Talk:Hollingsworth v. Perry

Inaccuracies regarding position of LGBT groups

This contains quite a few inaccuracies about the position of the LGBT legal groups, including some manufactured by the media. I'll work on correcting. Viciouslies (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This had been getting better, but recently had a bunch of quotes cherry-picked from the California Lawyer article added which gave an inaccurate impression that the LGBT groups now think the lawsuit is a good idea. Reading the entire article, it's clear that the groups still think it is NOT a good idea, but since AFER is going to go forward with the case anyway, they don't want it to fail, as the consequences could be disastrous. Rather than add a bunch of quotes supporting the other POV, I chose to re-write in a neutral, just-the-facts manner to restore NPOV.

If other editors feel that adding that info back in and also more quotes to balance the POV, that's obviously fine. But I do wonder if including details like who invited who to lunch (as the last version did) is really appropriate for an article on a court case. Viciouslies (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Breaking "Background" section into several parts

Oy. I got a little sidetracked as I attempted to add some material on the summary judgment, discovery issues and the constitution claims (none of which I have added yet). The background section was organized, more or less, chronologically. While that seems like an obvious organizing principle, Walker's been disposing of motions left and right. It made for a muddled presentation. I've broken up the existing background material into several sections (adding a bit about plaintiffs and defendants). I'll return soon to add some material to the Pretrial Motions and Trial sections. They look a little anemic in their current forms. (Of course, feel free to jump in without me). Wonderbreadsf (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Reading just now, I wonder if the two paragraphs in Background about the disagreement between the LGBT legal groups and the AFER legal team actually belongs in Parties, since the groups eventually moved to become parties to the lawsuit. Having it in Background, then revisiting it in Parties makes it a bit redundant. Thoughts? Viciouslies (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I was just thinking that too. I believe the conflict and make-up between the two parties belong in parties as opposed to background. The background section should contain more information about how the case was conceived. The California Lawyer does a good job documenting it: [1] --haha169 (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to use a different source

I'd like to suggest using a different source rather than Shannon Minter's blog. I'd suggest instead using the New York Times such as [2] [3] [4] and [5]. Ms. Minter's blog is written from a clear point-of-view. I'm not arguing that the text of this article is biased but I would argue that it would be better to source the text to a published newspaper known for its fact checking (i.e., a Wikipedia defined reliable source). Using a source that is non-neutral does a disservice to the reader who jumps to the reference for additional detail and would unavoidably give the impression that the article is biased if it depends solely on such a source. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 22:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. You could change it yourself, you know. WP:BOLD This isn't a controversial issue. :)--haha169 (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Rather than removing the existing sources, you may want to just add new ones. No need to get rid of sources that we only pull factual information from, no matter how biased the original may be. —what a crazy random happenstance 00:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

For me to add the NYT sources, I would need to cross check the article text against it and then incorporate relevant items from the NYT if required for balance/completeness. I'm not a page editor of this article but instead posting an observation/recommendation. Wish I had the time -- recently I've mostly made minor edits to articles I come across due to too many other things dividing my attention. If the NYT references were simply appended, I don't think that would strengthen the article much. The Minter blog should be moved to external links where it would be more appropriate. Possibly at least the link to the NYT "day one" could be added to the external links; I'll go ahead and do that. Not very bold, but alas. ;) ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 04:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone just update it or fix it so it doesn't stop at day 3?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.36.72 (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Already done. --haha169 (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• So this article now mentions every witness except Ryan Kendall. Shouldn't we include them all?* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.133.140.5 (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Courage Campaign's Prop 8 Trial Tracker

It looks like the last edit to this page was when Day 3 of the trial took place.
Should the Prop 8 trial tracker be given in the page?
http://prop8trialtracker.com/
Native94080 (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It's already included as a reference; I'm not sure whether it would be legit to also include it as an external link. - Nat Gertler (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

invoked Hollywood productions

Just edited down a claim that Chaucer had invoked Brokeback Mountain, Milk, and Glee to just Brokeback mountain. For one thing, it was the only of the three mentioned in the LA Times source listed. For another, I don't think the other two were accurate. As this blog notes, the was Brokeback, Philadelphia, and Will & Grace. I'm too tired and about to turn in, but if someone else wants to source them (or find source that I'm wrong), please do. - Nat Gertler (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

