Talk:Obergefell v. Hodges

The very first sentence

Dear colleges, I disagree with the very first sentence of the article. It says: "is a federal lawsuit suing for the recognition by Ohio of same-sex marriage validly established in other jurisdictions." But wait a minute: why we again forget, that this title is not only refers to the Ohio case. Here and after this is a title of all cases regarding SSM. Don't you realize (?) that this will be the title of the most landmark case during this year. All other courts, while hearing cases regarding SSM, will be referring to this title to use it like a precedent. So this case is not only about recognition of SSM established in other jurisdictions, this case is about constitutionality of SSM by itself. M.Karelin (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The four cases have been consolidated for briefing and argument, but they are not now a single case. There are 4 appeals under way in four cases and some filings address only one of the four cases, some all four. The second sentence makes this fairly clear. Can't we trust the reader to read that too? Note as well that SCOTUS emphasized this distinction when it posed two questions but told the parties to address only the question(s) appropriate to their specific case. There will be plenty of time to adapt the entry as events unfold. Likely someday O v. H will be best described as a Supreme Court decision, not a case. And should things go that way we'll want to summarize all the cases in this entry. But we're not there yet. You're statement "will be referring" is just the sort of prediction we have to be wary of. Who knows what surprises the next few weeks will bring? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Bmclaughlin9 is right. As of right now, the Obergefell case mainly describes the Ohio lawsuit. Bmc9's done a good job at explaining the US Supreme Court consolidation and use of the title. People will read the whole paragraph, not just the first sentence. It will inevitably change to what you describe when the Supreme Court rules in June. Teammm ^talk
_email 05:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Until the Supreme Court this summer gives an official ruling on both of the questions it asked and it titles the ruling as Obergefell, the introduction of this article is appropriate. While we want to, do not allow us to jump too far into the future on what will happen. Gabe (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised that the article was given the lowest level of importance on the legal scale. It's certainly very notable - the number of erudite discussions by lawyers admitted to argue before the Supreme Court is considerable, never mind the discussions among gays and Christians who don't like gays. In any event, it's a well written beginning. I understand the rational behind the structure of the first paragraph though I think a clearer beginning would have been easier to grasp.Pauci leonum (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Becoming too in-depth

So I see people are now adding the questions and quotes that the justices said during oral argument. This is not encyclopedia appropriate. That is something to be reported in journalism and in the news, not here. When the justices issue formal opinions, those are what should be quoted, not questions during oral argument. I propose removing all of those justice questions and quotes. Gabe (talk) 03:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think wikipedia is going to get full any time soon. It is fine to add more information so long as the introductory sections remain terse. Isn't wikipedia's/wikimedia's goal to get all human knowelge in a free format? 77.87.241.77 (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

When and why was it retitled "Hodges"?

I see a note explaining when and why it was changed from Obergefell v. Wymyslo to Obergefell v. Himes; shouldn't there be one explaining when and why it was changed from Obergefell v. Himes to Obergefell v. Hodges? Magic9mushroom (talk) 09:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It was presumably retitled when Richard Hodges took over as Director of the Ohio Department of Health (last August, according to our article). This is not uncommon; for example Hollingsworth v. Perry was originally called Perry v. Schwarzenegger and became Perry v. Brown when Jerry Brown succeeded Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor of California. Ucucha (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

But, shouldn't all this be explained in the article? That is, the various permutations of the name, and how/why they came to be. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it should be explained. Currently, the change to Himes is simply sourced to a news piece that details Himes replacing Wymyslo as director, and the source does not mention the case at all, so would anyone object to me finding a source for Hodges' appointment to that post and using it to explain the change to Hodges? Cannolis (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Going to use Hodge's bio on the Ohio DoH page to source an explanation. Cannolis (talk) 09:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Baker v. Nelson

I see from the edit history that we're getting into a possible edit war concerning if Baker v. Nelson was overturned. It's being removed, put back, removed, etc. I wanted to mention that on page 5 of the opinion, it states specifically that "Baker v. Nelson is overruled." I haven't done any of the edits but did want to provide a reference. Thanks. --98.24.99.70 (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Short term semi-protection

Noting that I have applied 3-day semi-protection because of the level of disruptive editing, mainly from IPs. Any administrator can modify the protection as they feel appropriate. Risker (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Dissenting opinions

Didn't each of the dissenting justices each write their own opinion? This is uncommon in SCOTUS decisions and should probably be mentioned more clearly. Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It's very rare, and yes, they did. I haven't seen a source yet that says it's rare, though. Just SCOTUS Blog's live feed which we can't really cite. ~ Rob^Talk 18:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

