` ::::::::::I guess only people in the ``secular, pro-gay left`` understand this problem. ←  :::::::::::However, if Congress passed a law banning all gay marriage, the ``secular, pro-gay left`` might then come to ``understandably fear`` federal intrusion, right? ;) He is talking about federalism and the federal government overruling what states have set out for themselves as laws.  (back left) How is legislation designed to limit the Full Faith and Credit Clause for one issue only  same-sex marriage  not a deliberate attack on the Constitution and the individual rights of gays and lesbians to marry? ←   The legislation dealt with a Supreme Court ruling of the Full Faith and Credit clause that included any types of marriage (I believe it had to do expressly with polygamy at the time it was enacted.  As I said, he wants states rather than judges to decide and if states decide to allow or ban gay marriage by referendum or passed laws, that's the way he believes it should be.  That's his position and his reasoning behind  it and his reasoning behind almost any law. IF you disagree with it, that's fine but this isn't a place for a debate on it.   == Replacing disputed sections ==  There is no policy or guideline stating that disputed sections should be censored from an article while a dispute is ongoing.  I will allow a day or so for people to find such a policy or precedent if it exists, but if there indeed is no such thing I will be replacing the disputed sections.  The censorship of them amounts to more de facto bias than inserting anyone's compromise proposal. ←  :Well, removing the newsletter section was the ONLY way to get YOU to actually DISCUSS changes. Sorry about the caps for emphasis but I think it was quite productive in pulling your proverbial teeth. Anyway, when you do put it back in use the most recent compromise version. If Marie makes her changes before then, than we can talk about that. Before you put it back in we should also nail down where it should go. Also, it wasn't censored and there was no bias, you still can't help but use loaded and inflammatory words huh? The only reason things were ``censored`` is that you had no inclination to compromise. Glad to see you have come around a bit. As for the other section, shouldn't you guys discuss that? As far as I know, you are the only editor that likes that section.   :I'm the one that suggested this, and perhaps it's not compliant with all Wikipedia policies. As I said before, I had seen other editors do this where there was edit-warring over disputed content (as we experienced with this section). I think it has served us well, and there is no need to make claims of ``de facto censorship``. You are free to replace the section in the article if you are so bothered by it's temporary absence. Best regards.   ::I am in support of putting in the section currently under the ``Newsletter article controversy (proposed compromise section w/small changes)`` it seems to be a good compromise which can be edited over time and has no major complaints/agreeable counter suggestions that I am aware of, I feel it is important to get something up soon and to get the neutrality flag off the top of the page.    == Section neutrality ==  I think we have made good progress.  I think the removal of all political positions from the intro satisfies my concerns about the way they are presented, so I moved the  tag down to a .  I still think we should have a couple of paragraphs in the intro where as many of his major positions as possible are mentioned, and all of those should be supported by one or two positions per sentence in the intro.  I realize this position is not supported by everyone, but again I ask, is there any argument against it apart from WP:OTHERSTUFF?  There are plenty of arguments for including such a summary on this very talk page where people report that is what they have come looking for.  Also, someone needs to get the Barbara Jordan apology quote in the newsletter section as we agreed, I don't have time to find it right now.  ←   :Oh, so this is where you mention the lead. I am absolutely against, ``a couple of paragraphs in the intro where as many of his major positions as p