Talk:Federal Marriage Amendment
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Federal Marriage Amendment article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
A news item involving Federal Marriage Amendment was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 24 February 2004. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Editors: please read Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles
[edit]The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
Inaccuracy
[edit]The section titled 2008 mentions H. J. Res. 89. which has nothing to do with the Federal Marriage Amendment (see http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hjres89). bbell2000 (talk)
According to govtrack, I can only find four articles with that title: 2 bills each for the house and the senate and all of them are much older than 2008.
RfC
[edit]
a RFC arguing that the term "traditional marriage", as used in discussions of marriage in western, predominantly/historically christian, countries -- and, specifically, the United States -- is not a neutral term and should not be used without explanation/contextualization, has been logged on the Traditional marriage Talk page.
the term "traditional marriage" is not a neutral term when it is used by advocates of a certain position in regards to the Federal Marriage Amendment, it refers to the evangelical christian concept of "traditional marriage", which is between one man and one woman -- usually permenantly, until death. globally, however, there are myriad forms of "traditonal marriage"... therefore, it is imperative that wikipedia -- as a global, neutral source -- specify precisely what is meant when the phrase "traditional marriage" is used to advance a very narrow point-of-view, which implies that orthodox christian marriage is the "default", "normal" and "immutable" familial arrangement for all...
the meaning and connotations of the phrase "traditional marriage" when used in U.S.-specific controversies, such as the Federal Marriage Amendment are only self-evident to those who live in cultures where the term "traditional" equals a very specific understanding of "christianity"... if this article -- and any other article that refer to "traditional marriage" where what is meant is a "traditional christian definition of marriage" -- is to be truly neutral and universally understood, it is imperative that the term "traditional marriage" either be explained/contextualized, or replaced by an alternate term, such as:
- traditional Christian definition of marriage
- orthodox Christian definition of marriage
note that the term "orthodox Christian definition of marriage", might be an acceptable neutral alternative, as there are an ever-increasing number of christian denominations who have expanded their understanding of marriage...
the wikipedia entry for "traditional marriage" provides a rock-solid basis for a wiki-wide consideration of a nomenclature change/clarification when the term "treaditional marriage" is used in a U.S.-specific context... oedipus (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Federal Marriage Amendment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140412171146/http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20140402/NEWS/304020079/Alabama-House-approves-call-put-same-sex-marriage-ban-U-S-Constitution to http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20140402/NEWS/304020079/Alabama-House-approves-call-put-same-sex-marriage-ban-U-S-Constitution
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Federal Marriage Amendment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090617213215/http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm to http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm
- Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20090510192631/http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/marriagesumm.htm to http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/marriagesumm.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- B-Class law articles
- Low-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- B-Class Conservatism articles
- Mid-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles
- B-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
- WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- Wikipedia controversial topics