| Revision as of 15:35, 7 April 2016 editAntinoos69 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,356 edits →Comma fight← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 11:37, 10 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,210 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] |
| (312 intermediate revisions by 49 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{GA nominee|03:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)|nominator=]<sup>]</sup> 😜|page=2|subtopic=Law|status=onhold|note=}} |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{not a forum|Obergefell v. Hodges}} |
|
{{Not a forum|Obergefell v. Hodges}} |
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
{{ITN talk|26 June|2015}} |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
|
| action1 = GAN |
|
{{WikiProject SCOTUS|class=c|importance=top}} |
|
|
|
| action1date = 06:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
{{WikiProject Law|class=C|importance=high}} |
|
|
|
| action1link = /GA2 |
|
{{WikiProject Human rights|class=C|importance=high}} |
|
|
|
| action1result = Not listed |
|
{{WikiProject LGBT studies|class=C}} |
|
|
|
| action1oldid = 714354728 |
|
{{WikiProject United States|class=C|importance=high}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Ohio|class=c|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
|
| itndate = 26 June 2015 |
|
|
| otd1date = 2018-06-26 | otd1oldid = 847573208 |
|
|
|otd2date=2021-06-26|otd2oldid=1030516985 |
|
|
|action2 = FAC |
|
|
|action2date = 2022-05-24 |
|
|
|action2link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Obergefell v. Hodges/archive1 |
|
|
|action2result = failed |
|
|
|action2oldid = 1088768540 |
|
|
| currentstatus = FFAC |
|
|
|
|
|
| topic = Law |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Law|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject LGBT studies}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Ohio|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Twenty-Tens decade |importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{Wiki Loves Pride talk|2015}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{check talk wp}} |
|
|
{{tmbox |
|
|
| type = notice |
|
|
| image = ] |
|
|
| style = CSS values |
|
|
| textstyle = CSS values |
|
|
| text = This article follows '']'' for citations. It uses that manual's ] for all citations that are not uniquely or primarily web-based, which includes using '']'' (see banner below) for uniquely legal sources. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations and has specific typeface formatting requirements. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Online information on this referencing style may be obtained at . |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{tmbox |
|
|
| type = notice |
|
|
| image = ] |
|
|
| style = CSS values |
|
|
| textstyle = CSS values |
|
|
| text = This article follows the ]. It uses the '']'' legal referencing style '''for legal citations only'''. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations and has specific typeface formatting requirements. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at: site. |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Banner holder|collapsed=yes|{{annual readership|scale=log}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 75K |
|
|
|counter = 4 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 2 |
|
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|
|archive =Talk:Obergefell v. Hodges/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{DISPLAYTITLE:Talk:''Obergefell v. Hodges''}} |
|
{{DISPLAYTITLE:Talk:''Obergefell v. Hodges''}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== The very first sentence == |
|
== Other Cases == |
|
|
An editor's feedback has prompted me to raise a question. What should constitute the criteria that make a case relevant enough to ''Obergefell v. Hodges'' to be included in the section about related cases? Prior to my edit to include ''Davis v. Ermold et al.''only one case was present, ''Pavan v. Smith''. In both cases, Obergefell is apparently strengthened and in both cases Obergefell is explicitly mentioned. Are there other cases as of yet that should be added? Or, is the section itself relevant and needed? Thoughts?] (]) 02:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: The entire section is certainly unnecessary. However, given the high-profile nature of the subject, if people want the section, then have at it. |
|
Dear colleges, I disagree with the very first sentence of the article. It says: "is a federal lawsuit suing for the recognition by Ohio of same-sex marriage validly established in other jurisdictions." But wait a minute: why we again forget, that this title is not '''only''' refers to the Ohio case. Here and after this is a title '''of all cases''' regarding SSM. Don't you realize (?) that this will be the title of the '''most landmark case''' during this year. All other courts, while hearing cases regarding SSM, will be referring to '''this title''' to use it like a ]. So this case is not '''only''' about recognition of SSM established in other jurisdictions, this case is about constitutionality of SSM by itself. ] (]) 11:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The four cases have been consolidated for briefing and argument, but they are not now a single case. There are 4 appeals under way in four cases and some filings address only one of the four cases, some all four. The second sentence makes this fairly clear. Can't we trust the reader to read that too? Note as well that SCOTUS emphasized this distinction when it posed two questions but told the parties to address only the question(s) appropriate ''to their specific case''. There will be plenty of time to adapt the entry as events unfold. Likely someday O v. H will be best described as a Supreme Court decision, not a case. And should things go that way we'll want to summarize all the cases in this entry. But we're not there yet. You're statement "will be referring" is just the sort of prediction we have to be wary of. Who knows what surprises the next few weeks will bring? ] (]) 12:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Bmclaughlin9 is right. As of right now, the Obergefell case mainly describes the Ohio lawsuit. Bmc9's done a good job at explaining the US Supreme Court consolidation and use of the title. People will read the whole paragraph, not just the first sentence. It will inevitably change to what you describe when the Supreme Court rules in June. ] {{su|p= ] |b= ]|fontsize=1.5ex}} 05:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::'''Agree'''. Until the Supreme Court this summer gives an official ruling on both of the questions it asked and it titles the ruling as ''Obergefell'', the introduction of this article is appropriate. While we want to, do not allow us to jump too far into the future on what will happen. ] (]) 03:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a bit surprised that the article was given the lowest level of importance on the legal scale. It's certainly very notable - the number of erudite discussions by lawyers admitted to argue before the Supreme Court is considerable, never mind the discussions among gays and Christians who don't like gays. |
|
|
In any event, it's a well written beginning. I understand the rational behind the structure of the first paragraph though I think a clearer beginning would have been easier to grasp.] (]) 16:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Becoming too in-depth == |
|
|
So I see people are now adding the questions and quotes that the justices said during oral argument. This is not encyclopedia appropriate. That is something to be reported in journalism and in the news, not here. When the justices issue formal opinions, those are what should be quoted, not questions during oral argument. I propose removing all of those justice questions and quotes. ] (]) 03:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think wikipedia is going to get full any time soon. It is fine to add more information so long as the introductory sections remain terse. Isn't wikipedia's/wikimedia's goal to get all human knowelge in a free format? ] (]) 15:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== When and why was it retitled "Hodges"? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I see a note explaining when and why it was changed from Obergefell v. Wymyslo to Obergefell v. Himes; shouldn't there be one explaining when and why it was changed from Obergefell v. Himes to Obergefell v. Hodges? ] (]) 09:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:It was presumably retitled when ] took over as Director of the Ohio Department of Health (last August, according to our article). This is not uncommon; for example '']'' was originally called ''Perry v. Schwarzenegger'' and became ''Perry v. Brown'' when Jerry Brown succeeded Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor of California. ] (]) 17:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: But, shouldn't all this be explained in the article? That is, the various permutations of the name, and how/why they came to be. ] (]) 21:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I agree, it should be explained. Currently, the change to Himes is simply sourced to a news piece that details Himes replacing Wymyslo as director, and the source does not mention the case at all, so would anyone object to me finding a source for Hodges' appointment to that post and using it to explain the change to Hodges? ] (]) 22:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Going to use on the Ohio DoH page to source an explanation. ] (]) 09:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Baker v. Nelson == |
|
|
|
|
|
I see from the edit history that we're getting into a possible edit war concerning if Baker v. Nelson was overturned. It's being removed, put back, removed, etc. I wanted to mention that on page 5 of the opinion, it states specifically that "Baker v. Nelson is overruled." I haven't done any of the edits but did want to provide a reference. Thanks. --] (]) 16:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Short term semi-protection == |
|
|
|
|
|
Noting that I have applied 3-day semi-protection because of the level of disruptive editing, mainly from IPs. Any administrator can modify the protection as they feel appropriate. ] (]) 18:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Dissenting opinions == |
|
|
|
|
|
Didn't each of the dissenting justices each write their own opinion? This is uncommon in SCOTUS decisions and should probably be mentioned more clearly. ] (]) 18:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It's very rare, and yes, they did. I haven't seen a source yet that says it's rare, though. Just SCOTUS Blog's live feed which we can't really cite. ~ <b>]</b><sup>]</sup> 18:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
On a broader note, it seems to me that the section could do with more information on the other three dissents that were written, perhaps with a quote from each.] (]) <span style="font-size:smaller;" class="autosigned"> — Preceding ] comment added 20:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
This section is woefully inadequate, as the current tag indicates. I am ''not'' a fan of block quoting dissents more than majority opinions—let alone of producing lists of block quotes without further commentary. I think we should dump the last three block quotes, replacing them with a concise paragraph summarizing the other three dissents. That paragraph can contain several shorter quotes, of course. ] (]) 07:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
