Talk:Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning

Maggie Gallagher as reliable source

That this case is the original federal same-sex marriage case and that the comparison is valid to Perry v. Schwarzenegger is currently sourced with an opinion piece by Maggie Gallagher, who is leader of an organization dedicated to opposing same-sex marriage. A better, independent, third-party source discussing this distinction needs to be found to make this statement as matter-of-fact. As long as it isn't, I rewrote the sentence in a more NPOV manner and specified who stated what and improved the formulations along with it. Hekerui (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Granted, Gallagher is a biased source, but I don't see how what she pointed out is just a "claim" and isn't simply blatantly true. The LA Times and SF Chronicle both plainly stated that Perry was the first such case, which clearly it isn't, given this case. I don't think it can be seriously argued that CEP wasn't the first such case - and certainly not that it didn't come before Perry. It appears that Perry just has more press. So, I've changed "claimed" to "pointed out." It's even more content-neutral.Wikophile (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see this re-write, and I don't think there's a big problem using Gallagher, but here are other ways to handle this. Along these lines: "Though some reports(cite newspapers) identified the August 2010 US District Court decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger as the first to strike down a defense of marriage amendment on federal constitutional grounds, Bataillon's decision did so in May 2005.(cite relevant passage in decision)" That gets the job done more succinctly, I think. The point is to juxtapose the two dates as closely as possible. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://uniweb.legislature.ne.gov/LegalDocs/view.php?page=c0101029000
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722093906/http://marriagelawfoundation.org/cases/Citizens%20v.%20Bruning.pdf to http://marriagelawfoundation.org/cases/Citizens%20v.%20Bruning.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714235759/http://ads.omaha.com/media/maps/pdfs/0512initiative.pdf to http://ads.omaha.com/media/maps/pdfs/0512initiative.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714235759/http://ads.omaha.com/media/maps/pdfs/0512initiative.pdf to http://ads.omaha.com/media/maps/pdfs/0512initiative.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)