Talk:Federal Marriage Amendment/Archive 2

message: It is becoming very apparent to me that the organization of the FMA article is hard to follow. I particularly have a problem with the "Process" heading (What it covers and where it is located in the article), compared to the "Campaign Issue" heading at the top. There is too much scattering of information. Perhaps we should set it up chronologically? I'd like to discuss how to better organize the FMA article with other people who contribute here. Anyone have any ideas? --Howrealisreal 16:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposing Better Organization 

message: Sandover, I liked your changes, but I have some questions on your interpretation of the current FMA.
 
1) Is it correct to say that "most scholars" believe that the current language would forbid civil unions?  It seems pretty obvious to me that it wouldn't, as described below, but I could be wrong.  My guess (and again, I could be wrong), is that the scholars concluding that the FMA forbids civil unions are interpreting the first version, not the second.
 
2) Given that the change occurred after Bush (through McClellan) called on Musgrave to draft language permitting civil unions, and given that they deleted the sentence that people thought would bar civil unions, is there any way to tell whether Bush, by endorsing the second Musgrave language, thought he was permitting or barring civil unions?  In other words, even assuming your interpretation is right and mine is wrong, how can we tell whether it's tricky intent on Bush's part or an honest drafting mistake.
My guess is that Musgrave didn't really think about civil unions, so when she characterized the change as a "technical change," it was because she didn't intend the first bill to bar civil unions.
3) Finally, I think it's pretty clear that the current FMA would permit states to enact civil unions.  Specifically, according to the article, the current draft provides:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.
Your interpretation is that the "constitution" language would bar civil unions, but I don't see it.  The language is that the state and federal constitutions may not be construed to require civil unions, not that they may not be construed to permit civil unions.  
I think the most reasonable interpretation is that the current amendment, if passed, would prevent courts from finding a requirement to allow civil unions (as Massachusetts did with marriage), but would permit states to enact civil unions.  I'd be interested in seeing legal scholars who differ.
TheronJ 20:25, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: TheronJ, thanks for writing.  The FMA page will be much better for the organizational overhaul you have proposed.  
I disagree somewhat, however, with your legal interpretation of the revised version of the FMA (March 23, 2004).  When I changed the entry to reflect the fact that "most" legal scholars (rather than "some" legal scholars) interpreted the revision as forbidding civil unions, it was a reflection of exchanges I have had with several constitutional law experts on this subject.  I don't mind you changing that word back -- but I do think the controversy about various interpretations of Musgrave's second version of the FMA should be incorporated into the Wikipedia entry, perhaps in an "Interpretations and Possible Outcomes" section. (And by the way, I appreciate your admission that you could be wrong -- indeed, I could be wrong.  It's fair to say that a lot of people were mistaken in their initial interpretations of the revised FMA language last March, and took on face value the assertion by its sponsors that it was limited simply to "protecting marriage."  If that were the case, there would be no need for the second line of the amendment at all.  The legal reality is considerably more complex than its sponsors have indicated.)
Taken at face value, the revised Musgrave language does leave room open for states to enact civil unions -- it just doesn't leave very much room open for those civil unions, enacted by state legislatures and under state constitutional protections, to withstand subsequent court tests or federal court scrutiny.  Nor does the FMA offer much hope of individual states standing up to federal law on issues regarding marriage and marriage-like arrangements.  Under the second FMA proposed by Musgrave, a hypothetical federal law outlawing gay civil unions (or civil rights protection in any form drawn from the recognition of same-sex relationships) would trump any one state constitution's interpretation or objection to it in part or in whole, and no state constitutional language about equality or equal rights could alter (i.e., require) the state to go against that federal law.  I agree that the distinctions between the words permit and require are important here; I will let you puzzle it all out on your own, or better yet, through the editing process in a projected "Interpretations and Possible Outcomes" section.  There are plenty of references which the Wikipedia entry can, and should, be citing.
Over and over again, I have asked constitutional law scholars what probable outcomes might come from a successful FMA in the second version.  I admit that I have received a number of different answers, each of which predicated on hypotheses about how court challenges to state-sponsored civil unions might have been filed, how those challenges might have been interpreted based on the revised FMA language incorporated into the U.S. Constitution, etc.  Every one I have spoken with has stressed the unknowns involved in a U.S. Constitutional amendment which overrides the validity of individual state constitutions to judge and interpret their own laws; this is truly uncharted territory, and scholars of constitutional history point out that this radical reconstruction of the U.S. Constitution would be quite without precedent.  We don't know how everything would have shaken out from this; none of us have crystal balls or can predict the what-ifs (and I am not necessarily myself one to call Musgrave's revised amendment a "stealth" amendment, although others have, and for different reasons).  FMA would -- at the very least -- be an extraordinarily powerful tool as a springboard for attacks on existing or future civil unions (or even attacks on gay-friendly laws in individual states or localities, for example, laws as seemingly innocuous as those permitting hospital visitation, laws offering permission to have joint insurance policies for cohabiting same-sex couples, etc).  
It would be narrow and irresponsible for the entry to ignore the immediate or eventual effects of FMA on other Supreme Court decisions which define privacy in part or in whole based on what the Constitution does not (right now) directly address.  Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which safeguards the privacy rights of married (heterosexual) couples to use birth control, is frequently cited by constitutional scholars as a decision which might require re-evaluation should a court challenge emerge subsequent to the passage of Musgrave's FMA.  (The key word is "marriage," which is at the moment absent from the U.S. Constitution and a matter left to the states.)
Does or did Bush know all this?  What can we read into his silence?  His silence does not necessarily prove a point one way or another, and it's definitely not for us to simply accept that silence and interpret Bush's "body language" (as the New York Times' reporter Elisabeth Bumiller did, quite famously, in her March 1, 2004 article) as tacit support for gay people and, possibly, gay civil unions.  But we should accurately report Bush's avoidance of the term "civil unions" in his initial speech about the FMA on February 24, 2004 last year, as well as his failure to voice any opposition to the FMA in the form it was presented to the Senate and voted on in the House.  Indeed, given the fact that the legal implications of the FMA were vociferously discussed last year in the gay, lesbian, and alternative media last summer, and in the Senate chambers in July 2004, Bush's curious silence on this issue is important.  Sandover 23:06, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretation of Contemporary FMA 