S51438, I'm the one who first edited your dissents section; I forgot to sign in. I have some concerns about your new version of the section. First, I'm ''extremely'' put off by dissent sections that far exceed their corresponding majority-decision sections in length. Dissents aren't law, after all. Certainly this could be presented ''much'' more concisely. Second, Thomas gets unbalanced treatment, despite, I think, being the most interesting dissent. Third, there's an awful lot of repetition and redundancy here. We really don't have to hear multiple times about lack of judicial restraint, judicial tyranny, terminating the democratic process, and whatnot. Fourth, the level of detail in the section is excessive both with regard to the majority-decision section and for an encyclopedia article. We don't need a play-by-play broadcast. People can just read the decision. Besides, aside from Roberts' decision, which is actually the main one, there's just not much to see. Here's the sort of thing I have in mind: one well-crafted paragraph on what the decisions have in common, which is typically a lot; and another well-crafted paragraph on what is unique to each, which is surprisingly little. That second paragraph might be expanded into a very few, one per decision, or be variously structured (e.g, with bullet points)—provided there be persuasive reason(s) for so doing. There's just far too much here for far too little. And did I mention it's repetitive, like the dissents themselves? Just checking. ] (]) 05:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Section on impact?== |
|
|
Can we add a section on the impact and reactions to the court case? I would do it myself but the article appears to be protected... ] (]) 22:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think that's a great idea. We could probably even create a separate article for the reactions, considering how many reactions there have already been. ] (]) 13:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
: , not present on WikiMedia. ] (]) 13:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Amicus curiae == |
|
|
|
|
|
Where are the amicus curiae? ], the Solicitor General, was one. ] (]) 22:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Rating assessments == |
|
|
|
|
|
All of the WikiProject rating assessments at the top of this page are "low importance" or "mid importance" (in one case). Should they be "upgraded" (to "high importance")? If so, how is that done? ] (]) 00:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:I would think this of high importance in many areas labeled mid importance right now. This ruling has overturned state laws and state constitutional amendments and has a massive, far-reaching impact on both LGBT issues and first amendment rights. ] (]) 02:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::I don't know. The effects are felt in only one country, one where recognition of same-sex marriage was pretty widespread already; this was the final step. I think mid-importance is correct. First country to recognize same-sex marriage would be high importance. ] (]) 03:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I ''might'' disagree. The United States is now the most populous country by a very large margin to legalize same-sex marriage. ] ] 03:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: The very first line of the article call this a "landmark" case. How can it be a landmark, but "only" low-level or mid-level importance? ] (]) 21:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Map == |
|
|
|
|
|
At some point, this article is going to need a map similar to the ones found on the ] and ] pieces. ] (]) 05:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2015 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Obergefell v. Hodges|answered=yes}} |
|
|
<!-- Begin request --> |
|
|
|
|
|
In the first introductory paragraph, I believe the correct grammatical construction to use should be "neither .. nor," as opposed to "neither ... or," as is currently being used. I have copy-pasted the original and the recommended change below. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Under the ruling, states, neither through legislation or referendum, may ban same-sex marriages, and those unions must be recognized in all jurisdictions." |
|
|
|
|
|
TO: |
|
|
|
|
|
"Under the ruling, states, neither through legislation nor referendum, may ban same-sex marriages, and those unions must be recognized in all jurisdictions." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- End request --> |
|
|
] (]) 18:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ESp -->, thanks! --''']''' <small>(])</small> 18:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::That seems a bit awkward. Maybe simplify it as "Under the ruling, states may not ban same-sex marriages through legislation or referendum, and those unions must be recognized in all jurisdictions."] (]) 15:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Gallery of images related to SCOTUS' June 26 ruling on marriage equality == |
|
|
|
|
|
Apologies if this comment is not entirely related to this Misplaced Pages article specifically, but I created a page for images related to SCOTUS' June 26 ruling on marriage equality as part of the annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which seeks to improve LGBT-related content on Wikimedia projects. If you took photographs of celebrations, protests, landmarks (Stonewall Inn, the rainbow-lit White House, etc) following the SCOTUS ruling, or wish to transfer images from Flickr, please add them to ] to illustrate reactions around the United States: ]. Thanks for your consideration. ---] <sub>(])</sub> 18:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
: - not sure where to place them. ] (]) 15:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Actually, I wonder if it might be worth adding a couple of these images to the article, specifically the "reaction" section. There may even be enough images to justify a Commons category related to this court ruling. Again, images are welcome at ] in the meantime. ----] <sub>(])</sub> 17:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Underlined empty space in lead== |
|
|
What is this underlined empty space after "576 U.S." in the lead? Should it be there? ] (]) 12:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Yes, it should. That's a holding place where the page number will go when the volume containing the decision is published. __] (]) 17:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Has there not been anything written on the wider effect of the ruling? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Presumably once it's ruled that marriage is no longer just between one man and one woman you can no longer outlaw any kind of marriage, right? So wouldn't this make polygamy legal? Can a parent marry one of his/her children? Can siblings marry? Shouldn't there be something on this in the article? __] (]) 18:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Picklepedia is not speculative. ] (]) 18:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Sorry, don't know what "Picklepedia" is. I wasn't suggesting anyone speculate, just report what what is being said in other sources, since one of the most important consequences of court decisions is the wider effect it has on other situations. I also corrected your indenting. __] (]) 21:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*You have brought up an important future issue as the majority opinion was very broadly construed and Chief Justice Roberts stated so in his dissenting opinion. Polygamy is certain to be argued as a right and rightly so based on the majority opinion. Many states currently imprison polygamists and all outlaw polygamy. Currently imprisoned polygamists now have a concrete argument that their civil rights have been violated under the new interpretation of the 14th amendment. They also have a strong case for civil damages against the state for imprisoning them and all legal costs to defend their new civil rights. They also have been subjugated to religious intolerance as polygamy has a long history of acceptance among many religions. This may also bring in Sharia law as they have a long history of managing polygamy. ] (]) 06:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::This is not a forum for discussing your various personal and speculative interpretations of the case. This is for the purpose of improving the article in line with Wiki guidelines. Please refrain from speculation and POV pushing in the Talk page. There are a million and five places to have those discussions on the internet. This is not one of them. ] (]) 15:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Reaction== |
|
|
I'm noticing that the reactions section of the article focus too much on the negative reception and only briefly focuses on the positive reaction the ruling got from both politicians as well as the rest of the country. --] (]) 22:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:While there isn't a huge difference in text, yes, there seems to be more attention given to the conservatives complaining about the ruling than to those in support. Obergefell and Obama in support vs. Austin Nimocks, the ''National Catholic Register'', ''Christian Today'', and "some conservatives". ] ] 15:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Opportunity to avoid some possible misunderstanding == |
|
|
|
|
|
This comment is based upon version of the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
In the second sentence of the lede, it says:<blockquote>Decided on June 26, 2015, Obergefell requires all states to issue a license to marry between all people of the same sex and it requires all states to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions.<sup></sup></blockquote> which could be misleading, or could lend itself to misinterpretation. |
|
|
|
|
|
The phrase "all people of the same sex" could be interpreted as meaning, regardless of age. Aren't there (lower) age limits, at least in some states, for being able to get married? I think the age limits apply, just the same, no matter whether the people are "of the same sex" or not. (right?) |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, the phrase "all people of the same sex" could be interpreted as meaning, regardless of whether it is two persons, or 3 or more. Maybe it is obvious (to those skilled in the art), that the law -- -- does not provide for legal recognition of a polyamorous relationship of 3 or more persons, as a marriage. However, ] an article in ] should not rely upon the assumption that the reader already knows a certain fact, if it is '''easy''' to add a word or two, (or three) to clarify things, to "rule out" an incorrect interpretation. ...and, (]) that is true even if the "certain fact" is one that is (in someone's opinion) obvious. ] it should ] be clarified, even if the "certain fact" is one that is obvious in '''everyone's''' opinion! |
|
|
|
|
|
Just my 0.02. ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
Hence, because of those reasons, I propose to change the above <nowiki>"<blockquote>d"</nowiki> sentence, to read this:<blockquote>Decided on June 26, 2015, Obergefell requires all states to issue a license to marry between any two persons of marriageable age (even if they are of the same sex) and it requires all states to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions.<sup></sup></blockquote>instead. |
|
|
|
|
|
Although, I would certainly be open to the suggestion that the parenthetical phrase '''"(even if they are of the same sex)"''' might be optional, there. Or, the suggestion to keep the phrase, but to get rid of the parentheses. Or other suggestions. |
|
|
|
|
|
So, ... (before I start editing), '''...Any comments?''' --] (]) 19:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Majority Opinion == |
|
|
While we need a section to help explain the majority opinion, we do not need it explained section by section. This is not a law journal. Let's use credible sources to construct a summary description of the majority opinion; and let's look to other Supreme Court Cases, especially landmark ones, to see how in-depth and far the section needs to go. but to go into "Section I-A, B, C, II... etc etc" is too much and overly complicated. ] (]) 00:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ATTENTION: Dire Need for Basic Editing == |
|
|
|
|
|
This article requires extensive editing for grammar (all aspects) and sense. I have begun but could use some help. My time is limited.] (]) 19:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