On a broader note, it seems to me that the section could do with more information on the other three dissents that were written, perhaps with a quote from each.ACB Smith (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This section is woefully inadequate, as the current tag indicates. I am not a fan of block quoting dissents more than majority opinions—let alone of producing lists of block quotes without further commentary. I think we should dump the last three block quotes, replacing them with a concise paragraph summarizing the other three dissents. That paragraph can contain several shorter quotes, of course. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

S51438, I'm the one who first edited your dissents section; I forgot to sign in. I have some concerns about your new version of the section. First, I'm extremely put off by dissent sections that far exceed their corresponding majority-decision sections in length. Dissents aren't law, after all. Certainly this could be presented much more concisely. Second, Thomas gets unbalanced treatment, despite, I think, being the most interesting dissent. Third, there's an awful lot of repetition and redundancy here. We really don't have to hear multiple times about lack of judicial restraint, judicial tyranny, terminating the democratic process, and whatnot. Fourth, the level of detail in the section is excessive both with regard to the majority-decision section and for an encyclopedia article. We don't need a play-by-play broadcast. People can just read the decision. Besides, aside from Roberts' decision, which is actually the main one, there's just not much to see. Here's the sort of thing I have in mind: one well-crafted paragraph on what the decisions have in common, which is typically a lot; and another well-crafted paragraph on what is unique to each, which is surprisingly little. That second paragraph might be expanded into a very few, one per decision, or be variously structured (e.g, with bullet points)—provided there be persuasive reason(s) for so doing. There's just far too much here for far too little. And did I mention it's repetitive, like the dissents themselves? Just checking. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Section on impact?

Can we add a section on the impact and reactions to the court case? I would do it myself but the article appears to be protected... 171.64.60.64 (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. We could probably even create a separate article for the reactions, considering how many reactions there have already been. Charles Essie (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

A collection of governor responses State overview White House illumination, not present on WikiMedia. TGCP (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Amicus curiae

Where are the amicus curiae? Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., the Solicitor General, was one. kencf0618 (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Rating assessments

All of the WikiProject rating assessments at the top of this page are "low importance" or "mid importance" (in one case). Should they be "upgraded" (to "high importance")? If so, how is that done? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I would think this of high importance in many areas labeled mid importance right now. This ruling has overturned state laws and state constitutional amendments and has a massive, far-reaching impact on both LGBT issues and first amendment rights. Kjphill1977 (talk) 02:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. The effects are felt in only one country, one where recognition of same-sex marriage was pretty widespread already; this was the final step. I think mid-importance is correct. First country to recognize same-sex marriage would be high importance. Risker (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I might disagree. The United States is now the most populous country by a very large margin to legalize same-sex marriage. Dustin (talk) 03:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The very first line of the article call this a "landmark" case. How can it be a landmark, but "only" low-level or mid-level importance? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Map

At some point, this article is going to need a map similar to the ones found on the Loving v. Virginia and Brown v. Board of Education pieces. 108.82.91.192 (talk) 05:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2015

In the first introductory paragraph, I believe the correct grammatical construction to use should be "neither .. nor," as opposed to "neither ... or," as is currently being used. I have copy-pasted the original and the recommended change below.

"Under the ruling, states, neither through legislation or referendum, may ban same-sex marriages, and those unions must be recognized in all jurisdictions."

TO:

"Under the ruling, states, neither through legislation nor referendum, may ban same-sex marriages, and those unions must be recognized in all jurisdictions."

74.73.136.127 (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 18:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

That seems a bit awkward. Maybe simplify it as "Under the ruling, states may not ban same-sex marriages through legislation or referendum, and those unions must be recognized in all jurisdictions."12.11.127.253 (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Gallery of images related to SCOTUS' June 26 ruling on marriage equality

Apologies if this comment is not entirely related to this Wikipedia article specifically, but I created a page for images related to SCOTUS' June 26 ruling on marriage equality as part of the annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which seeks to improve LGBT-related content on Wikimedia projects. If you took photographs of celebrations, protests, landmarks (Stonewall Inn, the rainbow-lit White House, etc) following the SCOTUS ruling, or wish to transfer images from Flickr, please add them to this gallery to illustrate reactions around the United States: Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2015/June 26. Thanks for your consideration. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Brands change logo to rainbow colors - not sure where to place them. TGCP (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I wonder if it might be worth adding a couple of these images to the article, specifically the "reaction" section. There may even be enough images to justify a Commons category related to this court ruling. Again, images are welcome at Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2015/June 26 in the meantime. ----Another Believer _(Talk) 17:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Underlined empty space in lead

What is this underlined empty space after "576 U.S." in the lead? Should it be there? gidonb (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it should. That's a holding place where the page number will go when the volume containing the decision is published. __209.179.28.127 (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Has there not been anything written on the wider effect of the ruling?

