" 
 ==Inaccurate?== 

 Under the Campaign Issue header it reads: 

 ""In general it appears that the American public does not consider the same-sex marriage issue to be a political priority; one poll showed it ranked 22nd in a list of 23 political issues, sorted by ""importance"" to the questionee"" 

 I encourage you to read this from the AFP today: [] 

 ""Moral Values"" was a big issue in this election, and the Gay Marriage Amendements effectively brought Bush's base to the polls in many swing states (Ohio for example..)  

 I've went ahead and edited for a more NPOV, I encourage people to add or edit. message me. 

 

  

 Why is Russ Feingold listed under ""see also""?   
 :Don't see any reason so I'm removing, feel free to revert   

 Should gay rights activists' objections to the FMA be here, or in gay marriage or both? 

 They should at least be here.  On the other page, you can put ""Gay rights activists are opposed to the Federal Marriage Amendment which they claim....""  Just one sentence should be enough.  Just a thought.   

 ==Kerry== 

 Kerry supporters have argued that his position is more in line with the sentiments of the majority of Americans at this time 

 Lol. Is this an intentional tongue-in-cheek attack on Kerry, or did the author not realize that it sounds that way?   

 ==Gay rights POV== 

 The article's lead sentence states: 

 :The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) is a proposed change to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage legally as involving people of different sexes. 

 This makes it seems like it's a change from 

 * recognizing only same-sex unions as ""marriage"" 

 to 

 * allowing people of opposite sex to ""marry"" as well 

 Am I reading too much into this, or is it poorly worded? 

 I suspect someone placed this wording in there, deliberately. My 30 years' experience of talking with gays taught me the value of loaded and tricky language. Why, they're worse than communists!! 

 In particular, the amendement does NOT define marriage as ""involving people of different sexes"" but only as ""the union of a man and a woman"". I don't know who stuck in that involving stuff, but I'm too angry to look it up; just fix it, okay?   

 It's not the best wording, but it is technically accurate - the marriage would have to involve people of both sexes to be legal under the proposed wording.  I'm not an expert on the subject - perhaps this should be listed as an article needing attention? It could do with some formatting changes too I feel.   

 While it works well in normal circumstances, the wording becomes a bit of a problem if we include androgynes, non-operated intersexuals et cetera in the equation - though admittedly these groups are too small to be much of a factor. (Mind you, it is interesting to see where they will end up should the amendment pass. Male? Female? A freak show circus cage? But that's off-topic entirely.)   

 == POV in disguise == 

 The article says: 

 :Some supporters of the amendment claim that supporting only heterosexual marriage is strictly a matter of public interest. They believe that the government has an important role to promote heterosexual marriage because having and caring for children is vital to the public interest in various areas such as the economy. Although the existence of same-sex marriage would not interfere with the continued public support of heterosexual marriage, they assert that extending the principle of human rights to a previously excluded group in this area would constitute a case of legislating morality.  

 To me, this reads like an argument by opponents of the amendment. "":Akadruid|akaDruid]]  

 :Took at stab at NPOV and simplification.   

 :: Nice work!  I reckon this is a much better article now, and much more NPOV.  I'm going to remove the NPOV message I put at the top. I hope this new edit covers the concerns raised above too.   

 - 

 If you move this down ....  
 : ""T