Talk:Conjugal visit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See discussion on the talk page? This isn't much of a talk page, much less a discussion. Maybe we could do without the tag? --71.248.77.118 01:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- The message "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view" refers to the fact that this article seems to be only about conjugal visits in the united states, whereas wikipedia is not US-specific. The article needs to be rewritten to take into account conjugal visits in the rest of the world. --Xyzzyplugh 13:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- And putting an "around the world" section, but still with a primary focus on the US doesn't count as remedying the problem. Brentt 20:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pop culture/trivia section
Triviacreep has hit this article. Few if any of the entries in pop culture influences meet the criteria of WP:TRIVIA, so I'm being bold and removing them. Fireplace 15:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Struck down?
> The Federal Bureau of Prisons does not allow conjugal visits <
Didn't the US federal government signed various UN treaties that say people have the inalienable right to reproduce? Int'l treaties signed and ratified supercede national constitutions and legislations.
- No, they don't. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any international treaties, signed and ratified or not, that contradict the Constitution are null and void. - MSTCrow 17:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Unconstitutional, not null and void. -91.32.237.142 16:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- It seems you're suggesting that the Constitution declares that people do *not* have the inalienable right to reproduce (otherwise it couldn't actually contradict it). Do you have the citations for that? I have never seen/heard of that. 74.211.15.51 19:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Unconstitutional, not null and void. -91.32.237.142 16:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Contradict
Paragraph 1 states that conjugal visits are the right of the spouse, not the inmate. Paragraph 2 states that they are contingent on the inmate's good behaviour. How can the inmate's behaviour impinge on a right of the spouse? Zargulon 16:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