Presumably once it's ruled that marriage is no longer just between one man and one woman you can no longer outlaw any kind of marriage, right? So wouldn't this make polygamy legal? Can a parent marry one of his/her children? Can siblings marry? Shouldn't there be something on this in the article? __209.179.28.127 (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Picklepedia is not speculative. 2602:306:304B:8090:C8A9:73A7:1514:17A3 (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know what "Picklepedia" is. I wasn't suggesting anyone speculate, just report what what is being said in other sources, since one of the most important consequences of court decisions is the wider effect it has on other situations. I also corrected your indenting. __209.179.28.127 (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• You have brought up an important future issue as the majority opinion was very broadly construed and Chief Justice Roberts stated so in his dissenting opinion. Polygamy is certain to be argued as a right and rightly so based on the majority opinion. Many states currently imprison polygamists and all outlaw polygamy. Currently imprisoned polygamists now have a concrete argument that their civil rights have been violated under the new interpretation of the 14th amendment. They also have a strong case for civil damages against the state for imprisoning them and all legal costs to defend their new civil rights. They also have been subjugated to religious intolerance as polygamy has a long history of acceptance among many religions. This may also bring in Sharia law as they have a long history of managing polygamy. 172.56.12.239 (talk) 06:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussing your various personal and speculative interpretations of the case. This is for the purpose of improving the article in line with Wiki guidelines. Please refrain from speculation and POV pushing in the Talk page. There are a million and five places to have those discussions on the internet. This is not one of them. 12.11.127.253 (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Reaction

I'm noticing that the reactions section of the article focus too much on the negative reception and only briefly focuses on the positive reaction the ruling got from both politicians as well as the rest of the country. --Matt723star (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

While there isn't a huge difference in text, yes, there seems to be more attention given to the conservatives complaining about the ruling than to those in support. Obergefell and Obama in support vs. Austin Nimocks, the National Catholic Register, Christian Today, and "some conservatives". Dustin (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Opportunity to avoid some possible misunderstanding

This comment is based upon this version of the article.

In the second sentence of the lede, it says:

Decided on June 26, 2015, Obergefell requires all states to issue a license to marry between all people of the same sex and it requires all states to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions.^[3]

which could be misleading, or could lend itself to misinterpretation.

The phrase "all people of the same sex" could be interpreted as meaning, regardless of age. Aren't there (lower) age limits, at least in some states, for being able to get married? I think the age limits apply, just the same, no matter whether the people are "of the same sex" or not. (right?)

Also, the phrase "all people of the same sex" could be interpreted as meaning, regardless of whether it is two persons, or 3 or more. Maybe it is obvious (to those skilled in the art), that the law -- [currently] -- does not provide for legal recognition of a polyamorous relationship of 3 or more persons, as a marriage. However, IMHO an article in Wikipedia should not rely upon the assumption that the reader already knows a certain fact, if it is easy to add a word or two, (or three) to clarify things, to "rule out" an incorrect interpretation. ...and, (IMHO) that is true even if the "certain fact" is one that is (in someone's opinion) obvious. IMHO it should still be clarified, even if the "certain fact" is one that is obvious in everyone's opinion!

Just my 0.02. YMMV.

Hence, because of those reasons, I propose to change the above "<blockquote>d" sentence, to read [something like] this:

Decided on June 26, 2015, Obergefell requires all states to issue a license to marry between any two persons of marriageable age (even if they are of the same sex) and it requires all states to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions.^[3]

instead.

Although, I would certainly be open to the suggestion that the parenthetical phrase "(even if they are of the same sex)" might be optional, there. Or, the suggestion to keep the phrase, but to get rid of the parentheses. Or other suggestions.