message: Quoth the article:
Churches have concerns that legalization of same-sex marriage could lead to lawsuits against persons, churches or businesses who refuse to perform a marriage ceremony on religious or moral grounds.
I've heard this argument used, so I have no doubt that churches do have these concerns.  However, if my understanding of the situation is correct, I think it's important to point out that these concerns don't have any basis in legal reality.  The Catholic Church does not perform weddings for divorced people, even though such marriges are perfectly legal in the U.S.  I haven't heard of anyone trying to sue the Catholics over this issue.  Any lawsuit attempting to force a church that doesn't recognize same-sex marriage to perform one would similarly be rejected on 1st amendment grounds. --Jfruh 14:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawsuits against churches? 

message: An anonymous editor added the following after the "State's Rights" heading (which s/he changed to "Federalism":
Supporters counter this arguement by argueing that the FMA would protect federalism. They argue that the majority of Americans oppose gay marraige, and that without the amendment, either federal courts, including the Supreme Court, and/or state courts, could force states to allow same-sex marraige or recognize same-sex marraiges from other states, contrary to the will of the people thereof. Through the amendment, the people of every state, through their elected representatives in Congress and their respective state legislatures, would be protecting their interests from activist judges who they believe wish to unilaterally redefine marraige. Furthermore, they argue, the process of amending the Constitution is federalism, since no amendment can be valid unless it is approved by two-thirds of each house of Congress and subsequently ratified by three quarters of the states.
I removed it because it's in a section for arguments posed by opponents of the amendment (arguments for it can go elsewhere); plus, in my opinion, it doesn't really make much sense.  Either you think marriage is an institution that should be defined by the will of a nationwide majority, or you think it should be defined state by state by the various government organs thereof.  To try to argue that some state's decisions being overruled by the votes of a supermajority of other states somehow constitutes a states' rights victory borders on the ludicrous. --Jfruh 19:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convoluted anon. argument reverted 