They are two different situations where Hollywood was mentioned. Sorry about the issue with the source, I have been reading lots of media on the issue and chose one at random - which only included Brokeback Mountain. I will retrieve the transcript as the source, which does include Milk and Glee. --haha169 (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: Day 11's transcripts aren't up yet. Whatever, just leave it w/ Brokeback. --haha169 (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

POV check

Im seeing alot of one side of the coin and not alot on the defense side of prop 8. Also is the quote by —Ryan Kendall really needed? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That's naturally, simply because the order of things in trial - the plaintiff presents his side first, with the witnesses to support their side. We're getting to the other side now, but there has been a lag in documenting the case as it goes on. - Nat Gertler (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The other side is only arguing LGBT people's political strength, so that section could reasonably be expanded. But the problem is that only two witnesses are testifying for the defendants and one of them blundered badly that he technically testified for the plaintiffs. --haha169 (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of offense, it seems biased because that was the strength of the arguments presented. Both witnesses for the defense performed rather poorly, despite the claims of some websites to the contrary. Staying neutral doesn't necessarily mean "both sides have to be presented as equally strong" when this is clearly not the case. --wobster109 (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I am under that impression as well. One of the defense witnesses was in all intents and purposes, testifying FOR the plaintiffs. The other really didn't know what he was saying. It is hard to present prose out of that. --haha169 (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"Attorney Ted Boutrous said in all his trial experience he had never seen a defendant's witness side again and again with the arguments that the plaintiffs made.

"We saw the most compelling thing I have ever seen in court, a witness paid for by the proponents of Prop 8 admit to a list of facts that proves our case," he said. "Mr. Blankenhorn admitted allowing gay marriage would reduce the divorce rate. It was a stunning moment."[6] - Having read the transcripts (or at least skimmed them), I have to agree with Ted Boutrous. It is impossible to write a summary of the defendant's arguments if they are non-existent. I propose we remove the neutrality tag. --haha169 (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Part of the reason is also that the defence had only 2 witnesses, conducted short cross examinations, and raised few objections.

Speaking of the defence's witnesses, I don't see anything in the article about David Blankenhorn's testimony. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Blankenhorn was kinda repeating everything that the plaintiff's witnesses already stated. I don't think this will help to POV concern at all.--haha169 (talk) 03:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It is both right that David Blankenhorn should be concluded - his testimony was a significant portion of the time involved, and from sheer interest level it should be included. But to accurately describe it accurately, one should have a ton of reference, because using just a couple select references may make it look like we're trying to do a heavy POV spin of his work as a train wreck. - Nat Gertler (talk) 05:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice to see some of the other side here; possibly flag this is an opinion piece for the time being. Specifically, a section on Judge Walker's bias would benefit the article a lot as that is the best publicized criticism from the other perspective. Also, there is stunningly little discussion of the law (citations, relevant precedent, etc.) for a law article. --jluptak17 06:22, 07 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jluptak17 (talk • contribs)

Re: << a section on Judge Walker's bias would benefit the article a lot as that is the best publicized criticism from the other perspective. >> (above). But isn't that an alleged bias contended by no reliable souce, and one that has not been legally moved on? If Judge Walker were to be sanctioned or removed from the trial by a higher authority, that would of course be noteworthy. But as it stands now, statements that this judge is "biased" seem more like scattered, unproven "gripes" than anything founded in facts. 4.68.248.65 (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is "stunningly little discussion of the law" because this case is in its most EARLIEST stages, having just finished the trial period. The first opinion hasn't even been released yet. There is nothing to work with here. People need to stop expecting that this article be as comprehensive as 50 year old completed cases like Roe v. Wade. Btw, if you are looking for precedents, good luck finding them. This is the first such case in Federal court. --haha169 (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, HaHa169...though as I understand it (unless I missed it in the news???) even the initial "trial period" has not finished. The Judge has taken a break to review all the submitted evidence before reconvening to hear closing arguments from each side. I've read they might reconvene next month (March, 2010)Codenamemary (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right, actually. The judge had delayed closing arguments. --haha169 (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. The United States Supreme Court has actually ruled, albeit in a summary decision, that State Laws that limit marriage to one man and one woman do not violate the Constitution. Baker v. Nelson 409 U.S. 810, (1972), numerous other federal cases have talked the marriage issue to one degree or another. Take a look at Wilson v. Ake from the Middle District of Florida and Smelt v. Orange County, another California Case that was heard in Federal Court. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Dismissed appeals are far different from actual rulings. They do not set any legal precedent in the SCOTUS whatsoever. Those three cases you cited are legal challenges to the federal DOMA. This is a purely constitutional challenge to the state's citizenry's ability to enact initiatives. --haha169 (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Haha169, I won't stray too far into the legal weeds, but Baker v. Nelson is a precedent (the case came to SCOTUS on mandatory appeal, so the dismissal is binding on the courts; discussed in more depth at the Wiki article). Likewise, there have been roughly analogous cases in federal court (CEP v. Bruning is probably the closest case; it's also mentioned in the Baker v. Nelson article if you're curious). The Perry case does have the distinction of being the first trial on the question of whether a state may ban same-sex marriage (other cases were either tangential or decided on summary motions) that I know of federal court. Having said all that, I would agree that the issues before Walker are mostly "open" questions.Wonderbreadsf (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I hadn't noticed that Baker v. Nelson had a trial. Whatever, the main point of this section is the fact that this trial's defendants brought forth only two witnesses who mostly sided with the plaintiffs, if anything else. So it is difficult to glean information from this trial that could fix the POV. I invite people to add cited stuff, though. --haha169 (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the voting map neutral?

