litigation process. Pending the outcome of the litigation a court could enjoin it from taking effect, completely or in parts, meaning it would be in limbo until the court finally rules one way or the other, or there is some intervening event (like another referendum that renders the dispute a moot issue). In the meanwhile the counties performing marriages do not feel they have any choice but to assume the new provision is in effect unless they are told otherwise. A few counties have taken the position that they will wait until the state tells them to stop performing marriages, but most have stopped on their own. That's just my summary understanding from memory and not an attempt to justify an edit, so I won't take the time to find sources or citations on that. Wikidemon (talk) 06:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Needs approval by Assembly/Senate?

I've heard that initiative amendments still require approval by the state senate and assembly. Is this true? Is there some other way for them to stop it? If so, how likely is it that they will? --67.187.245.214 (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You've apparently misheard. Article 18, Section three of the California Constitution says "The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative." --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 17:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The first part of your question is relevant, as it determines editing this article for present tense. As far as other stopping means, that's a political forum subject.

This article is ready for some update, to reflect the vote and present.Mdvaden (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The State Supreme Court can still overturn the Proposition. Remember that Prop 22 passed with over a 60% majority, and it was overturned on the grounds of being a Human rights violation. Well this time the voting margin is much narrower, so I'm still hopefull. 92.20.241.184 (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

With respect to this article - please note, all comments here should be directed toward edits/improvements to the article - I would like to see some citations that would indicate what options may or may not exist for opponents of the proposition, and for that matter, by what means proponents intend to deal with those who have marriages that they claim are now invalidated. Most other propositions are not amendments to the state Constitution, as this one was. Mike Doughney (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Partially answering my own question - the first lawsuit hits: [4]. Also: [5]. Perhaps we should start thinking about adding an 'Aftermath' section. Mike Doughney (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, there will definitely be legal battles and opinions to go around. I suppose the new challenges could go in the legal challenges section. Maybe pre and post election subheadings?EmeryvilleEric (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

'nominee' Barack Obama?

Barack Obama is in this line, still a 'presidental nominee', but since Nov. 4, he's a president-elect.

Democratic presidential nominee and U.S. Senator Barack Obama stated that he personally considers marriage to be between a man and woman, and supports civil unions that confer comparable rights rather than gay marriage.

I suppose a small change could be done here. /Linkeeey (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Because he was the nominee when he said it, the statement is probably okay as is. Alanraywiki (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You can say "then presidential nominee...," but he's not the president elect until the electors vote. 171.71.36.248 (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Changing it would only add confusion - it's convention that the titles, etc. that are used are those held at the time of action, yes? Mike Doughney (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

But he's the presumptive president elect. And the election of the Electoral College is mostly a formality those days anyhow because the electors are generally pledged to vote for specific candidates. 204.52.215.13 (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps titled "Then-Democratic Presidential Nominee" would be more appropriate for the time when the quote was taken? 128.205.228.246 (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I like this [6] - it's not clear to me why it needs to be done tonight but it seems some find the old wording jarring. I'm sure most of the planet knows Obama's the President-elect and all the events in this article occurred before yesterday, but that, of course, isn't always going to be clear. Mike Doughney (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Results Addition

{{editsemiprotected}} the article mentions the vote percentage, and 3 million absentee ballots, but not the difference in votes (ie about 400,000). From Reference #8 (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20081105-0828-ca-gaymarriage.html): "With 95 percent of precincts reprorting, the ban had 5,163,908 votes, or 52 percent, while there were 4,760,336 votes, or 48 percent, opposed, a difference of about 400,000 votes. Late absentee and provisional ballots meant as many as 3 million ballots were left to be counted after all precinct votes were tallied". Bluescrubbie (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)bluescrubbie

Done - [7]. Difference calculated from the current SOS result, not the newspaper report. Mike Doughney (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Bias

I feel that this article had a clear bias. Reading it, it was obvious that the author was against Proposition 8. It is unacceptable that an article about a topic so delicate as this is biased...especially when the propsition was, in fact, passed!