message: I added a few of the major arguments used by proponents of the FMA to NPOV the article. Having the criticisms listed without the arguments used in favor, strikes a reader as Bias against the FMA. Most of the arguments that I listed were held in three appellate court cases, Lewis V Harris, Hernandez v Robles and Dean V. District of Columbia. Justice Scalia also raised a couple of these points in his dissent in Lawrence. I understand that many of those who are against the FMA, don't agree with the arguments used to support it, but the reverse applies to those who are critics of the FMA. Both sides need to be addressed to maintain NPOV. Some of these used to exist in the article, yet somewhere along the line they were quietly removed leaving only the arguments against. Ghostmonkey57 04:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments in Favor of FMA added 

message: I find it very interesting that the article references other countries around the world as supporting same sex marriages, but there is no reference to countries that don't.  As if by listing these countries it somehow lends credibility or justification to such action.  To base a decision within our own country on the legal precedence of other countries is to assume that the beliefs and social structure within those other countries mimic that of our own.  Having lived over seas, I have found that nothing could be further from the truth and it is a dangerous precedent to make or set.   10:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Justification is flawed 

message: I cleaned up the editorializing in the "Unnecessary and Ineffective" block under arguments against. The previous version was way to POV. The new version is supported by legal reason and facts, (A Lawyer named Dale Carpenter formulated most of the "Unnecessary" argument in his CATO institute paper.) http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa570.pdf Ghostmonkey57 00:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no intention of favoring one side or the other. I deleted arguments both pro and con that were generic to same-sex marriage (e.g. "same sex marriage is good because it promotes gay rights" and "same sex marriage is bad because it leads to polygamy"). Please feel free to add arguments specifically in favor of the FMA. The "critical mass preservation" argument works - it is a reason to enact the FMA specifically rather than simply to oppose same-sex marriage. However, "Polygamy," "Abolishment of Male and Female Distinctions" and ""Fundamental Nature of Marriage" arguments are simply arguments against same-sex marriage in general. Of course, arguments for and against ssm are relevant to the debate over the FMA, but I think it better to leave them in the article abount Same-Sex Marriage than to present them all here. --Fagles 00:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary and Ineffective 

message: The Senate votes by state section needs help. It lacks any form of context or explanation of when. what and why the following list is tacked on to this article. Davodd 17:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup - Senate votes by state 

message: "Several other states including Vermont, California, and Connecticut allow same-sex couples to enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships that provide all or most of the rights and responsibilities of marriage under state law, but forbid same-sex marriages."
Since I've never seen evidence of any civil union providing "all" of the rights and responsibilities of marriage, I'm going to be bold and edit it to "some or most." If someone can show me a state that provides all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage in a civil union for same-sex couples, feel free to edit it back.
I offer this as extra information: Civil Unions vs. Gay Marriage
Vancar 16:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "All or most" VS "Some or most" 

message: ;Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words:Too many instances of uncited "many believe" and "some (people)" = weasel words. - Davodd 17:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: I think the fact that less than a century ago there was a proposed interracial FMA, that would have banned marriages between Caucasians and non-Caucasians in the whole of the United States, should be mentioned somewhere.
See Anti-Miscegenation Amendment. - René van Buuren 14:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right and Wrong. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Loving was distinguishable and that State Laws defining marriage as the Union Between a man and a woman DO NOT offend the Constitution of the United States. The case then went before the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court dismissed the case "for want of a substantial federal question." Unlike a denial of certiorari, a dismissal for want of a substantial federal question constitutes a decision on the merits of the case, and as such, is binding precedent on all lower Federal Courts. While only a summary decision, Baker was a decision on the merits by the United States Supreme Court, and has been cited in numerous Court opinions since then. It was cited as absolutely controlling in Wilson v. Ake. Like it or not, the Summary decision in Baker v. Nelson 409 US 810 (1972) <-------- (Note the UNITED STATES REPORTER CITATION.) IS BINDING LAW on this issue, and that Summary affirmation confirms that reliance upon the Miscegenation comparison is misplaced. Ghostmonkey57 21:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for explaining that, however, it has little to do with my point. It confirms that the miscegenation comparison is misplaced as far as the Constitution of the United States is concerned, but my point was that it is an interesting parallel and it will be of interest to people reading this article. I'm not arguing about the laws or Constitution of the United States or anything like that. - René van Buuren 22:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interracial FMA in the 1910s 