* Well, it turns out I made some time. I've completed one read straight through the article, making appropriate edits. I standardized to lowercase "court," since the first references were mostly lowercase, despite the tendency to capitalize in legal circles. We should decide which is best, or declare what standard Wiki practice is, if there is one. I also believe there may be some inconsistency in capitalizing "clause," as in "Equal Protection Clause." I believe it is standard to capitalize, but I'm quite done for tonight. ] (]) 11:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
* I have standardized all instances of "court" in reference to SCOTUS to the capitalized "Court," and have capitalized all proper-noun instances of "clause" as "Clause"--provided I didn't miss anything, of course. ] (]) 07:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Combing dissenting opinions? == |
|
|
|
|
|
The dissenting opinions are very lengthy, as I'm sure everyone can see. One editor suggested combining similar elements. I think this is easier said than done. From the three I have examined (excluding Roberts), the opinions are all quite different so far, so combining them might prove difficult. Perhaps after I finish Roberts, we can begin to merge the ideas found throughout the four. ] (]) 05:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
* I wrote just now under "Dissenting opinions." I actually find the dissents much more similar than different, aside from Roberts—at times mind numbingly so. ] (]) 05:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
* Okay, STOP! This section is now completely out of hand. It is several times longer than the majority section. And don't start hurling stuff by the truckload into that section, either. That section is just about the right length. This dissents section, on the other hand, is now officially insane. You need to drastically cut it down to a digestible length, one worth reading in lieu of the decisions themselves. Step back and take an objective look at what you've done, and are doing, here. It's crazy. I never thought I'd long for the list of four block quotes, but I now am. ] (]) 05:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
** {{reply to |Antinoos69}} Who are you to make the determination that "is just about right right length"? Perhaps you should go to '']'' and "drastically cut it down to a digestible length" as well, since you write condensed law review articles for a living. And perhaps you could also be just as rude to those editors as well. Don't speak to me as if I am the sole editor of this article. I have looked at those blank sections for months, and while I was busy actually contributing to them, YOU were ready to tear down anything that others created, even if it was comparable to other Supreme Court decision articles. Good day. ] (]) 14:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*** I'm sorry my conversational tone isn't to your personal taste, but I otherwise have no idea what you're talking about. I had looked up several other SC cases on here and made my comments accordingly. In fact, I would cite '']'' both for my "right length" and the need drastically to cut down your section. So you ''really'' can't see that your section was drastically out of any even remotely reasonable proportions? ''Really''? I find that exceedingly difficult to believe. I think you need to step back, take a few breaths, and take an objective few second looks at what you were doing here. ] (]) 19:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
**** {{reply to |Antinoos69}} Yes, I was contributing, and made clear I would shorten the dissents later. You thought the need for revision was so drastic, that it had to be done immediately, which is fine. Unless I see you do something with the Roberts opinion soon, I will write it myself as I see fit. Then I will leave it to ''you'' to shrink it down, since this is apparently what you do. A few important facts your ignore. |
|
|
***** The ''Obergefell'' majority opinion takes up 658 words on Misplaced Pages, while the ''Roe'' opinion takes up 1,291 words, nearly twice as long. The ''Roe'' opinion is 11,644 words long, while the ''Obergefell'' opinion is 8,524 words long. Either ''Roe'' needs to be shortened, or ''Obergefell'' needs to be lengthened to make up for the lack of congruence. |
|
|
***** Your summarizing of the dissents, obviously with the intention of making them equal to each other, has made Samuel Alito's dissent shockingly over-represented, while Thomas' dissent is just as much underrepresented. As I'm sure you know, Thomas' opinion is over twice the length of both Alito's and Scalia's. How that warrants ''what you have done here'' is not ascertainable, unless Misplaced Pages has dissolved from a place to find accurate information into a website overly-obsessed with things looking deceptively nice. |
|
|
**** Personally I find your summaries drastically out of any even remotely reasonable proportions, but of course, I will not change the summaries you have created. Others can go without this information if that suits you, for clearly, this is ''your job'', not mine. ] (]) 20:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
***** I can see you're being doggedly irrational and there's simply no talking with you. Nevertheless, I'll waste a tad bit of time to make some points. The ''Roe'' majority section occupies about 2 1/2 screens on my device, while ''Obergefell'' occupies a bit over two. That's comparable in my book. The ''Roe'' dissent section, on the other hand, is just over a screen, ''shorter'' than the majority, while your and the current iterations of the ''Obergefell'' dissent are, at the shortest, twice as long as ''Roe'''s—I rather not even recall the original length of your version. My purpose in abridging your original version had nothing whatsoever to do with the lengths of the individual dissents. I was merely doing what I could to squeeze the entire dissent section down to the length of the majority section, by screens on my device, while changing your actual words as little as possible. I see how appreciated those efforts were. Now, the Roberts dissent does certainly need some tweaking, but should not significantly exceed its current length, unless you make the other dissents cumulatively shorter. As for why I bother saying any of this, I'll have to take it up with a therapist. And, btw, we should probably forget about combining common elements of the dissents, as it doesn't seem to be a common practice around here. Suffice it to say that I'll be keeping watch over the lengths of these sections, which is all that I'll leave you with on the matter. ] (]) 12:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* I agree the length of the dissenting opinions is getting too long. It's going into depth that would be appropriate for a formal law review or college level analysis. I would focus on the very direct main points that would contribute to this as an encyclopedia article. Each dissent can have a small explanation, but the way it is now is just too long. Not all opinions are created equal. The reason why Scalia is explained in the ''Lawrence'' and ''Windsor'' pages are fair because judges have consistently quoted his dissents in their rulings. And look how short it is there. Short, simple, and to the point. That's how it should be here. ] (]) 00:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
** I wholeheartedly agree that the dissents should focus narrowly and briefly on the main points, and fairly few of them. Instead, we seem to have now something of a play-by-play broadcast, which is much less engaging, and much more difficult to abridge, though you might have noticed I've given the task the old college try. I'm just loathe largely to replace an editor's words with my own—at least at first. I'm hoping the composing editor will try his/her hand at it soon. ] (]) 03:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*And as a comment on the comparison to the length of ''Roe'' and its sections to this one, that is not a good analogy. ''Roe'' was over forty years ago, has had several challenges to overturn, and has huge legal precedent (now bound by the restrictions outlined in ''Casey''). The opinions of ''Roe'' are still litigated virtually every day in courts all around the US. And it continues to be one of the most politically consequential court cases of all time. ''Obergefell'' just happened this summer. It's legacy in society and in future courts has not had time to play out. Even the ''Lawrence'' and ''Windsor'' cases are not close to as long as this one. ] (]) 00:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Banning User S51438 == |
|
|
|
|
|
User S51438 is now completely off the rails, severely vandalizing the article. Can someone take appropriate action? I am unschooled in such matters. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
*{{reply to|Antinoos69}} You just expressed concern for "changing another editor's work". Guess what? This is ''my work''. I have written 95% of the majority opinion and dissenting opinions, and when I do WHAT YOU HAVE TOLD ME TO DO, you suggest banning me? You are too much. ] (]) 05:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
** You have clearly lost your mind and need to be stopped. That much is obvious. ] (]) 05:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
***{{reply to|Antinoos69}} Not really, just shortening the majority and dissenting opinions to their bare constitutional analysis, leaving out anything else. This is what you have suggested already. ] (]) 05:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
***{{reply to|Antinoos69}} If you have no qualms about leaving that paragraph there, while the dissents do not mention anything of that sort, then by all means, at least some of my original work is maintained. ] (]) 05:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
****{{ping|S51438}} and {{ping|Antinoos69}} - Both of you must stop reverting each other until a consensus is reached. As I mentioned on your talk pages you shouldn't edit war even if you are correct. As this is a content dispute I suggest you two take it to ]. If you keep reverting each other at this rate both of you will get blocked or the article will be fully protected. Rather than accusing each other, find a way to solve this dispute collaboratively. Best way to deal with a situation like this is to ] -- ] ] 05:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
**** S51438, what Gabe and I suggested concerned the dissents section, not the majority. Dissents and majorities differ markedly. In this case, given the number of dissents, it would be impossible to treat them alike without producing an unacceptably long dissents section, one that overwhelms the majority opinion, drowning it in a sea of verbiage. The dissents can not exceed the majority section, which would be a balance problem. To ensure that, one should be more generally topical and thematic with the dissents. Generally speaking, it is neither necessary nor desirable to explain every detail, point, or argument in any decision. Selection must be made for readability and emphasis in the space available and prudent. |
|
|
**** So I propose: (a) that you leave the majority as it was before today; and (b) that you focus on distilling each dissent to its two or three most extensive points, very briefly developed, adding drive-by references to a couple of lesser but noteworthy points, space provided, making sure not to significantly exceed the majority in length, cumulatively. It it could be shorter, so much the better, but that may require avoiding discussing the dissents (entirely) separately. |
|
|