So, ... (before I start editing), ...Any comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Majority Opinion

While we need a section to help explain the majority opinion, we do not need it explained section by section. This is not a law journal. Let's use credible sources to construct a summary description of the majority opinion; and let's look to other Supreme Court Cases, especially landmark ones, to see how in-depth and far the section needs to go. but to go into "Section I-A, B, C, II... etc etc" is too much and overly complicated. Manful0103 (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

ATTENTION: Dire Need for Basic Editing

This article requires extensive editing for grammar (all aspects) and sense. I have begun but could use some help. My time is limited.Antinoos69 (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Well, it turns out I made some time. I've completed one read straight through the article, making appropriate edits. I standardized to lowercase "court," since the first references were mostly lowercase, despite the tendency to capitalize in legal circles. We should decide which is best, or declare what standard Wiki practice is, if there is one. I also believe there may be some inconsistency in capitalizing "clause," as in "Equal Protection Clause." I believe it is standard to capitalize, but I'm quite done for tonight. Antinoos69 (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• I have standardized all instances of "court" in reference to SCOTUS to the capitalized "Court," and have capitalized all proper-noun instances of "clause" as "Clause"--provided I didn't miss anything, of course. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Combing dissenting opinions?

The dissenting opinions are very lengthy, as I'm sure everyone can see. One editor suggested combining similar elements. I think this is easier said than done. From the three I have examined (excluding Roberts), the opinions are all quite different so far, so combining them might prove difficult. Perhaps after I finish Roberts, we can begin to merge the ideas found throughout the four. S51438 (talk) 05:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• I wrote just now under "Dissenting opinions." I actually find the dissents much more similar than different, aside from Roberts—at times mind numbingly so. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
• Okay, STOP! This section is now completely out of hand. It is several times longer than the majority section. And don't start hurling stuff by the truckload into that section, either. That section is just about the right length. This dissents section, on the other hand, is now officially insane. You need to drastically cut it down to a digestible length, one worth reading in lieu of the decisions themselves. Step back and take an objective look at what you've done, and are doing, here. It's crazy. I never thought I'd long for the list of four block quotes, but I now am. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Antinoos69: Who are you to make the determination that "is just about right right length"? Perhaps you should go to Roe v. Wade and "drastically cut it down to a digestible length" as well, since you write condensed law review articles for a living. And perhaps you could also be just as rude to those editors as well. Don't speak to me as if I am the sole editor of this article. I have looked at those blank sections for months, and while I was busy actually contributing to them, YOU were ready to tear down anything that others created, even if it was comparable to other Supreme Court decision articles. Good day. S51438 (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry my conversational tone isn't to your personal taste, but I otherwise have no idea what you're talking about. I had looked up several other SC cases on here and made my comments accordingly. In fact, I would cite Roe v. Wade both for my "right length" and the need drastically to cut down your section. So you really can't see that your section was drastically out of any even remotely reasonable proportions? Really? I find that exceedingly difficult to believe. I think you need to step back, take a few breaths, and take an objective few second looks at what you were doing here. Antinoos69 (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
      • @Antinoos69: Yes, I was contributing, and made clear I would shorten the dissents later. You thought the need for revision was so drastic, that it had to be done immediately, which is fine. Unless I see you do something with the Roberts opinion soon, I will write it myself as I see fit. Then I will leave it to you to shrink it down, since this is apparently what you do. A few important facts your ignore.
        • The Obergefell majority opinion takes up 658 words on Wikipedia, while the Roe opinion takes up 1,291 words, nearly twice as long. The Roe opinion is 11,644 words long, while the Obergefell opinion is 8,524 words long. Either Roe needs to be shortened, or Obergefell needs to be lengthened to make up for the lack of congruence.
        • Your summarizing of the dissents, obviously with the intention of making them equal to each other, has made Samuel Alito's dissent shockingly over-represented, while Thomas' dissent is just as much underrepresented. As I'm sure you know, Thomas' opinion is over twice the length of both Alito's and Scalia's. How that warrants what you have done here is not ascertainable, unless Wikipedia has dissolved from a place to find accurate information into a website overly-obsessed with things looking deceptively nice.
      • Personally I find your summaries drastically out of any even remotely reasonable proportions, but of course, I will not change the summaries you have created. Others can go without this information if that suits you, for clearly, this is your job, not mine. S51438 (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
        • I can see you're being doggedly irrational and there's simply no talking with you. Nevertheless, I'll waste a tad bit of time to make some points. The Roe majority section occupies about 2 1/2 screens on my device, while Obergefell occupies a bit over two. That's comparable in my book. The Roe dissent section, on the other hand, is just over a screen, shorter than the majority, while your and the current iterations of the Obergefell dissent are, at the shortest, twice as long as Roe's—I rather not even recall the original length of your version. My purpose in abridging your original version had nothing whatsoever to do with the lengths of the individual dissents. I was merely doing what I could to squeeze the entire dissent section down to the length of the majority section, by screens on my device, while changing your actual words as little as possible. I see how appreciated those efforts were. Now, the Roberts dissent does certainly need some tweaking, but should not significantly exceed its current length, unless you make the other dissents cumulatively shorter. As for why I bother saying any of this, I'll have to take it up with a therapist. And, btw, we should probably forget about combining common elements of the dissents, as it doesn't seem to be a common practice around here. Suffice it to say that I'll be keeping watch over the lengths of these sections, which is all that I'll leave you with on the matter. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• I agree the length of the dissenting opinions is getting too long. It's going into depth that would be appropriate for a formal law review or college level analysis. I would focus on the very direct main points that would contribute to this as an encyclopedia article. Each dissent can have a small explanation, but the way it is now is just too long. Not all opinions are created equal. The reason why Scalia is explained in the Lawrence and Windsor pages are fair because judges have consistently quoted his dissents in their rulings. And look how short it is there. Short, simple, and to the point. That's how it should be here. Gabe (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I wholeheartedly agree that the dissents should focus narrowly and briefly on the main points, and fairly few of them. Instead, we seem to have now something of a play-by-play broadcast, which is much less engaging, and much more difficult to abridge, though you might have noticed I've given the task the old college try. I'm just loathe largely to replace an editor's words with my own—at least at first. I'm hoping the composing editor will try his/her hand at it soon. Antinoos69 (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
• And as a comment on the comparison to the length of Roe and its sections to this one, that is not a good analogy. Roe was over forty years ago, has had several challenges to overturn, and has huge legal precedent (now bound by the restrictions outlined in Casey). The opinions of Roe are still litigated virtually every day in courts all around the US. And it continues to be one of the most politically consequential court cases of all time. Obergefell just happened this summer. It's legacy in society and in future courts has not had time to play out. Even the Lawrence and Windsor cases are not close to as long as this one. Gabe (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Banning User S51438

