Talk:Proposition 8

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I know some of the leaders of the Yes on 8 movement. As they have no wish to become martyrs, I do not wish to provide further information in that area. The protesters broke the law. Emphasizing its peaceful elements misses the points brought up by the reference. Learn together 12:06, 7 November 2008 (EST)

So you have no objective references to these claims, just your personal assurance that they're true? --Jareddr 12:14, 7 November 2008 (EST)
You act as if direct personal knowledge is somehow inferior to reading something from the press. Not everyone decides to call a press conference to draw attention to themselves, especially when it threatens the welfare of their families. Learn together 12:31, 7 November 2008 (EST)
That works for you, Learn together, as you are a trusted sysop. I trust what you say. However a personal testimony needs to go through the same rigorous test that a regular citation does (or, rather, that a regular citation should). There's nothing to stop someone from saying "well I was there and I can say that the protesters didn't break the law," and we'd be at a standstill. Perhaps this particular case isn't the best example, but I hope I've shown that using personal references in principle can have unwanted outcomes elsewhere on the site. HelpJazz 12:43, 7 November 2008 (EST)
That being said, I did find a reference, so now everyone should be happy :) HelpJazz 12:47, 7 November 2008 (EST)
Some people are never happy. ;-)
Andy wants us to value truth above all else. While I believe my personal knowledge is not the first thing I should count on, sometimes it is necessary to show what has occurred.
Interestingly, the reference you found wasn't what I was referring to. It was a hellacious campaign with more than one incidence of physical violence -- and more than one death threat. Learn together 14:38, 7 November 2008 (EST)
Direct personal knowledge is inferior when putting together an encyclopedia, yes. Encyclopedias are generally supposed to be filled with facts, which are, in general, verifiable. Hearsay and personal anecdotes tend not to be verifiable. So when talking about facts, I'd prefer some confirmation from other sources, as opposed to someone heard it from someone else.--Jareddr 12:50, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Errors In Text

The following is COMPLETELY wrong: "Numerous lawsuits were filed with the California Supreme Court by same-sex couples and government entities, challenging the proposition's validity and effect on previously administered same-sex marriages. The court heard oral arguments on March 5, 2009, and declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional on August 4, 2010.[2]"

Who edits this stuff anyway?? It was US District Court that began oral arguments in Jan. 2010 (NOT March, 2009) and ruled Prop. 8 unconstitutional in Aug. 2010, NOT the CA Supreme Court.

And what was unconstitutional about it? be specific, Billy. Karajou 15:25, 13 August 2010 (EDT)

Same rights?

Learn together, thanks for your work on updating the article. I especially like the headings. One quibble - while couples have mostly the same (state-level) rights and obligations under domestic partnership as under marriage, they are not exactly the same. See the In Re Marriage Cases Decision, page 42, footnote 24. (Sorry, I couldn't copy text from a .pdf file, otherwise I would have posted it here.) Of course, federal rights and obligations aren't the same at all.--Hsmom 01:02, 8 November 2008 (EST)

They do have the same rights. There may be minor differences in how one joins a marriage vs. a domestic partnership and it's easier to dissolve a domestic partnership, but a couple that has entered into a domestic partnership has the same rights as marriage.
Also, I'm afraid I have difficulty with the addition of the gender neutral language. Marriage was defined as a man and woman; there was no need to use language that would define it as such when it was already understood. It was only changes in society that could alter the definition that caused the change in 1977 to clarify. Learn together 01:54, 8 November 2008 (EST)
Learn together, my goal was to fill out the section a bit more, including some legislative action on both marriage and domestic partnerships. I think it will be interesting to see how things have changed over the years. I ran out of time yesterday to do more. (I want to be sure to get it right, so it will take some time, plus the darned "blank screen - don't know if your post took or not" problem was really bad, which slowed me down.) I think we can find some language that makes it clear that marriage has always been between a man and a woman in California, but that in 1977 they realized that this was simply understood, and not codified in the law, thus they changed it to prevent same-sex marriage challenges. The 1977 changes don't make sense unless we explain it was gender-neutral before that (though of course we have to make it clear that no one saw it that way back then, if you know what I mean.) I'm open to suggestions. Will address the rights point later - must get to the day's family activities. --Hsmom 09:39, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Reverted again

"Unfortunately the Democratic process alone is not sufficient to some," is an opinion statement, it's also a linking statement, as would be used in an editorial or paper. Whether it's correct is immaterial. StephenK 14:38, 4 December 2008 (EST)