**** I suggest we now sleep on it, doing nothing for about a day. Perhaps others will chime in by then. ] (]) 06:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, I don't really understand that little box thingy up above, or how it works, so I'll be blunt. If discussion of this matter doesn't occur on this talk page, and if I don't get any direct, unmissable messages about whatever discussion is going on, complete with clear and complete instructions on how to participate, not only will I likely not end up taking part in such discussions, I wouldn't even be able to discover such discussions are so much as taking place. Some of us are very old school. ] (]) 06:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{ping|Antinoos69}} It's a way of requesting uninvolved editors to participate in a discussion. A bot (a computer program that performs automated tasks) will notify editors who are watching the particular category, in this case ]. I've requested for comments as a part of dispute resolution process. It's easier to establish a clearer consensus when many editors are involved in a discussion. Comments will be posted here so you don't have to worry about replying elsewhere. You can participate in the discussion in the same way you posted your comments. -- ] ] 06:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Comment:''' I am writing in response to the request for comments. As a preliminary matter, I urge editors to follow the guidelines in ] and ]. Given the fact that the separate dissents utilize different jurisprudential approaches, I suggest creating separate subsections for the separate dissents. If you look at some of the better GA and FA SCOTUS articles with multiple concurring or dissenting opinions (especially cases where Justices take separate theoretical approaches to the legal issues involved), most create separate subsections for separate dissenting or concurring opinions. See, for example, '']'' and '']''. This is not to say that you can't ever combine separate dissenting opinions into one sub-section, but if you want to devote a paragraph or more to each opinion, then I think separate sub-sections are appropriate. |
|
|
|
|
|
: I also urge editors to follow ] and ] by providing inline citations to the slip opinion when summarizing opinions, per ] (see ]). Because it is so easy to mischaracterize legal arguments, it is particularly important for editors to provide inline citations (ideally at the end of every sentence) with a pinpoint-citation to the page(s) of the slip opinion on which those arguments appear. I would also recommend that editors keep summaries of dissenting opinions to no more than a paragraph or two, so that the article is easily digestible for readers. Likewise, I strongly encourage editors to avoid using large, block quotations, which can often be summarized in far fewer words. -- ] (]) 00:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Wow, talk about brevity being the soul of wit in your cited cases. At the risk of throwing fuel on the fire, I might note that the notability and high profile of this case may require just a tad more dedicated space. I do, however, appreciate the more distilled, thematic summaries, as opposed to a more thorough, sequential approach. |
|
|
:: I look forward to more comments, though my comments and editing may be sporadic until early next week, as my schedule of (real-world) duties and obligations is rather tight at the moment. ] (]) 12:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
If there are no objections, I am ready to edit the dissents section according to everyone's comments, other than S51438. I will wait at least about a day, to give users time to chime in. A little thereafter, I plan to massage the majority section just a bit, in accord with users' comments about majority opinions, citation, and whatnot. ] (]) 14:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
: I have edited the two sections, which I believe should remain comparable in length. I think it may be nice to add a photo of Justice Roberts to the section specifically dedicated to his dissent, as his is the main one. Unfortunately, I am not sufficiently knowledgable about such things. Could someone else do it? ] (]) 05:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Comment''' <small>summoned by bot</small> This appears to be a malformed RfC. You cannot expect editors to come in here and take sides in a dispute of this nature. What is required is a concrete proposal; the RfC then determines if there is consensus for the proposal. ] (]) 01:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::The whole point of RFC is to arrive at consensus through resolving a dispute. As ] states, it "is an informal process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content". Involving in this process doesn't necessarily mean you have to take any sides. You just have to present your opinion as an ]. If the process is so complicated that more than two editors are involved in the dispute, then ] is the place. -- ] ] 02:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::I have to agree that this is a poorly created RFC.] (]) 00:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Request for photos == |
|
|
|
|
|
I sense something of a need for at least two more photos—alright, I've been discovering them lately. I think the Sixth Circuit section could use a pic of the court building, activity outside the court during argument or the rendering of the decision, or, failing any such, a pic of the author of the decision that helped trigger SCOTUS review. Also, the Lawsuit section could really use a pic of Obergefell. I can't find any such photos on Wiki Media or Wiki Commons. There actually is a pic of Obergefell, File:Marriage rally (18997214650).jpg, but Obergefell isn't identified in the info. My recent education, however, does not yet extend to dealing with copyright issues or acquiring new photos. Additionally, we might have use of a photo for the district court section, maybe. Could anyone help? ] (]) 04:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
: There's also a generic pic of the district/circuit court building (they're the same), but it's rather old, from the 1930's if I recall correctly. And we have a pic of Judge Sutton, but it's not yet in Commons and the source link is gone. ] (]) 20:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Photo caption request for change=== |
|
|
This may not be the right place to make this suggestion, but I'd like to suggest an edit to the caption for the photo of Jim Obergefell in the "Obergefell v. Kasich" section. The current caption is "Outside the Supreme Court on the morning of June 26, 2015, James Obergefell (foreground, center) reacts to its historic decision." I'd like to add information about the two attorneys at his sides. On the left is of , Jim Obergefell's attorney. On the right is , Director of the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & HIV Project, who was was counsel in Obergefell v. Hodges. I am not making these edits personally because of I am a member of Al Gerhardstein's family. |
|
|
|
|
|
Can another editor consider making this change to the photo caption? ] (]) 05:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Changes not allowed? == |
|
|
I noticed the reversion of the changes I made, and I am always open to that, but I don't see the logic here. Why does the article need an old photo of the 6th circuit court house from 1938? How does that contribute to the article in any way? It's not a practice to do that with other court cases. Why here? Removing that and re-positioning the picture of Judge Sutton (which I like having) makes the article flow much better. |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, any slight changes anyone has been making to this page has been undone and unwelcomed by Antinoos69, and not sure why. Like their comment on my photo change was "you deleted a picture I like". Well, that's why we edit, discuss, and create censuses. There was an issue before with other users, but not sure why others are now being pushed out as well. ] (]) 13:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{ping|Brainboy109}} This is most likely a ] case. If you are unable to reach an agreement with {{u|Antinoos69}} it's better to just stick with ] guidelines. -- ] ] 17:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Correction'''. I thought the correction I was referring to about the "I like" was referring to the change I made at an earlier date. I should have seen the dates. My apologies. But I now see the comment I was referring to was not directed at me. Misreading and mix up on my part. Disregard. ] (]) 18:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Am I correct in concluding that Brainboy's recent "Correction" has rendered this entire section moot? In any case, as for the courthouse pic, I like being able to see where these proceedings took place. It is also a bit notable that the federal district and circuit courts involved are housed in the same building. And I actually HAVE "allowed" other edits, though I have sometimes modified them a bit for grammar, syntax, and sense, sometimes reverting while contemplating a more thorough edit. Much of this was indicated in editing comments. Clear enough? ] (]) 23:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Yes, my initial response was a misunderstanding and why I corrected and apologized. But I still feel there there have been a few edits that were tried and you vert them right away. I like new articles to stay clean and become biased from time they were written, but there needs to be a good balance. |
|
|
|
|
|
:I will just like to say, despite the disagreements the page is looking great and doing an accurate factual source people can come to to find the truth, not what biased media reports. Let's keep up the good work everyone. ] (]) 04:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Matters to tend to == |
|
|
|
|
|
As may have been noticed, I just did some substantial editing. As it had last stood, the article constituted one rather massive if unintended monument to historical revisionism, making it seem as though the SC case were James Obergefell's personal little project, indications to the contrary being excessively brief, if not downright "drive-by." This had come up here in March 2015, "The very first sentence" section, among other editors, but that was before the decision came down and, perhaps (though doubtfully), before consolidation "officially" took place. There are no excuses now, other than ubiquitous lethargy, including mine. So I finally decided to ''do'' something about it. There remain some issues, and I feel my own lethargy slowly reasserting itself: |
|
|
# '''Images.''' I actually wanted pictures of some of the other plaintiffs, but I couldn't find any I thought we could use very much, so I settled on the courthouses. I would love for editors more experienced with Wiki copyright and image matters to remedy this situation. In the meantime, we should probably stick with what we've got. |
|
|
# '''''Obergefell'' cases.''' The (preexisting) discussion here may be a bit excessive. However, unlike with the other cases, there doesn't seem to be any separate Wiki article(s) on ''Obergefell''. (And note that the bulk of my new case summaries regard the plaintiffs' backgrounds and the procedural histories, very little space being provided for the decisions/ final substantive actions.) Perhaps if a separate article were created, the info here could be moderately pared down. |
|
|
# '''Public opinion section.''' Though not at issue in my recent work, it is a bit curt. It should be updated with more recent polling. I tried recently, for just a few minutes, to find more timely material. I didn't find anything. There must be ''something'', but I do sense my lethargy returning. Help would be appreciated. |
|
|