Mccabea (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well fix it! It has in fact not officially passed either. CTJF83Talk 00:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

User Mccabea doesn't appear to have made sufficient edits to autoconfirm and edit this page. I will also note a few other things. This article is the product of more than a few editors who've been working on it since last summer sometime, and I'm pretty sure those editors came from a variety of viewpoints both for and against the measure. From my experience of editing this article over the past few weeks, it appears to me that the very act of chronicling the legislative and judicial history of this matter must in and of itself be mistaken for "bias" by some readers, judging by the sheer volume of restorals of content I've had to do, and in particular, the repeated restoring of the legal title of the measure on the ballot as all you Californians who voted saw it yesterday. I've often called for specific charges of bias to be aired here and suggestions for changes, as can be seen on the archived talk page, and I still haven't received any significant suggestions along those lines, just vague accusations of "bias." I've also invited comments here for changes since the page was protected, and again, while content often gets modified or deleted in the absence of protection, those same changes aren't discussed here in any detail after protection. This is not to invite a flamewar, I'm just repeating - if you think the article is biased, please say precisely how. I'd like to know. Mike Doughney (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Dontations

The "Contributions" table is outdated and needs to be put back up to date. According to the Los Angeles Times, there has been more than than $74 million in contributions, all together on both the "yes" and "no" side [8]. The opposition side ended up receiving more money, which contradicts the current edit that says the supporting side received more donations. Someone please update the table, thanks. : ] --Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Source: Los Angeles Times: PROPOSITION 8- Tracking the money

It's over, or not

Here are the current conditions as of about 02:00 UTC, 6 November:

• As of about three hours ago, the Associated Press reported, in a story titled "Millions of votes left to be counted in California," that "between 2.6 million and 3 million remain to be tallied." [9] Also mentioned is that election officials will spend the next month "poring over several million absentee and provisional ballots," as the writer puts it.

• No on Prop 8 refuses to concede. Their website says "we must wait to hear from the Secretary of State tomorrow how many votes are yet to be counted as well as where they are from." An e-mail from No on Prop 8 that I received about two hours ago says, "The No on Prop 8 campaign has determined that, given the incredible gravity of the situation, we will not issue the ultimate call on this election until we have more information (24-48 hours)."

It seems a number of editors have gone through and changed the article's language to reflect the passing of the election. Clearly with about 3 million outstanding ballots and a difference of about 500,000, there is a very small chance of reversal, but only if the outstanding ballots run 2-1 against the proposition.

Seems to me that the refusal of No on Prop 8 to concede yet should at least be included with the fact that 3 million ballots remain outstanding. I should also point out that in my view, it's not up to Wikipedia editors to "call" an election in the manner of the news media, only to rely on those "reliable sources" for verification. Thus the fact that media sources have called the election themselves, independent of the state, should be attributed somehow, rather than simply changing the article to make it appear as if the election is officially over, which it is not. Mike Doughney (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't over yet. I've been reverting all day, along with the 3 gay marriage templates, and a few other pages. They all need to be protected. We need to wait till all votes are counted, and any potential lawsuits, that are going to be filed. CTJF83Talk 02:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Add that content to the article, Mike. People were confused by the future election tag, so I did what was necessary to remove it. The intro definitely should state that there is legal action being taken, and that the results have not been certified.Synchronism (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added the current election tag, since the election results are still pending. Please let me know if this is still too confusing to readers. chrylis (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is over. At least for now, pending law suits. ABC 7 [10] reported that the city of san Francisco has stopped issuing marriage licences to same-sex couple today. The city website implies that this decision could be reversed if final poll results show that the proposition failed to pass, but for now they are working on the assumption that it did. Passportguy (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, still 3 million ballets need counting, it isn't over. Ya, I'm sure it will pass, but wait for all ballots to be counted. CTJF83Talk 02:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not calling this either way. I'm just saying that the city of San Francisco, as of today, is no longer issuing marriage licences to same-sex couples (see the link above). They may start again soon, depeding on what happens in the courts or if final results of the poll are different, but for now - at least in San Francisco - same-sex marriage is suspended. Passportguy (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What's the rush or harm either way? For now we can just say that although some ballots have yet to be counted and the official results have not been announced, major media are announcing that the proposition passed.[11] It almost certainly will pass, so there is probably no harm in jumping the gun, and we could always fix the article in the unlikely event it did not pass. At the same time, I see no harm waiting until tomorrow or whenever the results are official to report the passage. This edit does not seem worth getting worked up about. Wikidemon (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The only SF thing I see is to bar arrests for prostitution, nothing about not issuing marriage licenses. Why rush? The US is a democracy, where every vote counts, not all but 3 million CTJF83Talk 02:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