User S51438 is now completely off the rails, severely vandalizing the article. Can someone take appropriate action? I am unschooled in such matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antinoos69 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Antinoos69: You just expressed concern for "changing another editor's work". Guess what? This is my work. I have written 95% of the majority opinion and dissenting opinions, and when I do WHAT YOU HAVE TOLD ME TO DO, you suggest banning me? You are too much. S51438 (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • You have clearly lost your mind and need to be stopped. That much is obvious. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    • @Antinoos69: Not really, just shortening the majority and dissenting opinions to their bare constitutional analysis, leaving out anything else. This is what you have suggested already. S51438 (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    • @Antinoos69: If you have no qualms about leaving that paragraph there, while the dissents do not mention anything of that sort, then by all means, at least some of my original work is maintained. S51438 (talk) 05:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
      • @S51438: and @Antinoos69: - Both of you must stop reverting each other until a consensus is reached. As I mentioned on your talk pages you shouldn't edit war even if you are correct. As this is a content dispute I suggest you two take it to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If you keep reverting each other at this rate both of you will get blocked or the article will be fully protected. Rather than accusing each other, find a way to solve this dispute collaboratively. Best way to deal with a situation like this is to request a dispute resolution -- Chamith (talk) 05:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• • • • S51438, what Gabe and I suggested concerned the dissents section, not the majority. Dissents and majorities differ markedly. In this case, given the number of dissents, it would be impossible to treat them alike without producing an unacceptably long dissents section, one that overwhelms the majority opinion, drowning it in a sea of verbiage. The dissents can not exceed the majority section, which would be a balance problem. To ensure that, one should be more generally topical and thematic with the dissents. Generally speaking, it is neither necessary nor desirable to explain every detail, point, or argument in any decision. Selection must be made for readability and emphasis in the space available and prudent.
      • So I propose: (a) that you leave the majority as it was before today; and (b) that you focus on distilling each dissent to its two or three most extensive points, very briefly developed, adding drive-by references to a couple of lesser but noteworthy points, space provided, making sure not to significantly exceed the majority in length, cumulatively. It it could be shorter, so much the better, but that may require avoiding discussing the dissents (entirely) separately.
      • I suggest we now sleep on it, doing nothing for about a day. Perhaps others will chime in by then. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I don't really understand that little box thingy up above, or how it works, so I'll be blunt. If discussion of this matter doesn't occur on this talk page, and if I don't get any direct, unmissable messages about whatever discussion is going on, complete with clear and complete instructions on how to participate, not only will I likely not end up taking part in such discussions, I wouldn't even be able to discover such discussions are so much as taking place. Some of us are very old school. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Antinoos69: It's a way of requesting uninvolved editors to participate in a discussion. A bot (a computer program that performs automated tasks) will notify editors who are watching the particular category, in this case Politics, government, and law. I've requested for comments as a part of dispute resolution process. It's easier to establish a clearer consensus when many editors are involved in a discussion. Comments will be posted here so you don't have to worry about replying elsewhere. You can participate in the discussion in the same way you posted your comments. -- Chamith (talk) 06:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I am writing in response to the request for comments. As a preliminary matter, I urge editors to follow the guidelines in MOS:LAW and WP:SCOTUS/SG. Given the fact that the separate dissents utilize different jurisprudential approaches, I suggest creating separate subsections for the separate dissents. If you look at some of the better GA and FA SCOTUS articles with multiple concurring or dissenting opinions (especially cases where Justices take separate theoretical approaches to the legal issues involved), most create separate subsections for separate dissenting or concurring opinions. See, for example, United States v. Lara and Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. This is not to say that you can't ever combine separate dissenting opinions into one sub-section, but if you want to devote a paragraph or more to each opinion, then I think separate sub-sections are appropriate.