# '''Kentucky map.''' Two of the counties on the map, out of ''all'' of them, seem wrong—at least according to my reading of the ''Ballotpedia'' reference. Casey County, currently in grey, should be blue. And Clinton County, currently blue, should be pink. I mentioned this on the ] talk page, but there has been no response. I have no idea where or how these maps originate or come to be, so any help from more experienced editors would be welcome. '''DISREGARD. Map now appears correct, as of October 2, 2015.''' ] (]) 05:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
Well, that's what comes immediately to mind. BTW, it's nice that the article was recently nominated for "good article" status, but, as indicated above, I personally think just a tad more work ''still'' needs to be done—not that I could actually ''vote'' on the matter, of course. ] (]) 10:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Looks good. It gives fair coverage to each case unlike before. Since ''Obergefell'' was actually several cases consolidated, this is most accurate and fair. But I agree if possible we should get photos of the plaintiffs in the other cases. I will search and see if there are any Fair Use photos available. The division of sections makes it much smoother reading.] (]) 15:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Eventual ''Analysis'' section == |
|
|
|
|
|
Eventually, not even remotely soon, there will be a need for an "Analysis" section reviewing scholarship on the case—legal, historical, political, and otherwise. There have already been a few articles, at least one book deal, at least one movie deal, and no doubt plenty more in the works. Most of the early stuff is likely to be uninspired fluff, so I don't think this section is anything we'll need to worry about for at least a couple years. We should merely keep this section in the backs of our minds, as should other editors and readers stumbling upon this article in the intervening years. It's really with them in mind that I've provided this little reminder. ] (]) 03:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Actually, there are a few law review articles that have already commented on the case. See, for example: |
|
|
:*Casey E. Faucon, ''Polygamy After Windsor: What's Religion Got to Do with It?'', 9 {{smallcaps|Harv. L. & Pol'y Rev.}} 471 (2015) |
|
|
:*Andrew W. Schwartz, ''No Competing Theory of Constitutional Interpretation Justifies Regulatory Takings Ideology'', 34 {{smallcaps|Stan. Envtl. L.J.}} 247 (2015) |
|
|
:*Tanya Washington, et al., ''Children's Rights in the Midst of Marriage Equality: Amicus Brief in'' Obergefell v. Hodges ''By Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children'', 14 {{smallcaps|Whittier J. Child & Fam. Advoc.}} 1 (2015) |
|
|
:If my schedule permits, I will try to start a section with material from these articles later this weekend. Best, -- ] (]) 04:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Well, this was precisely the sort of thing I did ''not'' want to see happen. Yes, as my original comment indicated, I know there have been articles. However, your titles make clear the time is not ripe. They are focused on peripheral issues. We should limit ourselves to articles on the core issues of the case. For example, what is Kennedy doing with sexual orientation, "identity," and the Due Process Clause, rather than the Equal Protection Clause? ''Not'' "polygamy," almost any extended discussion of which I will vigorously oppose. I'm not talking about an "analysis" section that is really an excuse for a tit-for-tat political debate including fringe elements. I ''am'' talking about a scholarly serious and mainstream "analysis" of the central issues of the case, from the perspective of various academic disciplines. That requires that the dust actually start to settle a bit. We need to wait for some serious books and articles to come out based on more than a few months' reflection on the decision. We need reflection based on the deeper realities after ''Obergefell''. That requires some time. |
|
|
:: ''I implore you: Do nothing about this now. This requires a fermenting period of at least two years.'' ] (]) 06:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I am quite surprised to see an article on "Polygamy" suggested as relevant to this subject. Unless I am missing something, the laws on polygamy are not affected at all by this decision. Does the subject have any connection at all? ] (]) 08:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::{{u|Antinoos69}}, from an academic perspective, I agree that one cannot understand the full and complete significance of an event until time has passed. Nevertheless, that does not mean that one cannot produce meaningful and insightful scholarship about an event soon after it occurs. Nor does Misplaced Pages policy require any such waiting period. Misplaced Pages policy specifically states that {{tq|"editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage"}} (see ]). Furthermore, {{tq|"eutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources"}} (see ]). The articles listed above come from ] and ] journals. If you read the content, you will see that their commentary about ''Obergefell'' is not limited to "peripheral issues," though I can see why their titles may suggest otherwise: |
|
|
::::*The Faucon article describes how {{!xt|"n Obergefell, the Court had an opportunity to either clarify its opinion in ''Windsor'' with some return to Equal Protection's tiers analysis or further expand upon the substantive Due Process's liberty guarantee. The Court took the latter route and crystalized the liberty interest at stake."}} (Casey E. Faucon, ''Polygamy After Windsor: What's Religion Got to Do with It?'', 9 {{smallcaps|Harv. L. & Pol'y Rev.}} 471, 515 (2015).) Faucon also comments that although the Court ultimately found that denying marriage to same-sex couples violates Equal Protection, {{!xt|"it did so by focusing on the interconnectedness between substantive Due Process and Equal Protection--it did not explicitly define same-sex couples as a protected class, although the result is the same."}} (''Id.'') |
|
|
::::*The Schwartz article discusses how {{!xt|"he majority and dissenting opinions in ''Obergefell v. Hodges'', the Supreme Court's recent decision finding that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, offer a lucid comparison of originalism with evolutionary document theories of interpretation."}} (Andrew W. Schwartz, ''No Competing Theory of Constitutional Interpretation Justifies Regulatory Takings Ideology'', 34 {{smallcaps|Stan. Envtl. L.J.}} 247, 29 n.43 (2015).) Schwartz also explains that Justice Kennedy's interpretive framework was guided by the theory that {{!xt|"he nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all person to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution's central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed."}} (''Id.'') Schwartz also comments that in his dissenting opinion (in which he accuses the majority of reviving ''Lochner''), {{!xt|"the Chief Justice fails to acknowledge that ''Lochner'' and other substantive due process cases of the same era were repudiated because those decisions held economic regulation up to judicial scrutiny. Economic rights, however, are not recognized as fundamental in the Constitution."}} (''Id.'' at 292 n.199). |
|
|
::::*The Washington article discusses how Justice Kennedy's opinion was based, in part, upon the desire to eliminate {{!xt|"harms that discriminatory marriage laws create for children in same-sex families."}} (Tanya Washington, et al., ''Children's Rights in the Midst of Marriage Equality: Amicus Brief in'' Obergefell v. Hodges ''By Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children'', 14 {{smallcaps|Whittier J. Child & Fam. Advoc.}} 1 (2015).) The article also notes that during oral arguments, the Justices were particularly curious about the impact of same-sex marriage bans on children raised by same-sex couples. (''Id.'' at 5.) |
|
|
::::Again, I completely understand your sentiments about wanting to wait. However, these articles ''do'', in fact, offer insightful analysis and satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion. And don't forget that Misplaced Pages is not static -- we can continue to revisit this section, update, and revise it as new scholarship is published. But even when we return to this section in future years, it may be worthwhile to describe the first impressions from academics who wrote on the subject. It's also worth mentioning that when I write law review articles, I pay special attention to trends that are developing at the current moment within legal scholarship, and I certainly don't ignore recent scholarship in my own work. The material I quoted above certainly merits inclusion in this article and unless there is consensus to the contrary, I will go ahead and add it later this weekend. Best, -- ] (]) 15:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: '''Notecardforfree.''' I'm certainly relieved your selections did not portend what I feared they might, so I'll turn to more mundane, quotidian concerns. We shouldn't create a new section merely for the sake of creating a new section. In this case, we should delay creating the sort of analysis section of which we both are conceiving until we have something substantial, well thought out, and reasonably directly on point with which to open it. With the exceptions of Schwartz's originalism vs. evolutionary document passing observation and clarification regarding ''Lochner'', all of your text in red is glaringly obvious to anyone so much as glancing at the decision, even without a single class' worth of legal training. That isn't enough to justify a new section at this time. It wasn't even enough for Schwartz to pen a whole article on the points—or even a whole "Note" or "Comment." Certainly it is not unreasonable to suppose we should not create the new section until we possess at least one article seriously addressing some central, substantial, and not obvious point of the case, and as its actual ''raison d'être''. Certainly to do otherwise is excessively to flirt with absurdity and preciousness, not to mention superfluousness and verbosity. Again, for these and my prior reasons, I strongly recommend cautious and judicious delay. ] (]) 07:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: {{u|Antinoos69}}, you make a really good point about the "obviousness" of what is presented in these articles. From a purely academic standpoint, I agree that it is self-evident that Justice Kennedy found "new insights" in the Constitution and that his majority opinion primarily relied upon substantive due process. Therefore, I think you are correct that it is a good idea to focus on scholarly analysis that offers new, "non-obvious" perspectives. However, I still think much of the information presented here is useful for readers. I’m not sure if you’ve had any formal legal training yourself (your writing certainly makes you sound quite erudite), but I think you overestimate the legal expertise of the average reader. For example, I don’t think it will be obvious the majority of readers (without any formal legal training) that Kennedy’s substantive due process analysis achieved the same result as a strict application of equal protection. Nor do I think it is obvious that Justices were interested in impacts to children of same-sex couples. In any event, I think we might be able to find some interesting insights in the remarks of the academics who wrote for . I'll keep looking for other sources this week, but I think we are close to having enough information to write an interesting, informative, and insightful section about scholarly analysis of the case. Also, there are dozens of articles about ''Obergefell'' floating around SSRN that are apparently forthcoming in law journals, and I'm sure some some of those articles will hit the press over the next few weeks. Best, -- ] (]) 16:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: You may also be interested in published in the ]'s online companion. -- ] (]) 18:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::: {{u|Notecardforfree}}, your "that Kennedy’s substantive due process analysis achieved the same result as a strict application of equal protection" doesn't actually paraphrase any of your red text, and the majority opinion quite explicitly and clearly addresses the welfare of children raised by same-sex couples (at 5, e.g.). Perhaps you ''under''estimate people's intelligence. In any case, I believe we must distinguish between two very different things: |
|
|