“'This city is no longer marrying people' of the same sex, Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, announced at a grim news conference at City Hall" (Bans in 3 States on Gay Marriage) —EqualRights (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That's nice for San Francisco, but California is a big state. While the prop passes for now, three million votes is probably enough to swing the prop over to failure. A note saying that most major news outlets are announcing pass might be warranted, but without all the votes tallied, I have to agree that it's not 100% final yet. --CCFreak2K (talk) 07:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

LA has followed suit [12]. Almost all other cities will likely follow. I think this needs to be included in the article somehow. Even if Prop 8 ends up failing (due to vote or legal challenge) the fact that two of the largest cities (and likely others) have stopped issuing mariage licences because of the results is in and of itself notable ! - Passportguy (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Article rewrite

Now that the election is over, some of the stuff looks excessive. For one we should eliminate the polling section because it's moot. The section on the reliability of the polling data is especially moot. The proposition had somewhat more support than the polls indicated but not vastly so - it might be worth a sentence tops if there's a strong post-election analysis of the polls' accuracy. But really, that's for another article on polls. The lengthy list of proponents and opponents ought to be condensed. The issue is it passed. A brief break-down of the key demographic issues may be in order, probably no more than a paragraph or so. Also, the support for the measure flip-flopped so that might be worth reporting (but maybe not - that's normal). The history of the campaign ought to be put in one place, and likely trimmed considerably. I'll implement some of these but I don't know how far I'll get. Wikidemon (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a very concise lead for a truly contentious topic.Synchronism (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

True, but I did not eliminate anything pertinent. The long second paragraph was seemingly contentious/argumentative material regarding the naming of the amendment that is completely moot now that it passed. If sourced, a statement that the renaming of the amendment by the attorney general, which was challenged unsuccessfully, caused a slight decrease in support, might belong somewhere in the article but it is not one of the key issues. The third paragraph was just added, and is just a note that the official results are not in. If we expand the lead it should summarize a few choice things about the campaign, the history, the context amidst 20-something other states that have banned gay marriages, that it is undergoing challenge, etc. None of that was in the lead before. It was a long lead with very little content. I think the best approach might be to work on the body of the article to reflect the post-election state of things, and then expand the lead by summarizing what looks most notable from the article. Wikidemon (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"Civil Writes Issue"

Big Typo in the first section "...civil writes (rights) issue."

76.11.143.213 (talk) 07:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Luke

Proposed change to first line

Hi, everyone. I want to discuss this in good faith before being bold. Shouldn't Prop 8 be correctly described as a 'proposed amendment' or an 'amendment to propose'? It is not actually an amendment until it, firstly, passes the vote, and secondly, is sent through the legislature. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Threats of death?

Have there been any widespread death threats, shootings, or stabbings against the voters of California for passing this that needs to be noted? Some sort of talk of revolution that involves pistol-whipping and kicking the voters who approved this while they're huddled in a fetal position and begging for it to stop? Are there any reports of this at this time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.224.64.170 (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that as a real question. No, I have seen no reports of violence. There are some vigils and peaceful protests, and a lot of upset. There is some talk of boycotting businesses who donated money. For the most part this is not directed at California because the majority of other states have outlawed same sex marriages on way or another too. Certain liberals in New York are using it to claim that they're more enlightened than Californian, and the Californians respond that New York does not have gay marriage either.Wikidemon (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Referendum not election

"On the day after the election, the results remain uncertified,". It should read "On the day after the referendum, the results remain uncertified,". There is a difference between a referendum and election. 81.140.78.90 (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

But it is the day after the election, not the day after the referendum. I don't think it fairly characterizes the mass exercise in public voting a "referendum". It was an election during which the question was on the ballot. What is the generic name for a "going to the polls" event? We could call it a "vote". Calling it a "poll" or a "ballot" is a little colloquial sounding. Any other words? Wikidemon (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Wikidemon. Plays on wording here only degrade an article already lacking in common sense terminology. I'd suggest to leave it how people will understand it. Digital^Ninja 19:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Referendum has a specific meaning in California, it is used when the people vote on what the legislature has already passed. The term is not appropriate in this context. Prop 8 was an initiative not a referendum. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's official! It's passed!

