:::This smells like Chris Lyons is phoning in another one of his canned cut-and-paste objections to an addition to this article, full of unsubstantiated babbling about "NPOV" and "NOR" and "coatracking." Here is the quite well documented facts about how Proposition 8 is described: 

The way its proponents describe it. Since this for them is largely a matter of posturing and semantics - because their own people are completely unaffected by the results of the measure - their interest in the subject pretty much ends with the passage of the measure. They can say marriage is only "x" because their own people are prohibited from ever expressing something other than "x," the demonstrated behavior of Ted Haggard and many if not most of their own people notwithstanding. It for them is largely a demonstration of power and status, of ostensibly being able to call the shots by social and political means, by calling for purification of society as they in their fantasies imagine it should be, no matter whose bodies happen to be in the way. (Gives a whole new meaning to the Pentecostal chant/song about "under my feet.")

The way the people who will have to deal with the aftermath of the measure's passage describe it. Since the Attorney General has to enforce the law once passed, the Attorney General titled the measure so that what happens after the election is quite clear: certain people's rights that existed before the election were eliminated. Since the people proposing the measure aren't ever going to be in that class, or so they believe, they don't care about this, or even care enough to allow the suggestion to pass  that the lives of people will be affected. That goes for editors here who are proponents of the measure, who are fighting against any measure of Proposition 8 in a way that might actually hint that individual people are going to be affected by having their rights eliminated. (Yeah, they don't care about people outside their churches except as potential converts, as notches on their bedposts, to be manipulated at will, against their consent, unless and until they get their butt in church. They call this "love," of course, in case you were wondering what they think that word means.)

Describing it both ways, which would be the equitable way of dealing with the situation as documented.

Describing it in neither way, simply linking Proposition 8 to the article about it.

After two months of having to restore the ballot title "eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry" to the Proposition 8 article in the runup to the election, and having sat through one of the satellite simulcasts promoting the measure, clearly this is how its proponents think. They seem to live in a people-free universe, that nobody will be affected by it, and demand that any description of the measure that actually mentions people's rights must be scrubbed. That is what certain editors want to continue doing here. Justifying this scrubbing and elimination of the mention of real-world consequences of the measure is not "NPOV." It's attempted scrubbing of dissenting views, to which I object in the strongest possible terms. As for COI, your insinuation that anyone objecting to Prop 8 here is a directly-affected, by the common standards of the proponents' evangelical community, dirty diseased queer whose edits must be blocked or questioned on the basis of a COI just shows exactly where your prejudices lie.