:::::::# '''Legal Reaction to the Decision.''' On the one hand, there is a ''reaction'' to a thing or an occurrence, a Supreme Court decision in this instance. Such reactions are based primarily on whatever knowledge one already possesses and whatever research one has already done. As such, reactions are of rather limited utility. They do not take serious account of the thing being reacted to in its unique and novel specificity, nor are they as reliably accurate as more serious and diligent examinations. The SCOTUSblog symposium falls in this category, held on the day the decision was handed down. It's akin to a roundtable discussion on the Charlie Rose show, if it too were held on the same day. |
|
|
:::::::# '''Legal Analysis of / Legal Scholarship on the Decision.''' On the other hand, there is legal "analysis" or scholarship on a subject, a decision in this case. Scholarship is based on new and rigorous investigation into and new substantial research on a matter in its full specificity, according to the highest standards of scholarly rigor, accuracy, and reliability. Such investigation and research requires time—time to research, time to write up, and time to progress through the publishing and editorial process. You haven't really provided anything falling in this category. The O'Rourke article probably comes closest, but it's not really a major, full-length article, and I don't get the sense that it was based on any substantial new research on ''Obergefell''. We need sources that fall in this category. |
|
|
::::::: Perhaps the material you are currently considering would more appropriately pertain to a new subcategory of the current "Reactions" section than to the new "Analysis" or "Scholarship" section I am actually envisioning. ] (]) 19:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::{{u|Antinoos69}}, I have taken some time to reflect upon your comments, and I agree that the article should contain separate sections for "immediate reaction" and "scholarly analysis." You have done an excellent job articulating the difference between these categories. I disagree, however, with the premise that meaningful legal analysis or scholarship takes a significant period of time to produce. Learned scholars can often divine unique insights rather quickly -- it is really the editorial process that takes time. If you are an academic, I'm sure you know all too well about the long time authors must wait before a finished article hits the printing press. Now that several months have passed since the decision was issued, I think that many new "scholarly analyses" of the case will be published within the next few weeks. For example, the ] just published a forum . I will post relevant articles to this talk page as they are published, and hopefully we will soon have enough material produce a worthwhile "scholarly analysis" section. Of course, we can always revise the article as new articles are published. Best, -- ] (]) 18:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::: {{u|Notecardforfree}}, in my neck of the woods, research is much more typically the most time-consuming aspect of any project, especially any serious one. The late archaeologist, Keith DeVries, famously spent the last decade or more of his life researching a book (meant to refute much of the scholarly consensus on ancient Greek same-sex sex) that he never got around to writing, leaving behind copious research notes, not to mention a few high-profile "forthcoming" citations sure to perplex young scholars for years to come. Classicist Andrew Lear, who actually used some of DeVries' notes for a very different purpose, is due to publish a major book on the (whole) history of ancient Greek pederasty in February of next year. The book is based on research he's been conducting since researching his dissertation, completed in 2004. It is not uncommon for a major book to be a scholar's crowning achievement and ''magnum opus'', the product of a ''lifetime'' of diligent and painstaking research. Some such books also require ''years'' to write. Even journal articles often are the products of substantial research, sometimes serving as trial runs at various aspects of books-in-progress, or as introductions to them. I myself have been researching an article on Babrius 116 for the past couple years. I have yet to locate a couple rare, nineteenth-century editions of the Greek text, let alone submit the article to an appropriate journal. Now, granted, legal research is generally not of this order, academic or otherwise, but some of us do have expectations not likely to be met by materials published at this time. (Even something as straightforward as Dale Carpenter's ''Flagrant Conduct'' wasn't published until nearly a decade after ''Lawrence'', regardless of how much time Carpenter spent researching it.) I find myself gravitating more and more toward some subcategory of the "Reactions" section, to be transformed into or supplemented by a separate "Scolarship" section when appropriate material presents itself, including material from other disciplines, which should take a while. In any case, do kindly post links to potentially appropriate articles here, as you suggested; I'll have a look at them. ] (]) 08:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::: {{u|Antinoos69}}, I think that much of legal scholarship does, indeed, involve "]" rather than the careful empirical analyses that are ''de rigueur'' in other disciplines. That's not to say that empirical research does not play an important role in legal scholarship -- there are many in the academy that are doing very important field work at the intersection of politics, economics, history, social science, and the law (see also ]). I think that in practice, armchair philosophy can be a process that takes months (and sometimes years), but there truly brilliant and exceptional scholars who can produce remarkable insights in the fraction of the time it takes most others. Likewise, some scholars are incredibly productive and write/edit new works at a blistering pace (see, e.g., ). Therefore, I don't think we should value new and interesting theses or ideas any less simply because they were produced quickly, but I do agree with you that scholars should carefully scrutinize hasty empirical research for methodological errors. In any event, you might be interested in from the Florida Law Review that discusses "the relationship between same-sex marriage and workplace rights" in light of ''Obergefell''. I'll continue to post articles as I come across them; I'm sure I will find many more by the end of the month. Best, -- ] (]) 00:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== See Also section == |
|
|
|
|
|
The "See also" section, at first glance, looks to be made up entirely of links that are discouraged by ] - links that are already linked elsewhere in the article, or in the navboxes below it. Does anyone have a good reason these shouldn't be wiped out in this particular case? --] (]) 18:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I am in favor of cleaning up this section pursuant to ]. -- ] (]) 19:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
: I think the links are sufficiently important, and the article sufficiently long, to justify singling out these links as of particular interest—which is what I usually use this section for anyway, no matter what wikiofficials would prefer. I bet that is a very common practice among ordinary readers of WIkipedia, who I suspect aren't particularly concerned with the rules on here. ] (]) 06:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Talk:Obergefell v. Hodges/GA1}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Talk:Obergefell v. Hodges/GA2}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Comma fight == |
|
|
|
|
|
There is recently some back and forth over the use of commas in the phrase that currently reads '''The U.S. Supreme Court case, ''Obergefell v. Hodges'', is not the culmination of one lawsuit.''' |
|
|
|
|
|
The editor being most precise about why the commas should be included correctly noted that it is an "appositional phrase". However, it is specifically a ''restrictive'' appositional phrase, as the ''Obergefell v. Hodges'' is specifying which Supreme Court case we're talking about. As ], restrictive phrases do not get commas. --] (]) 16:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
: You're very grossly wrong. I know; I wrote the sentence. The appositional phrase is ''non-restrictive''. "The U.S. Supreme Court case," note the definite article, refers to one and only one case, the subject of the Misplaced Pages article, "''Obergefell v. Hodges''." The two phrases are equivalent. Furthermore, try the standard test: omit the phrase. The sentence still makes perfect sense. The phrase is therefore non-restrictive, hence the commas. You are attempting to apply the term "restrictive" in an improper sense. You goofed, badly. Now move on and stop embarrassing yourself. ] (]) 18:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'm sorry it upsets you so much that someone questions the construct that you have to go on the attack. Again, you may want to look at ] and see the two examples of restrictive phrases. Both read clearly and grammatically without the the second portion: "My friend likes jelly beans", for example, makes perfect sense even if it isn't so specific. If you didn't want the second phrase adding information to the sentence, why is it there at all? Having a definite article does not rule it out from being a restrictive phrase; we would say "The film 'Star Hammers' received a PG-13 rating." Note that this is the start of the main body of the article, following the introduction, and material is often reestablished in the body, and also that by the time we reach the body, we have introduced mention of two Supreme Court cases, mentioning ''Baker'' as well as ''Obergefell''. --] (]) 01:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Those who don't understand grammar shouldn't attempt to expound on it. The context is clear. The first sentence can refer to no other case. Applying the test, removing the phrase, leaves no doubt as to what case is being discussed. Deal with it and move on. ] (]) 12:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC) Btw, you're now starting to argue for the abolition of all non-restrictive appositions. All appositions, restrictive and non-restrictive, add information and "specificity," which is why they exist. You are confusing "restrictive" for "more specific" and "added information" You must correct your misunderstanding. ] (]) 13:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
'''Lesson one:''' There is no such thing as a word or phrase that is inherently appositional, let alone one that is inherently restrictive or non-restrictive. Context, as so often, fully determines these matters, a point about which some editors seem rather confused. That's how both, "Bill's sister Anna called yesterday," and, "Bill's sister, Anna, called yesterday," can be correct, each in its proper context. Context is king and must always be considered when analyzing these matters. Staring at the words or phrases in and of themselves accomplishes nothing, other than demonstrating one's staggering ignorance. ] (]) 13:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This much Sturm und Drang over commas and kinds of clauses is a clue that the phrasing got too complicated. I tried to simplify and take out some unneeded words. Please feel free to improve further, but let's not go back to a sentence structure that we can't diagram without a huge fight. ] (]) 04:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