message: The entire Arguments in favor / Family protection section seems to have been lifted, with minor edits, from here.  I'm still new to Wikipedia, and I don't want to do the wrong thing on a page about such a contentious subject... what's the process here? Fredtheflyingfrog 23:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I rewrote the quote. I summarized most of it in my own words. I did use a direct quote, and attributed it back to the author. This should fix the objections. Ghostmonkey57 13:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright Violation 

message: This section refers to Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, which was overturned.  It was a lower court, and a lot of lower court rulings get overturned.  I'm just not sure that it's at all that good of a reference for it to be a valid argument in any way. 72.206.97.34
:So does no one know of a more legitimate case? Adamsmo 07:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not matter that Equal Protection v. Bruning was overturned at the 8th Circuit, the reasoning used by the lower Court judge (appointed by William Jefferson Clinton), could in theory be applied by a future Court. Ghostmonkey57 04:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments in favor / Restriction of judicial overreach 

message: "Constitutionally defining marriage would not only remove the states' choice, but it would reverse the choices already made in some states, i.e., Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, California, New Jersey and Maine."
This wording makes it sound like the states' citizens chose to allow same-sex marriage (MA is the one I'm especially thinking of) when some of these states did not choose it but their Supreme Courts ruled for it under the equal protection clause. --71.65.202.41 07:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The FMA would reverse the decision in Massachsetts as regards to Homosexual "Marriage" but it WOULD NOT reverse the decisions in VT, CT, CA, NJ or ME. The Amendment would NOT prohibit State Legislators from enacting Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships. The Second Phrase of the Amendment reads: [i]"Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."[/i] Meaning that while Judges could not Construe the Constitution or any State or Federal law to require marital status or similar status be given to homosexuals, the State Legislators COULD enact such laws. Ghostmonkey57 16:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phrasing 

message: I have removed the following sentence from the article:
:Some historians call it "republican marriage" because, in the Founding Era, it was understood to be the basic social unit necessary to inculcate civic virtue and nurture the individual and social values essential for the survival of a republican (representative democracy) form of government.
This is an exact (unattributed) quote from the source cited, FMA Time: We need a Federal Marriage Amendment., National Review, Feb 17, 2004. (Accessed May 15, 2007). However, the source is not neutral as it is advocating for a position, it does not identify any such references, and a search for actual historical references turns up concepts quite different from that referred to by the article - for example, of a forced marriage between a "republican" soldier and an unwilling bride, or the French revolutionary practice of "republican marriage, which involved tying a naked man and woman together and drowning them.", , . Interestingly, another use refers to a "secular" marriage, with parents horrified to learn that their children planned a "republican marriage" instead of being married in a Church.,  bd2412 T 21:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence removed from article 