I also urge editors to follow WP:RS and WP:IC by providing inline citations to the slip opinion when summarizing opinions, per Bluebook (see MOS:LAW). Because it is so easy to mischaracterize legal arguments, it is particularly important for editors to provide inline citations (ideally at the end of every sentence) with a pinpoint-citation to the page(s) of the slip opinion on which those arguments appear. I would also recommend that editors keep summaries of dissenting opinions to no more than a paragraph or two, so that the article is easily digestible for readers. Likewise, I strongly encourage editors to avoid using large, block quotations, which can often be summarized in far fewer words. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow, talk about brevity being the soul of wit in your cited cases. At the risk of throwing fuel on the fire, I might note that the notability and high profile of this case may require just a tad more dedicated space. I do, however, appreciate the more distilled, thematic summaries, as opposed to a more thorough, sequential approach.

I look forward to more comments, though my comments and editing may be sporadic until early next week, as my schedule of (real-world) duties and obligations is rather tight at the moment. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I am ready to edit the dissents section according to everyone's comments, other than S51438. I will wait at least about a day, to give users time to chime in. A little thereafter, I plan to massage the majority section just a bit, in accord with users' comments about majority opinions, citation, and whatnot. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I have edited the two sections, which I believe should remain comparable in length. I think it may be nice to add a photo of Justice Roberts to the section specifically dedicated to his dissent, as his is the main one. Unfortunately, I am not sufficiently knowledgable about such things. Could someone else do it? Antinoos69 (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment summoned by bot This appears to be a malformed RfC. You cannot expect editors to come in here and take sides in a dispute of this nature. What is required is a concrete proposal; the RfC then determines if there is consensus for the proposal. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The whole point of RFC is to arrive at consensus through resolving a dispute. As WP:RFC states, it "is an informal process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content". Involving in this process doesn't necessarily mean you have to take any sides. You just have to present your opinion as an uninvolved editor. If the process is so complicated that more than two editors are involved in the dispute, then Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard is the place. -- Chamith (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree that this is a poorly created RFC.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for photos

I sense something of a need for at least two more photos—alright, I've been discovering them lately. I think the Sixth Circuit section could use a pic of the court building, activity outside the court during argument or the rendering of the decision, or, failing any such, a pic of the author of the decision that helped trigger SCOTUS review. Also, the Lawsuit section could really use a pic of Obergefell. I can't find any such photos on Wiki Media or Wiki Commons. There actually is a pic of Obergefell, File:Marriage rally (18997214650).jpg, but Obergefell isn't identified in the info. My recent education, however, does not yet extend to dealing with copyright issues or acquiring new photos. Additionally, we might have use of a photo for the district court section, maybe. Could anyone help? Antinoos69 (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

There's also a generic pic of the district/circuit court building (they're the same), but it's rather old, from the 1930's if I recall correctly. And we have a pic of Judge Sutton, but it's not yet in Commons and the source link is gone. Antinoos69 (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Changes not allowed?

Correction. I thought the correction I was referring to about the "I like" was referring to the change I made at an earlier date. I should have seen the dates. My apologies. But I now see the comment I was referring to was not directed at me. Misreading and mix up on my part. Disregard. Brainboy109 (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)