: Unfortunately, you are wading into the procedural-history section of a case with a very complicated procedural history. I wrote this whole section—except for most of the Ohio cases, which I substantially edited. It was unexpectedly difficult to research and write. There are lots of tricky twists and issues. It turns out there was another, lower-court ''Obergefell v. Hodges'' (discussed in the circuit-court section) in this history that must be distinguished from the final SCOTUS case. The ''Obergefell'' group of cases don't form some central, continuous thread running through this whole history, forming its essential core. The ''Obergefell v. Hodges'' commonly spoken of didn't actually ''reach'' SCOTUS; it's merely how SCOTUS recaptioned the procedural mess that actually reached it. The original text, like this entire section, was designed to clarify that fact. Your suggested text substantially undoes that effort, thereby misrepresenting the history. It won't do. The original text has served the article well for these past six months. I suggest we stick to it. In any case, I revert now to avoid the misrepresentation, a far graver matter than any sudden push to remove commas. ] (]) 06:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::Ownership aside, are you really going to keep up an edit war over phrasing that other editors, never mind readers, find confusing? If you don't like my attempt to improve it, fine. Find another. But insisting on only your wording of the section you wrote will block GA consideration. ] (]) 15:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::: I believe I made perfectly plain above that essential meaning was at stake. I'd be happy to explain the matter to you further. I do, however, really like your second attempt to modify the text, correctly this time. I think I'll restore it, as I find it substantially preferable to your subsequent edits. We should have the case name somewhere in the first sentence, just preferably not as the first element, as a matter of feel, style, and taste. ] (]) 20:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC) I'll also point out, btw, that your now restored text would appear effectively to resolve both points of contention regarding the passage, those regarding punctuation and meaning. ] (]) 21:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
After your last revert, Antinoos69, the section reads "U.S. Supreme Court case ''Obergefell v. Hodges'' is not the culmination of one lawsuit. Instead, it is the result..." This the wrong tense and a definite article is missing, but I'm not going to edit war over it. I've tried twice to improve it. NatGertler tried, and you were downright uncivil. You put a lot of work into the article, but you have to understand that this is a wiki. Please see ]. ] (]) 22:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
: Good grief. The definite article is not "missing." Instead, the opening noun phrase is now indefinite, requiring that the appositional phrase be construed as "essential" and restrictive, thereby allowing the strangely contentious commas to be removed. It's like the difference between "The happy partygoer, John Smith, …" and "Happy partygoer John Smith …," or between "The assailant, John Smith, …" and "Assailant John Smith … ." As for "wrong" tenses, it is a common practice in some contexts to speak of cases and decisions in the present tense, a practice widely though not exclusively used in Misplaced Pages case articles. Whether the practice be some legal equivalent of the historical or literary present, or be based on the notion that decisions (and cases by analogy) don't suddenly cease to exist once filed but persist, at least while remaining good law, or have some other origin, I don't know. It does make writing more vivid, in any case, and certainly accords with the first sentence of the article. ] (]) 10:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::Is English your native language? I ask because, while you certainly are versed in the rules, your phrasing is not idiomatic. In any case, if you keep insisting on only your wording, the article is not going to improve. ] (]) 20:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Yes, ignoramus, my "native" language (one prefers to say "primary" these days) is English. I am also variously competent in ten other languages and am in the business of frequently teaching English (and other) grammar to others. I hold multiple degrees, including in classics and biblical studies, grammar-heavy disciplines. So, if you find me "not idiomatic," it is due to your own lack of understanding and preparation. ] (]) 12:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
I am going to recommend that any editor that here has not recently reviewed ] should do so. I am also going to recommend that any editor who feels the need to attack me go to my talk page to do so (you'll find the link at the end of this message) rather than doing so here, as this page is intended for conversations that will improve the article. --] (]) 15:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
Even beyond the commas, the paragraph raises concerns regarding stiffness and accuracy. |
|
|
* "The original cases hail from the four states of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee." I can see listing a count if it were, say, 16 states, but for four, it seems like treating the reader like an idiot. (If I wasn't worried about overly relying on readers being American, I'd say get rid of the whole "the four states of" clause.) |
|
|
* "All six federal district courts ruled for the same-sex couples and other claimants." I'm not finding six courts here; while two states had two cases apiece, in each of those states both cases seem to have been decided by the same judge, who doesn't seem to have changed courts. Is there some definition of court count I'm missing? |
|
|
--] (]) 16:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: Only cases that directly affect the application of ''Obergefell'', or that answer serious legal questions concerning it, should be included. At the time ''Pavan'' was decided, there was a serious legal question as to whether ''Obergefell'' required same- and different-sex marriages be treated the same. ''Pavan'' answered that question. The disputed case answers no such question and fails to change how ''Obergefell'' is applied. In fact, the action is merely an inconsequential (for our purposes) denial of writ. At this time, there is simply nothing to see here. That may change. If it does, we’ll see. |
|
: The new edit attempt won't do. It is inaccurate and stylistically poor. First, SCOTUS did ''not'' consolidate six cases. It consolidated four. The circuit court did its own consolidating. Second, there is, again, the fact that there are two ''Obergefell v. Hodges'' cases that need to be distinguished to avoid potential confusion. Third, stylistically, it just won't do to speak of the subject of the entire section in the past perfect. It's just too much in this introduction. In my new edit, the tense for SCOTUS will match that in the article's first sentence, the tenses for the district courts will match throughout, and that odious past perfect will be very thankfully gone. ] (]) 15:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Also, fourth, the "originally" is needed to make the math work. ] (]) 15:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::What's the source for there being two ''Obergefell v. Hodges'' cases? ] (]) 17:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Read the article. Reviewing prior discussion would also help. ] (]) 14:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
Yes, you wrote most of the article and concluded there were two cases with the same name that must be distinguished. Do you have a specific source for that claim, or is it original research? ] (]) 16:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
: Citations are provided. ] (]) 16:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::No, the number of citations in that paragraph remains zero. ] (]) 16:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::: You should have concluded, therefore, that you were looking at the wrong passage in the article. Star over and try again. Two citations are provided. ] (]) 16:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Then please list them. The hand-waving won't do. ] (]) 16:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: I referenced the relevant section of the article previously in this section of the talk page, when the matter previously came up. I will leave you to your reading skills, which may suffice. ] (]) 16:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
The history given in treats this as one case, with which others were joined. I disagree with your conclusion that there were somehow two cases with the same name. It's original research, and it's wrong. ] (]) 17:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
: Wow. I really can't believe you are this dense and clueless. No, ''really''. First, the SCOTUSblog case docket you found is one of ''four'' dockets provided, one for each of the four cases that reached SCOTUS on this matter. Links to the others are presented therein. Second, a case docket at a court only lists filings and actions ''since the case reached the court''. You'll notice that no prior procedural history is provided. What did you surmise? That the four cases just popped into existence at SCOTUS? That's not how these things work. Generally, as here, SCOTUS is a court of final appeal. Cases generally have to come from somewhere before reaching it. These cases have a ''very'' complicated procedural history, which you apparently don't even remotely understand, one that is pretty extensively detailed in the first three body sections of the article, complete with citations, including to a number of prior case dockets. I suggest you peruse them before proceeding to comment further. Among the many twists and turns, you will find a prior ''Obergefell v. Hodges'' in the circuit court section (which you were so sadly incapable of finding), representing all the Ohio cases, and only those. This is what happens when you attempt to deal with complicated matters without first familiarizing yourself with them. It's never a wise way to proceed. ] (]) 15:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: As for whether other cases should be added at this time, I doubt it. But what you got? ] (]) 03:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
== "Lawsuits" section pics == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
There seems to have been some overlapping editing, quite unintended. In any case, I believe party pics in this section should stick to plaintiffs. The defendants here are just generic, in their official capacities as officers and agents of the state. ] (]) 15:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
:: Thank you for following up. I am going to address and respond to what you have shared. It is clear we disagree on this particular matter, but at least this way we can have the discussion and see if others weigh in.] (]) 03:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
: {{u|SeminarianJohn}}, I agree that a brief mention of ''Davis v. Ermold'' is appropriate. The Alito/Thomas statement on the denial of cert invokes ''Obergefell'' directly, and was widely covered in both the general press (''New York Times'', etc.) as well as the legal trade press (, , etc.). The fact that the court denied the petition and the justices' statement has no ''legal'' impact does not mean that it is ''encyclopedically'' irrelevant. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
== Tense == |
|
|
|
:: Please note that this article is not the place for legal gossip and speculation. Let’s stick to the facts. This is an encyclopedia, not journalism. ] (]) 03:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Have no idea what you are talking about. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Figures. Reread the first sentence. Got it now? ] (]) 03:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: I think it is important that if we commit to a discussion with consensus, that we be willing to compromise. Can we think of a way to mention it without making it a major part? Maybe just a sentence?] (]) 05:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Equal rights aspect == |
|
The case is over, it is a ''was''. Checking articles on various completed Supreme Court cases here, the strong majority are named in the first sentence in the past tense. For example, of the dozen cases listed at ], ten are in the past tense in the opening sentence, and one of the remaining two has an opening sentence not about the ''case'', but about the ''decision''. --] (]) 17:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