message: I removed the Domestic Abuse section from the arguments against the FMA. This really never had any actual merit, but I was waiting until the Ohio Supreme Court ruled to remove the section. It just did so: 
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2007/2007-Ohio-3723.pdf
The overwhelming majority of the appellate courts in Ohio had already ruled that the State Amendment did not conflict with the Domestic Violence Laws. Only two Appellate Courts ruled otherwise. Homosexual Activists seized on the minority cases to use as a scare tactic in other states. That scare tactic has just been removed with the OSC decision.
:It does not matter that the decision was overturned at the Ohio Supreme Court, the reasoning used by the two Appellate Court judges could in theory be applied by a federal court or a court in another state. -Fagles 19:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It most certainly does matter. The "reasoning" put forth by two of the Appellate Courts, stood in the face of the Constitution, the Marriage Amendment, and SETTLED LAW. The "reasoning" was put forward soley to advance scare tactics on the amendment. Everyone correctly predicted that the Ohio Supreme Court would strike it down. In no other jurisdiction was this even an issue. On top of it all, Ohio's Domestic Violence Statute is unique. In no way could the same situation be applied in other states, or at a Federal Level, as the Statutes in questions are not written the same way. I am REMOVING this scare tactic, please don't put it back. Ghostmonkey57 22:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No matterr what the ruling in Ohio, the information should remain in the article as it now serves as a means of historic context for the topic of the article. Include the new Ohio Supreme Court ruling, but the information should still be included in the article somewhere despite the fact that it appears to be an invalid arguement against the amendment. It was an arguement against/criticism of the amendment. ZueJay (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the argument was nonsense from the beginning. It was designed as a scare tactic to attempt to block other States from passing their own Marriage Amendments and to run interference against the FMA. Let me lay it for you. Ohio's Domestic Violence Statute was written in a very unique/awkward way, no other State has a statute written in the same manner. Even with this, only 2 of the 12 Appellate courts in Ohio tried to strike down the DV statute as it applies to un-married couples. Those two appellate courts just happened to be in the most liberal districts in Ohio. (Think agenda.) The other 6 or 7 appellate Courts that heard the issue said quite clearly that the Marriage Amendment did not interfere with the DV Statute. Yet homosexuals and homosexualists ran around the country trying to convince people in other States that their DV statutes were about to be struck down. Never mind that no other State has the same awkwardly written DV Statute, and nevermind that the majority of the appellate courts in Ohio rejected that argument. When the case got to the Supreme Court, the homosexualist fear-mongers were slapped down, and slapped down hard. The argument was not valid from the outset. Everyone, including the very liberal judges in the two appellate districts in Ohio that went along with the nonsense, knew that the State Supreme Court was going to say that the Marriage Amendment didn't conflict with the DV statutes. Homosexualists knew it as well. Yet they chose to continue to LIE to people in other States in an attempt to scare them out of passing amendments in their own States. The tactic didn't work anywhere except Arizona. Now that the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled, and considering that the argument was nonsense from the beginning, it's long past time for the fake scare tactic to be removed from this article. It's definatively not a valid argument. It would be the same as me putting a Pro-FMA argument that read: "If the FMA isn't passed aliens will come to earth and destroy the planet." The argument is a fraud, and should be removed. Ghostmonkey57 01:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good. Now, say this in a neutral tone, cite sources and incorporate it into the article. Is it not better to include a potential arguement and debunk it, then to simply not address it? If you were preparing for a debate, would you not want to know ALL of the opposing sides arguements so that you may counter them, than to simply not know and have them pull it out at the last minute and stump you? I also believe this element of information has relevance because it has been to more than one court (a state Supreme Court among them!), and it has been a factor in the public's perception of the FMA. ZueJay (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree.  This is a list of arguments that have been advanced, not a catalog of which arguments the editors think have merit.  In response to Ghostmonkey's criticism, I have restored the section and added a comment that some supporters of the FMA consider the argument to be invalid.  I encourage knowledgeable editors to improve this section with strong citations to sources explaining why supporters of the FMA consider this argument invalid.-Fagles 18:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes absolutely no sense. There are homosexual militants who have advanced the argument that the children of FMA supporters should be killed. Should we include that violent garbage in the arguments against the FMA? But, since you want a through debunking of the DV laws, I've done so for you. Complete with LEGAL citations from various AG and Court Opinions. Be careful what you ask for. Ghostmonkey57 19:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "Domestic Abuse" 

message: Vice President Dick Cheney (whose daughter, Mary Cheney, is lesbian[18])
Does this really need to be included in this article? What does this have to do with the legal issues around the amendment? Revolutionaryluddite 01:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think its neccessary to mention in this article. It is interesting to note, but might be considered infocreep here and is more appropriate to his and her bios. I didn't find a mention of any previous debates on this particular item in this article's archives. ZueJay (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the statement. Revolutionaryluddite 02:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 'lesbian daughter' thing again 

