Talk:California Supreme Court strikes down ban on gay marriage

Conflict of interest. should this paragraph go in, Want opinions (doubling as original reporting note)
My father has written a fair bit on marriage law and he was cited in California's brief to the court. So I thought I'd get a quick statement from him about what he thought about the decision and then see if others here thought it was ok to include.

Edward Zelinsky, of Yeshiva University, whose work was cited in the brief of California's attorney general supporting the law characterized the court's opinion as "problematic in important respects." In particular, he criticized the court for failing explain adequately why its logic does not apply to other non-traditional forms of marriage such as polygamy.

So, include or don't include? JoshuaZ (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

COI problem maybe...
It could be a Conflict of interest... possibly... I'd get two more opinions from the folks on #wikinews. --TUFKAAP (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I talked to David Shankbone who seemed fine with it. I left a note on SVT's page. (I'm not an IRC denizen so not inclined to go into #wikinews. Could you maybe ask someone there?). JoshuaZ (talk) 05:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is fine with the disclousure. --SVTCobra 09:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with . Cirt (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Pictures
Cary gave me the following link...http://www.flickr.com/photos/bastique/ --Brian McNeil / talk 10:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Please Revise Grammar
I have seen several pages on various Wikimedia projects that have been "Nominated for Minor Revision". Unfortunately, I am not sure whether anyone with an account or just Wikimedia staff are able to nominate an article. Therefore, in the stead of such nomination, I am writing this comment. Several places in the document are in dire need of grammatical correction just to be understood. For example:

"...saying that although she personally favored gay marriage the people of California clearly had not and the popular will should not be overruled by the court..."

The above is the indirect quotation from Justice Carol Corrigan found in the last sentence of paragraph 3. I do not understand what "will should" is used to mean in this quotation. It is one or the other and I do not know which. If you cannot construct indirect quotations correctly, may I suggest sticking to direct quotations.
 * I'm fairly confident that in this case the word "will" is used as a noun (as in "popular will", or "intent of the people") rather than as a verb. If you notice other errors, may I direct you to the "edit this page"-button on top of every article? --+Deprifry+ 12:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)