It shows the absolute winners of counties, but not all counties are equal in population. The sparsely-populated-but-big-in-area-counties that voted no dominate the map, while a pie chart would show the actually slim margin of the vote. At least, can the shading be changed to show that some counties are vastly more populous than others, so it shows votes not land? Animadversio (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a factual representation. I reworded the caption a bit and added in the voting numbers to show that the physical area does not indicate the volume of support. --Falcorian ^(talk) 23:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it altogether. It was unnecessary and merely decorative as it had little to do with the actual subject (the court case), and I agree that it gave off a slight bias when taken out of context as it was here. —what a crazy random happenstance 02:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The New Yorker

Margaret Talbot have written extensively of the case for the New Yorker, see, for example, "A RISKY PROPOSAL (article)" and blog posts. P. S. Burton (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

This article should be addressed in the wiki-article:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957
Native94080 (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I've put a link to it in the External Links section, which sounds about right; it's not to the trial itself, it's to the motivation of a lawyer. It would probably deserve more in-depth coverage in his own article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

New America Foundation

Should this information be included in wiki-article?
http://www.newamerica.net/issues/domestic
http://newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/1872,1858
Native94080 (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Background Inaccracies

Statement: California’s electorate adopted Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that restored the opposite-sex limitation on marriage

Issue: Cited source (at the time source number 4 - an LA Times article) does not seem to have any direct statement that the "amendment that restored the opposite-sex limitation on marriage".

Rationale: The Cal Supreme Court in striking down the Law referred to in this section stated that Californians always had the right to marry same sex partners. As they struck down the law as unconstitutional, the law never "existed" and therefore there was never a "opposite-sex limitation" on marriage. Basically, replacing "restored" with something like "instituted" would be more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.244.214.59 (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

While I can see that as a descriptor of what the court did and how a constitutional system may work, that is not in fact occurred. Not only did the court not make the removal of the ban retroactive (they did not, for example, create recognition of the San Francisco marriages), they did not make it immediate. Furthermore, a ruling on constitutional basis does not mean that something was never legal under the constitution; a constitution itself is a moving target, and the California constitution particularly so. In this particular case, the ruling depended on the existence of the state's domestic partnership law ("Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."), which does not have that long a history. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

While we're picking over this sentence, one quick note, the phrase "the opposite-sex limitation" is just ... well, awkward. Independent of the question of whether the verb is changed, might I suggest a construction like "California’s electorate adopted Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that restored the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples.", or (to my mind even better), "California's electorate adopted Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that limits marriage to opposite-sex couples." But think from a plain ol' "basic understanding" point of view, "restore" is clear and accurate enough. To the extent that we want to get pedantically accurate we'd have to talk about marriage "validity and recognition", not marriage, too, but at some point overelaborating on detailed legal points in a non-technical article section gets in the way of understanding. Either way, "opposite-sex limitation" still feels a bit awkward to me. *shrug* --j⚛e decker^talk 15:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"California’s electorate adopted Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that restored the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples." sounds to me like there is some special limitation on marriage when one is getting married to an opposite sex couple. "...that restored restricting marriage exclusively to mixed-sex couples" perhaps? --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I hear your point. Your suggested wording is better, methinks. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I vote for Joe Decker's "California's electorate adopted Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that limits marriage to opposite-sex couples." --Denovo1 (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)