message: The FMA also would prevent judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples, as well as preventing people from having multiple spouses.
The FMA would not stop/terminate/cease/kill/destroy/end/(etc.) gay marriage. It would prevent the judiciary from requiring the federal government to granting specific rights and abilities to gay couples. Phrases such as "end gay marriage" and so on should be avoided in the article unless they're a direct quote. Using the phrase "ban gay marriage" is debatable; it's been used so often in the media, I think it should be left in.  Revolutionaryluddite 02:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The content/context seems baisically correct. Perhaps: "The FMA would prohibit judicial extension of federal marriage-like rights" ? I haven't tried to play with this sentence yet. There are no sources for the legal analyses of the various FMA versions; until sources are tracked down, I haven't really wanted to play too much with these generalizing interpretations of the effects of the FMA. ZueJay (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the first sentence is fine. My point is that phrases used later in the aricle such as "outlawed gay marriage" contradict what the first sentence says. Revolutionaryluddite 02:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Feel free to clean these up as best you can. It seems, technically, it might be "prohibit federal civil marriage of any non-heterosexual pairings". The phrasing is tricky because it quickly becomes cumbersome. This article is under a POV tag, and I know weasel words and phrases have been a problem. Your help, any help, with this would be great. ZueJay (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: weasel words and phrases have been a problem How so? Revolutionaryluddite 04:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. You don't sound sarcastic at all - just trying to understand. Well, I can point you here in the archives, but the editor is not very specific. Just like you pointed out, I would consider "outlaw gay marriage" to be a weasel phrase in several regards, mostly due to its imprecision in that it doesn't imply federal level, civil marriage only, it doesn't indicate that there are a broader range of folks affected by the Amendment (LGBT, polyamorous and unmarried heterosexual couples) and "outlaw" is awful assumptive. Unless this phrase is used in the arguments section, perhaps only in a quote, its weasel-y. The phrase "gay marriage" is similar to when folks use the phrase "gay adoption"; its not correct, nor precise, more of a shorthand method of referring to a particular happenstance. There's an interesting note I read recently in same-sex couple that mentions "bisexual erasure" when the term "gay" preceeds a particular item such as marriage instead of the term "same-sex". That kind of shorthand vernacular neglects a huge chunk of the communities that are affected by these policies, laws, amendments, etc. There are not as many instances in the article of this issue as there used to be. ZueJay (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phrasing 

message: "yea" and "nay" votes? Is that correct? Shouldn't it be more formal?
--Heero Kirashami (talk) 04:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the U.S., that is the formal for voting. Kingturtle (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Umm... 

message: I see that this section has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Although I'm no specialist on this subject (in fact, not even American) I gave it a quick once-over... and my view is that the first half of the section isn't too bad, but that after that it descends into very clear POV. The markers for "weasel words" are one thing, but I think that second half needs a complete overhaul and rewrite by editors familiar with the subject, and that any such rewrite must have full references from the start. Phrases like "has proven to be a farce" have no place on Wikipedia outside of quotes. Loganberry (Talk) 03:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would propose removing the section altogether. While opponents of the FMA have brought up the "unmarried heterosexual couples" argument time and time again, they have been proven wrong when it comes to a matter of law. Specifically there are WP:Weight issues to make reference to the decisions of two of the appellate Courts in Ohio, since the other 8 appellate Courts specifically disagreed with that holding. When the issue was finally decided by the Ohio Supreme Court, the lower court decisions are no longer binding in any way. Additionally, no other State had a Domestic Violence Statute similar in nature to Ohio's, so it would have been legally impossible for the FMA to affect DV laws as opponents indicate. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 06:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some re-wording, removing all the sections that contained weasel word and neutrality tags. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Unmarried heterosexual couples" section 

message: From the article (emphasis mine):
:: On July 14, 2004, a cloture motion to force a direct vote on the FMA was defeated in the Senate by a margin of 50 nay votes to 48 yea votes. The two missing votes were those of John Kerry and John Edwards, who chose to remain on the Presidential campaign trail. The 48 votes in support of the cloture motion were 12 votes short of the 60-vote supermajority (three-fifths) needed to end debate and force a vote on the Amendment itself. A number of Republicans joined Democrats in voting against the cloture motion, citing concerns about the Amendment's wording and the principle of extending federal power into an area of policy traditionally managed by states.
The wording of the bolded seems to indicate that the missing votes being present would have changed the outcome, especially since the difference between the vote counts was two. From the rest of the text, it appears the vote would have become 50v50 instead of 50v48, and since the requirement was 60 votes the outcome would have been the same.
First, please correct me if I'm wrong on the above.
Second, is a senator being absent for a cloture vote unusual? If not, I'd remove this sentence entirely. If it is unusual, could it be moved to the end of the section, and re-worded to: John Kerry and John Edwards did not vote on the motion, remaining on the Presidential campaign trail. The reasoning is that it seems logically grouped with the party voting lines, and less substantive; and also that the supermajority description should follow the vote count.
Sorry to be so verbose, this seems like it might be politically sensitive ;) ❪User:tunah❘✎❫ 07:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be of interest that once and future presidential candidate John McCain was one of the handful of Republicans who voted against cloture. bd2412 T 15:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kerry/Edwards absence text misleading? 