The majority opinion as stated here is based primarily on the personality rights of the people willing to marry and benefits of their union. It is in a way comparing homosexual and heterosexual unions, asking for the equal treatment of such unions. This is of course a quite "positive" ruling and I understand that supporters like to highlight this. |
|
:And it should be noted that , the reasoning cited the article on ], in which the opening sentence is again about the decision rather than about the case. --] (]) 17:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Another legal argument is that of equal treatment from the viewpoint of the individual participants: If a woman is allowed to marry a male person, then it would constist of unequal legal treatment (prohibited by the 14th amendment) if a man is not entitled to the same right, i.e. to marry the same person (which in this occasion would lead to a homosexual union). |
|
::I just tried to make this article internally consistent. Most of it was in past tense, except for a few sentences which sounded odd. ] (]) 17:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Accordin to the (currently) source 111 https://www.yahoo.com/news/justice-roberts-revives-an-old-argument-that-could-117640176486.html , judge Roberts brought forward that argument in oral hearing but did not support it in the end. But, was that also present in the written arguments? |
|
:::Yes, but your edits were undone by another user. --] (]) 21:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
I also believe a person like Scalia would have had a hard time with his originalist argument, as the authors of the 14th amendment probably even did not think about such result of the 14th amendment: Probably no (homosexual) man would claimed equal rights with brides at that time, and thus, the authors might have insisted on a carveout (to prohibit such results) is they had cared to think about it (which they did not). |
|
:: The context in some of those cases, involving temporal sequence of events, rendered the past tense preferable, and "case" and "decision" are often used interchangeably. So, in addition to the couple from your list, one must consider, for example, ''Romer v. Evans'', ''United States v. Windsor'', ''Bowers v. Hardwick'', ''Lawrence v. Texas'', ''Gideon v. Wainwright'', ''Griswold v. Connecticut'', ''Eisenstadt v. Baird'', ''Loving v. Virginia'', ''Perez v. Sharp'' (CA), ''Planned Parenthood v. Casey'', ''Stenberg v. Carhart'', ''Gonzales v. Carhart'', ''Vacco v. Quill'', ''Baker v. Nelson'' (MN), and ''Goodridge v. Department of Public Health'' (MA). Note the cases involving LGBT rights. The case certainly doesn't appear over to me. ] (]) 15:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
So, has this argument played some further role in the ruling (and if not, why), maybe it is not referenced so much as the positive argument sounds more favorable? ] (]) 11:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
::::Misplaced Pages is not 100% consistent and one can, with proper searching, find the inconsistent examples, which is why, when challenged, I sought out and find an existing list of Supreme Court cases which I could then use as a sample rather than picking and choosing myself. It may seem that "case" and "decision" are used synonymously to you, and they are certainly related, but given that the samples of tried have had cases lean strongly toward the past tense and decisions strongly toward the present, it seems that they are not being treated as interchangeable. --] (]) 16:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Your initial list of cases is no more random than mine. What we have here are dueling tense conventions, purely a matter of style and art. A rationale and agreement will have to be provided and reached for choosing one over the other. There was such a rationale before people swooped in trying to change it without discussion. I explain all that in some detail in my post below. The matter would have to be substantively addressed and worked out. ] (]) 15:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
'''But First Things First:''' Long ago, I developed a working theory or logic of tense for this article, which I then attempted to apply throughout. It definitely has both a legal and stylistic flavor to it. First, courts, justices, and judges act in the past tense. That's uncontroversial. People act at specific points in time. Second, good law is presented in the present tense. Law is ongoing, continuing to act in the present. Third, bad law is presented in the past tense. It is dead and gone, its influence relegated to historical footnotes. Where do cases belong in this scheme? When merely synonymous with or filling in for current decisions, they certainly get the present tense. This is often my preference when speaking very generally about cases. Context, however, as always, can change all this. Unlike Latin, which is compulsively obsessed with relative tense to the point of mania, English is far less rigid. Logical, contextual, and stylistic considerations often intervene and countermand the formal rules. It sometimes becomes a matter of art, as is largely the case with the historical and literary present. In some of these general contexts, vividness has been a consideration of mine. In any case, if we are going to alter this general system, I propose we do so with another carefully thought out system. One we would have to discuss, work out, and likely do some arguing over at some length. And, of course, we should apply it consistently. ] (]) 15:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
: My biggest problem with introducing and speaking generally of cases in the past tense is that doing so immediately suggests to my mind that those cases are no longer good law, that they are historical oddities without current influence, mere historical footnotes. This is, after all, a legal article. ] (]) 16:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I would have not problem with the opening sentence being rewritten to discuss a ''decision'', which is something that remains in force, and to do so in the present tense, while we discuss the case, which is over, in the past tense in the body of the article. It is understandable that this article has "case" in the opening now, as this article was started before there was a decision, but in the longer term, the decision and its impact are probably of more import than the process that brought it about. --] (]) 16:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::: As mentioned and intimated in my last post above, we are discussing dueling ''conventions''. Your post here doesn't engage the issues I fleshed out at some length above. ] (]) 15:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Yes, yes, I read how you explained how you have your own "working theory or logic of tense for this article" and what is your preference; I somehow miss any part where that excuses awkward construction and with the concerns of any and all other editors for clarity and correctness being blown off. --] (]) 17:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion == |
|
== Edit war == |
|
|
|
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: |
|
|
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2021-07-01T17:09:11.926495 | Same-Sex Marriage Opponent Protests Before the Supreme Court Shortly Before its Decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, June 26, 2015.jpg --> |
|
|
Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 17:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== not rue == |
|
Twice now my request for a specific citation for a claim has been summarily reverted by an editor who is asserting ownership of the article. This needs to stop. ] (]) 16:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
: As there is no reason for a citation there, and you have provided no argument, your absurdity needs to stop. ] (]) 15:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
footnote 2 is not correct ] (]) 16:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
== Sticking to GA-review issues == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I assume you're talking about Reference 2, which is used to support the statement "Prior to ''Obergefell'', same-sex marriage had already been established by statute, court ruling, or voter initiative in thirty-six states, the ], and ]." If so, which part of that do you deem to be not rue? -- ] (]) 22:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
It has become abundantly clear that recent editing is contentious and disruptive, and is sure to remain so for the foreseeable future. Many of the new edits are creating more problems than they solve. This is particularly absurd as, with exactly one exception, none of the matters being fought over are mentioned in the nine current GA-review comments. I therefore advise and propose that: (1) the article be restored to its state before the contentious editing, except where full agreement has been achieved; and (2) subsequent editing and likely discussion be limited to the nine specific comments of the GA review. ] (]) 16:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:No, that's just another way of going back to the version you wrote, based in part on original research, and chasing other editors away. That's not going to happen. ] (]) 17:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:I am far more interested in this being a good article than in this being a Good Article, and the reversion to the point when the GA discussion started would include pointless reintroduction of factually incorrect information. Editing of an article is not in itself disruptive, and I see no reason why we should not be addressing matters that don't happen to have the attention of the GA reviewers. --17:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
An editor's feedback has prompted me to raise a question. What should constitute the criteria that make a case relevant enough to Obergefell v. Hodges to be included in the section about related cases? Prior to my edit to include Davis v. Ermold et al.only one case was present, Pavan v. Smith. In both cases, Obergefell is apparently strengthened and in both cases Obergefell is explicitly mentioned. Are there other cases as of yet that should be added? Or, is the section itself relevant and needed? Thoughts?SeminarianJohn (talk) 02:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
The majority opinion as stated here is based primarily on the personality rights of the people willing to marry and benefits of their union. It is in a way comparing homosexual and heterosexual unions, asking for the equal treatment of such unions. This is of course a quite "positive" ruling and I understand that supporters like to highlight this.
Another legal argument is that of equal treatment from the viewpoint of the individual participants: If a woman is allowed to marry a male person, then it would constist of unequal legal treatment (prohibited by the 14th amendment) if a man is not entitled to the same right, i.e. to marry the same person (which in this occasion would lead to a homosexual union).
Accordin to the (currently) source 111 https://www.yahoo.com/news/justice-roberts-revives-an-old-argument-that-could-117640176486.html , judge Roberts brought forward that argument in oral hearing but did not support it in the end. But, was that also present in the written arguments?
I also believe a person like Scalia would have had a hard time with his originalist argument, as the authors of the 14th amendment probably even did not think about such result of the 14th amendment: Probably no (homosexual) man would claimed equal rights with brides at that time, and thus, the authors might have insisted on a carveout (to prohibit such results) is they had cared to think about it (which they did not).
So, has this argument played some further role in the ruling (and if not, why), maybe it is not referenced so much as the positive argument sounds more favorable? Meerwind7 (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