Fortunately, the bill is passed and over with. Hopefully this clears up any discussion. FOX, CNN, CBS, and SkyNews all report on the final recount as "passed". Digital^Ninja 17:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Again still 3 million votes to be counted. CTJF83Talk 18:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, they'll figure it out soon so we can get this article updated. Digital^Ninja 19:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Noonprop8 have now conceded defeat on their website. Passportguy (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

We should still wait for the 3 million ballots....ya, I'm probably just delaying the inevitable, but eh. CTJF83Talk 20:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Article updated to reflect No on 8 concession, replacing previous holding out for more info. Mike Doughney (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it. They can concede all they want, the state is still going to count the 3 million votes. John Kerry Conceded in 2000, and took it back, just like No on 8 can do. CTJF83Talk 22:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove factual, cited information from the article. The fact that the primary organizers of the opposition conceded is an indicator of where things stand. (I sympathize with your frustration at the outcome, for what its worth.) Mike Doughney (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not all about that, I'm not directly affected anyway. We need to wait for all 3 million votes, whether they conceded or not. CTJF83Talk 22:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody should add anything to the article that hasn't become a reality through verification (see here why). I'd have to agree with Ctjf83 on on this. Digital^Ninja 22:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Issues with article

There is some suspicious plays on wording here, not to mention completely lacking sourcing, that I propose to remove or reword. The main issue is the first sentence nonetheless, which reads:

Proposition 8 was an amendment to the California Constitution that eliminated the recently recognized fundamental right of same-sex couples to marry.

What the hell is that? How can that be an unbiased way of describing a proposition when national news organizations don't even go that far? I propose the following rewording:

Proposition 8 is a California State ballot proposition which amends the state Constitution by overturning current legislation and eliminating same-sex marriage.

This is a much more neutral way of stating it. In my opinion, this entire article needs a rewrite. Examples can be seen both anti-prop 8 and pro-prop 8 throughout the entire prose. It's like a war zone, really. Digital^Ninja

I'll remain as neutral as possible. Since I "made you" fix your neutrality issues on the talk page, go ahead and change it to the second one, it is more neutral. CTJF83Talk 19:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, I appreciate it. I too vow to remain neutral! I was reading the article trying to wrap my head around everything that is happening, and it really does swing wildly. However, I found this in attempt to solidify my case and make sure it's the best possible way. However, the ballot itself uses the word right, so I maybe it should be this:

Proposition 8 is a California State ballot proposition which amends the state Constitution by eliminating legislation that previously made same-sex marriage a right of state citizens.

What do you think about this? Digital^Ninja 20:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, you didn't "make me" fix my point of view, you simply made me realize that my wording was a little dickish. And then, you subsequently made me feel bad :) (however I do appreciate it bring brought to my attention. Nobody wants to be a dick!) Digital^Ninja 20:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL, that is why I put quotes in. Ya, your latest proposal is good, but legislation never made it legal, so that is inaccurate. It was the State Supreme Court. CTJF83Talk 20:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, good point! It wouldn't have made it legal. I tried a new version, let me know what you think. The source for the ballet title is the PDF I posted a few paragraphs above. I think it flows much more neutral, now just have to work out inaccuracies :) Digital^Ninja 20:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

(<-----) Ok, what do you think about the way it reads now? All I know is, ILIKEIT, but that doesn't mean I'm not open to criticism! Digital^Ninja 20:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, looks good. CTJF83Talk 20:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

There is pending litigation over "amend" vs. "revise", perhaps using "change", like the ballot language, would be more neutral until the issue is resolved. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally I don't see any POV issues with amend or revise or change, for that matter. So if you want to change it to change, that is fine with me. CTJF83Talk 20:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that, so I added the actual ballot language directly to the article. It's the second sentence. However, it is a ballot (so that has to be there), and it did reverse a Supreme Court decision (so that has been added), and the language is now in there, so I think we're good. Of course, anyone can tweak what I added if they feel the need :) Digital^Ninja 20:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. "Change" isn't even in the lead anymore.

It happens to override a part of a supreme court decision, but the wording makes it sound like the purpose of Prop 8 was to override the decision. Prop 8 started long before (2005) the court case ruling (2008) and there is no causal relationship between the two. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The way I understand it, somebody chime in if I'm incorrect, is that no current legislation directly supports same-sex marriage and the only reason it's going on is due to a Supreme Court decision. This makes the Supreme Court decision completely relevant. Secondly, the fact that Prop 8 started before or after is irrelevant simply as now there is a casual relationship; e.g. Constitutional amendment trumps Supreme Court Decision... Digital^Ninja 21:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I replaced "to" and inserted "and" to give equal weight to both. I agree that it did kind of sound like it was speaking towards the decision. Now, it should sound better. Digital^Ninja 21:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)