message: I have nominated this article due to the loaded language without rebuke, even on the first line we have "Marriage Protection Amendment" with no discussion as to the controversy this name may have for example homosexual couples would argue with this, I no it's a small thing, but it is an example of such phrases present in the article. --193.170.20.110 (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the lead from "also known as" to "also referred to by proponents as" to make clear the source of this conceptual protection. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loaded Phrases 

message: If the 2004, 2005-2006, and 2008 proposals all have the exact same wording, why repeat the wording three times? Why not just say in the appropriate sections that the later proposals used the same language as the 2004 proposal? bd2412 T 15:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hearing no objection, I've taken care of these. bd2412 T 01:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uneeded repetition. 

message: Why would this be an Obama-related article? I don't recall his ever having expressed interest in the topic, and as President he has no constitutional authority to effect an Amendment anyway. bd2412 T 21:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But he voted against the amendment in 2006 (when he was a Senator). The White House website states that Obama opposes ANY constitutional definition of "marriage". --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe so, but if we tagged every article for which Obama made a relevant vote or took a position, then anything with any political bearing would be in WP:OBAMA. Or, based on the Civil rights document (and undoubtedly on votes taken), do you plan to add employment discrimination, hate crime and racial profiling to WP:OBAMA as well? bd2412 T 01:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:Obama? 

message: I removed the quote of this case for several reasons. First however I'll note that while this particular case is inappropriate, there are likely other cases from which you could pull a similar quote. Some reasons why this one is inappropriate (off the top of my head):
*1) This case has nothing to do with marriage and therefore any reference to marriage is mere dicta. This excerpt from the case has never had any binding effect on any court - no court has ever had to follow it and none ever will.
*2) The statement is incorrect. It is not true that the states have the absolute "right to prescribe the conditions upon which the marriage relation between its own citizens shall be created, and the causes for which it may be dissolved." For example, no state could enact a law or amend its constitution to prohibit miscegenation today. The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 - just ten years before this case was decided. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses makes it abundantly clear that any such attempt by a state would be found unconstitutional.
*3) This case was decided over 130 years ago. The part of the case that actually did have legal effect has since been overruled (or most of it anyway). Citing an old case that has been overruled, and indeed citing it for something that is mere dicta, is not appropriate.LegalAdvocate (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quoting Pennoyer v. Neff is inappropriate 

message: "FMA proponents argue that opposite-sex marriage in the United States has been given special legal protection. This protection has historically been granted only to the unique institution of marriage as the cradle for the family and to legitimize lines of inheritance. Proponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment argue that same-sex marriage advocates want to disregard federalism and enact same-sex marriage nationwide via judicial fiat, then the Federal Marriage Amendment is necessary to protect the institution of conjugal marriage by nationally preventing other forms of marriage.[citation needed]"
Can we please put something in this section about the separation of powers? I'm so tired of seeing this stupid argument without any context. Judges only do their jobs. There is no "imposing" or "activism" going on here. 174.58.138.200 (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither of those words are in the text you quoted. More importantly, that section is specifically given an argument in favor. From many advocates' point of view, the concept of "judicial fiat" does exist. Naturally, this is disputed, just like the proposed amendment itself. Superm401 - Talk 00:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection of conjugal marriage 

message: Shouldn't "Definition of gender" be under Arguments Against rather than Arguments For? Waynesewell (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it entirely, since it has no source (for over a year). Unfortunately, the page in general is low on sources, but I think this is a border-line argument to begin with. In my opinion, most supporters and opponents are probably not talking much about it. Feel free to put it back in if you find a source. Superm401 - Talk 00:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullet in wrong place?