Talk:Same-sex marriage in Oregon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class.

This article is part of WikiProject Oregon, a comprehensive WikiProject dedicated to articles about topics related to the U.S. state of Oregon. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or join by visiting the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.

I noticed no mention of the controversial actions of the Multnomah County commissioners (e.g. secret meetings, one commissioner being left in the dark, etc.). Don't you think something about this should be added?[1][2][3]

[edit] NPOV tag

This page contains serious POV in violation of wiki policy. This page needs serious reworking. This page appears to have been written by those standing on a soapbox, a direct violation of Wiki policy. A serious, NPOV revision is needed. Lest anyone being the personal attacks on me for pointing this out, note I am only interested here in Wiki policy, not the subject matter of this page generally about which I know very little. --SafeLibraries 03:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the Civil Unions section, taking out what seemed to be POV language. "Gut and stuff" is a term defined within the State of Oregon Legislature's official glossary, and refers to a reasonably common strategic maneuver. As far as I am aware, there is no formal term for that maneuver. Comparing the text of the two versions of SB1000, it's clear that a "gut and stuff" did occur, so I left the term in place and supported it with explanation and references. If you have an alternative suggestion, please suggest it. Is there anything else in this article that seems NPOV to you? And if so, could you please be specific enough that we could address it? Sanguinity 21:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Will respond in more detail soon. --SafeLibraries 00:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

For my convenience, I'll add things here as I see them instead of all in a single post.

1) "Gut and stuff" is defined thusly: "A slang term which refers to removing the text of a measure and inserting entirely new language which, while it may change the nature of the bill completely, still falls under the measure’s 'relating-to' clause." Now I'm not an expert Wikipedian but it is highly likely that slang is not encyclopedic. "Gut and stuff" is defined as slang. Use of slang may reveal POV. I say the slang must be removed. --SafeLibraries 00:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

2) "The Republican Speaker of the Oregon House...." The Republican Speaker? Is there a Democrat Speaker? I don't know Oregon governmental structure, but I think there is only one Speaker of the House. Emphasizing the party of the Speaker is likely POV. No?

Now as I make these comments, each one separate and alone might be no big deal. Rather, looking at the work as a whole, these little things add up to one big nonencyclopedic picture. More to follow. --SafeLibraries 01:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

3) Back to the "Gut and Stuff" issue, it now appears thusly: "On July 21, the House performed a series of moves known as a "gut and stuff"[2], where the bill was amended by removing most of its language and replacing it with different text." So the text explains what happened in plain NPOV text, but, in addition, the slang "gut and stuff" appears as well. This "double explanation" using slang confirms to me the POV nature. A NPOV phrasing might be as follows: "On July 21, the House bill was amended by removing most of its language and replacing that with different text." --SafeLibraries 01:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

4) Headings and wording appear thusly: "2004/05 Timeline on Same-Sex Marriage," yet the title of the wiki article is "Same-sex unions." Unions are different than marriages, are they not? It is POV to equate unions and marriages, is it not? Isn't that the whole debate in a nutshell -- unions are not good enough it must be marriages? So this article definitely needs language adjustments accordingly. --SafeLibraries 01:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

5) "April 16: Attorneys for the ACLU and Basic Rights Oregon present arguments in favor of the couples, while attorneys for the Oregon Department of Justice and Defense of Marriage Coalition argued against the County's actions before Justice Frank Bearden." In that sentence links are made to the ACLU and Basic Rights Oregon. However, there is no link to Defense of Marriage Coalition. Rather, the link is to DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. Honestly now -- is that fair? encyclopedic? NPOV?

6) Speaker of the House appears as a "Republican" who's "gutting and stuffing," but no mention is made that Basic Rights Oregon already has the same rights as anyone else to marry under the law but rather is seeking additional rights -- hence the changes to the law under discussion. Why the double standard? That's POV. --SafeLibraries 01:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

7) "November 2: Oregonians voted 57% to 43% to pass Ballot Measure 36, a constitutional amendment defining marriage to be between one man and one woman." In fairness, or rather for encyclopedic value, and to prevent POV by minimizing the importance of this vote, should the article not also include that wave of similar votes sweeping the nation? --SafeLibraries 01:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that many of the items you've mentioned are not really NPOV issues - you're right that some are good changes to make, but more for the purpose of making things look encyclopedic - I was struck by how NPOV this article WAS - I expected it to be much more biased.

At any rate, I made some changes:

• moved the "gut and stuff" to parentheticals - this shows that this view is not that of the encyclopedia, but that some people (probably the original author) viewed it as such.

• Changed the section heading regarding marriage to "unions" - you're completely correct that that is confusing. This is a change that didn't really require discussion (I would have had no problem with you making the changes yourself) - its more a semantics issue.

• The defense of marriage link is simply a result of linking the exact word - I added a link to the web site of the defense of marriage coalition and changed the wiki-link. Again, it would have been fine for you to do this... Be Bold!

As for the other objections you have:

• I don't understand your objection to stating that the speaker of the house is a republican; this is common practice... I left it in, but if you really think it's unfair, just remove the word "Republican." and let those that are interested follow the link to her biography.

• "Basic Rights Oregon already has the same rights as anyone else to marry under the law but rather is seeking additional rights" I don't understand what you're saying here; what does that have to do with the topic of this article (you're welcome to edit Basic Rights Oregon)

• Mentioning the "wave of votes sweeping the nation" is a highly non-NPOV statement - this article is supposed to be about Oregon's status, not the rest of the nation. You can't make something NPOV by making two statements, both with an opposing agenda - the point is none of them are supposed to have an agenda (you just present the facts with as little bias as possible).

In light of these changes, I think the NPOV can be removed if you have no further objections.

--Eteq 06:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The timeline is specifically about same-sex marriage in Oregon, not about same-sex unions in general. I think changing the timeline heading to the more general term is more likely to increase confusion than decrease it. Better, perhaps, to add something to the intro explaining that Oregon has gone through two political cycles on same-sex partnership rights, one on civil unions, and one on same-sex marriage. I otherwise agree with your response to SafeLibraries. Sanguinity 07:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Great responses so far. I didn't finish critiquing the article yet, due to time reasons, so I'll be willing to lift the NPOV then, but from your responses so far, I see there will be no problems. I just need a little more time if I want to be thorough. Oh, regarding Basic Rights Oregon, I was not so much saying anything about them as I was pointing out that Minnis had a spin attached to her yet no spin was attached to other groups, like BRO, and like the ACLU. --SafeLibraries 21:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I removed the NPOV - remember that there's nothing keeping you from making changes, either... -Eteq 15:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Eteq, all, I see you removed the tag before I checked it all. Well, okay, it's largely much improved. The whole thing is clearer now, is it not? --SafeLibraries 15:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Title

I was just wondering how you would edit the title of this article.

What's your rationale for changing it? Same-sex marriages aren't legal in Oregon; same-sex unions may yet be some day. There is a decent case to be made that "union" is a better title for the article than "marriage". Sanguinity 19:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civil unions section needs some serious work ...

It's both factually and grammatically wrong. There should also be some discussion of the current bill on the Senate floor that would grant GLBT people civil unions and a package of special rights. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.241.106.166 (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC).