Saturday, October 18, 2008

It's Official


I was married on Monday. In a small, private ceremony, my beloved and I stood with a few family members, looked into each other’s eyes and promised to love each other, to look out for each other’s best interests, and to care for and support each other for the rest of our days, no matter what obstacles life puts in our path.

We want this marriage to last a lifetime. But we are afraid if too many Californians listen to lies and fear-mongering and vote “yes” on Proposition 8, our marriage might last only 23 days.

What can I say to convince you to defeat this perhaps well-intentioned but profoundly misguided effort to eliminate the right of couples such as my partner and I to marry? I know that for many people, there is nothing I can say. But I will try anyway.

Do you worry your church will be forced to marry same-sex couples?

It won’t. The Supreme Court decision that began this era of marriage equality said exactly the opposite: “no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs."

Are you concerned about what children may be taught in school about sexuality?

The only thing mandated by the state is that children be taught “the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.” For parenthood, you will have to discuss sex at some point. But the legal and financial aspects of civil marriage? No need at all to discuss sex or sexuality to teach those lessons.

Worried about changing the definition of the word “marriage”?

I’m sorry, but we need to use that word, too. Domestic partnerships are important, but you know as well as we there’s something profound about the relationship to which we give the name “marriage.” It’s special to us, too. If you can allow Britney Spears’ 55-hour Vegas vindaloo to be called a “marriage,” surely you can allow my rather mundane (however extraordinary it is to me) example of mutual affection and caring to be called one as well.

Are you worried about children? How they “deserve to be raised by both a mother and a father?”

What if, hypothetically, I conceded that was the case? How does denying marriage equality do anything to further that goal? Does anyone seriously believe if Proposition 8 passes that gay people are suddenly going to look for opposite sex partners and start having children?

Of course not. How, then, does my marriage (to a delightful, loving man who is as interested in my well-being and happiness as I am in his) somehow translate into harm for more traditional families?

Gay people aren't going away, even if one of our rights might be.

We didn’t stop being gay when we were teased or abused on the playground because of who we are. We didn’t stop being gay when our parents disowned us because of who we are. Or when we were fired from our jobs or evicted from our homes because of it. When we could be arrested and jailed because of it.

Or beaten, tied to a fence and left to die.

If we didn't give up being queer after enduring all we have -- do people imagine we will forsake our identities because too many Californians refuse to recognize that our civil, legal arrangements with each other – our paperwork – deserve to be equal to yours?

The Yes on 8 campaign has almost $10 million more than those fighting for my rights have. The LDS church alone has raised 40% of the other side’s war chest, already has a very large and effective army in place, and is recruiting more volunteers from out-of-state to fight against equality. The campaign is allying themselves with other well-organized churches. They fill the airwaves with lies and appeals to base and groundless fears. To be honest, I tremble at the thought of them.

But I stand my ground. Because I stand on truth. I stand on the Constitution. All are to receive equal treatment under the law.

Unfortunately, many voters disagree with me. Proposition 8 may pass, and our marriage (at least the paperwork) could ultimately be “valid or recognized” for a mere three weeks and two days.

We must – all fair-minded Californians must, no matter how we feel about same-sex marriage – not vote to eliminate anyone else’s fundamental rights. If we miss this opportunity to guarantee equality, we may not have another chance for a generation or more.

Those of us who are closer to the end of our lives than the beginning may not, as Dr. King said, get to the mountaintop ourselves. But we can all take a giant step toward the promised land of equality for all by voting “No” on Proposition 8.


We can also help forward the cause of marriage by making a donation to Equality for All, the organization leading the fight against Proposition 8. There are approximately one million gay people in California -- but only 30,000 people have made donations to the No on 8 effort. (Hard to believe Bob and I are responsible for 1/1000 of those donors!) And lots of those were straight people. If all the gay folks got together and gave even $10 each, we'd be in great shape for these last two weeks of the campaign. Click here to make a donation. $10, $100, $1000 -- whatever you can do. It's important.

19 comments:

Leah and Tyler Forester said...

Tom,
it's foresterinc. Ok to be more specific on my nature versus nurture comment. You you asked me if I thought kids turned gay by having that association or discussion prevelant around them. I have a friend who works at Cal Tech. He works a lot with genetics. He said to me that homosexuality may be caused by a snippet of genetics but your 70% is your environment. In 2000 when this same issue came up it seemed not as big of a deal, but here were are again in 2008 and look at what has happened. Within an 8 year span homosexuality has become widespread. Look at the major sitcomes. There is at least one homosexual character in them. The Office, Ugly Betty, Greys Anatomy and so forth. It's everywhere. The environment is such that it is popular and cool. It is known that in junior high kids of that age struggle with identity and security. In high school it's worse. I am saying that I think that if my kids are around it whose to say that they may challenge there sexuality because of peer preasures. ets not make things more difficult and confussing for them. Trust me outside of school they will have homosexuality exposed to them, we dont nee it taught in the classrooms. The internet does a good job at doing so. So with that how do you feel about nature versus nurture? I have one other question. I happened to look at some other people's comments to you and Amy said to you on your "the best blog" post that what do you know of the LDS church and it's beliefs. You responded back with "I know far more than you think I do" Tom are you an LDS?

JEREMY AND SARAHLYNN said...

I appreciate your views and was also interested in your arguments about the reasons why I am voting yes. I also am sorry to hear that you or some of your friends have been fired and treated unkindly because of sexual orientation. Those things are not right to do.

However, I still have to disagree with you about your position on Prop 8 and have some questions to your arguments because they do interest me.

To me and most people in support of prop 8, the fundamental debate is not about intolerance toward homosexuals. It is about preserving the fundamental purpose of marriage and the most ideal situation for children to be raised. In all cultures on the earth, the original purpose of marriage has been and is to do more than just join two people that love one another. The purpose is to form a commitment to creating a family. A same-sex relationship by definition cannot procreate. I believe it is most ideal for children to have both a father and a mother. While you might not desire to have children, other same-sex partners may demand it. And just as we've seen in the past few months and years, the issue of whether or not it is a right for these people to demand children from certain doctors and adoption agencies is a real threat to religious beliefs of churches and individuals.

I'm interested about what the Supreme Court said. Is that the US or state supreme court, and did they say that in passing, or is it actually a law? Also, was this statement made with every religious organization in mind or just to those that give up their tax-exempt status?

I respect people's right to be gay. But I do not feel like they have a right to be married because one of the fundamental purposes of marriage is to procreate and raise a family.

Amanda said...

Congratulations on your marriage, and I hope it lasts - on paper - more than 23 days.

Carolyn said...

You obviously feel very deeply about this. I am sorry for the hurt you have felt due to the ugliness of intolerance. I am inspired by the courage you show while struggling with this issue. I want you to know that your story has touched me deeply and that, although I don't know you, I love you.

However, nothing can change the immutable truths of eternity. Same-sex unions and sexual relations, like adultery, fornication, and pornography, are sins.

I hope Christ will give you peace as you struggle with this trial.

Tom said...

Hey, Forester.

"He said to me that homosexuality may be caused by a snippet of genetics but your 70% is your environment."

Probably true -- IF that includes intrauterine environment. I've read a fair bit on this issue, and scientific consensus seems to be it's likely a combination of genetics and hormone levels in utero. Causation is probably slightly different for male vs. female homosexuals. This creates a tendency for a person to be drawn one way or another, and societal norms reinforce that.

If you were a child growing up when I did, and you felt those stirrings, if you could eliminate, reverse or even control them, you would have. It's better today, but it's still not at all easy. On the playground, being a "faggot" is about the last thing anyone wants to be.

So those who can cover often do. Except some can't cover forever, and one's innate orientation comes forward.

I don't think a more tolerant environment will lead to there being more homosexuality. I think there gay people will continue to hide themselves less. Kids can accept who they are earlier. Believe me, it's not a choice. At least not for most. Those for whom it is a choice are classified as bisexual.

As to your last question, I am not LDS but I did graduate from BYU.

Tom said...

"the original purpose of marriage has been and is to do more than just join two people that love one another."

Perhaps the primary purpose of marriage is the creation of the next generation. But marriage has secondary purposes -- one of which is to create greater stability of our society. And allowing same-sex couples access to civil marriage can deliver that benefit -- WITHOUT undermining the primary benefit. We can have BOTH good aspects of marriage.

"I believe it is most ideal for children to have both a father and a mother."

Fine. But as I asked in the original post, how does denying marriage equality further the goal of having more kids grow up with a mother and a father in the home?

"While you might not desire to have children, other same-sex partners may demand it."

Demanding children? No more than heterosexual couples are. We can make them ourselves if we like. Or we can adopt. There's no "demanding" in it. Only requesting. No one can "demand" a child -- at least in terms of adoption. You request the right to adopt. You have to show you would be a fit parent. In virtually all states, simply being homosexual does not disqualify you in terms of fitness.

"the issue of whether or not it is a right for these people to demand children from certain doctors and adoption agencies is a real threat to religious beliefs of churches and individuals."

Those are more complex issues than most make them out to be. As far as the doctor refusing IVF to the lesbian couple, the doctor initially said he would not perform the IVF procedure, but that another doctor in the practice would if it was required. But when it WAS required, the other doctor also refused. This forced the woman to go to a different practice and pay higher "out of network" costs for health care. They said they would do one thing, then refused to, leaving her to foot a higher bill. I think they had a good case. So did the Supreme Court, since the decision by all those Republican-appointed judges was unanimous.

In terms of Catholic Charities in Massachusetts, their ending adoption services had NOTHING to do with same-sex marriage. They were unwilling to comply with Massachusetts' anti-discrimination laws, and they were also going to lose a large United Way contribution if they continued to discriminate. So they stopped adoptions altogether.


"I'm interested about what the Supreme Court said. Is that the US or state supreme court"

California Supreme Court. I think it's page 117 of the decision.

Lisa said...

Fabulous post, Tom.

BYU, huh? Interesting!

Thank you for coming to my blog and commenting. The arguments against 8 are just too strong.

I still think the "procreation" argument is kinda funny. My husband and I have good friends who are unable to have children. I guess what they're doing is illogical and against the main purpose of marriage.

Damn those infertile couples! Maybe he should've married a girl who could have children, eh?

I mean, come on now. There are millions of children who need to be adopted.

If you haven't read those links to the Catholic Charities news clips in my blog, you ought to. Even they couldn't deny placing some children with gay couples because they were the "best match."

Then the Vatican stepped in...

I dunno, Tom. I wish you all the best though.

JEREMY AND SARAHLYNN said...

Tom, thanks for responding to my comments in a civil way. I appreciate the dialogue.

"marriage has secondary purposes -- one of which is to create greater stability of our society."

I agree, but it’s not just any committed couple that strengthens society. It is the family unit headed by a man and a woman that are married that strengthens society. I believe this for two reasons: history shows us this is the most ideal situation, and the core doctrine of my religious beliefs teaches it.
Also, Lisa assumes that the argument of procreation means people think that infertile couples shouldn’t be married or are looked down upon by heaven. Of course we don’t mean that. We are experiencing our own fertility problems, but that does not mean we shouldn’t be married. We’ve started a family according to God’s plan and we know that He recognizes our righteous desires. We know that no blessing will be denied from those that keep his commandments. It’s about keeping an eternal perspective.

"how does denying marriage equality further the goal of having more kids grow up with a mother and a father in the home?"

Marriage between a man and a woman produces more homes with mothers and fathers. I must not understand your question because this seems obvious to me.

"In virtually all states, simply being homosexual does not disqualify you in terms of fitness" for adopting children.

In virtually all states, same-sex marriage is not legalized. To my knowledge, most adoption agencies will not adopt to unmarried couples. BTW- to me there is a difference between being homosexual and practicing your homosexuality.

"the doctor initially said he would not perform the IVF procedure, but that another doctor in the practice would if it was required."

Was this statement made in writing with the Doc’s signature? Even if it was, as the second doctor, I would not appreciate other doctors giving my word before talking with me about it. I think the second doc had the right to change his mind.

“There's no ‘demanding’ in it. Only requesting.”

So I guess taking a doctor to court about not performing IVF for you is only a request. Hmm.

“But when it WAS required the other doctor also refused.”

What do you mean by “required”? Was her job or her life on the line if she did not receive IVF?

“This forced the woman to go to a different practice and pay higher ‘out of network’ costs for health care.”

If every person that has been unsatisfied with their healthcare could file a lawsuit on the basis of discrimination, then there would be no end to it! This happens all the time, not just with homosexuals. Truly, people that absolutely need treatment from out of network docs should get it, but not if it is just a nice thing to do like IVF, a tummy tuck or vasectomy. Just like everyone else does, I’m sure they could have worked it out with another plan/doctor.

“Catholic Charities in Massachusetts, their ending adoption services had NOTHING to do with same-sex marriage. They were unwilling to comply with Massachusetts' anti-discrimination laws”

Really? NPR says that the anti-discrimination laws that Catholic Charities wouldn’t follow was treating same-sex couples the same as heterosexual couples, therefore not placing children from their agency in same-sex homes. I believe they had the right to refuse to do so, as the freedom of religion grants. Unfortunately, the legalization of gay marriage over-rode that right, and they were sick of the pressure to change their beliefs, so they left the state.

You didn’t answer whether the comment from CA Supreme Court was made in passing or made a law. My understanding is that their comment is not law. If prop 8 doesn’t pass, there’s a slim chance our legislators will be motivated to write a law protecting our religious freedom in regards to gay marriage.

It’s important to recognize that these cases from Mass, the IVF docs, etc, are only the beginning of the consequences we face by re-defining the divine and long lasting term of marriage.

Tom said...

"it’s not just any committed couple that strengthens society. It is the family unit headed by a man and a woman that are married that strengthens society."

But not ONLY that unit. When two people -- even people of the same gender -- enter into a legal contract (especially when it is based on love) to care for and support each other and to be responsible for each other's debts, you create a more stable unit. And a more stable society. Yes, parenthood requires both genders -- but that is a different societal benefit. But looking out for someone else so the state is less likely to have to...that happens with any civil marriage.

""how does denying marriage equality further the goal of having more kids grow up with a mother and a father in the home?"

Marriage between a man and a woman produces more homes with mothers and fathers. I must not understand your question because this seems obvious to me."

Here's my point. If you pass Proposition 8, gay people aren't going away. If Proposition 8 fails, heterosexual couples can still have children. NOTHING about prop 8 encourages or discourages the formation of traditional families. I said it in the original post to which we are now commenting, so I will say it again: if we can't get married, we're not going to suddenly go straight and start making babies. And either way the vote goes, nothing is stopping heterosexual couples from marrying, having babies and staying together to raise them.

So if your stated objective is more kids in mom/dad families, passing or defeating Prop 8 will do NOTHING to help you achieve it. So that can't be a reason why you would support this constitutional amendment.

"In virtually all states, same-sex marriage is not legalized. To my knowledge, most adoption agencies will not adopt to unmarried couples."

They do. They prefer married couples, but they WILL place children with non-married couples. Most heterosexual couples who want to adopt realize married couples have an advantage -- so they get married. That hasn't been an option for gay folks.

"BTW- to me there is a difference between being homosexual and practicing your homosexuality."

And to me, it's the same difference between being left-handed and using your left hand to write, throw a ball, brush your teeth, etc.

""the doctor initially said he would not perform the IVF procedure, but that another doctor in the practice would if it was required."

Was this statement made in writing with the Doc’s signature?"

The doctor stated so in court.

"Even if it was, as the second doctor, I would not appreciate other doctors giving my word before talking with me about it."

They had talked it over. He didn't just offer the other doctor's services without chatting to him about it.

"I think the second doc had the right to change his mind."

But his first agreeing to do it and later refusing caused hardship -- both emotional and financial -- to the woman. She was right to sue. And ended up BEING right under the law. Remember, this was a 7-0 decision. Pretty clear.

"“There's no ‘demanding’ in it. Only requesting.”

So I guess taking a doctor to court about not performing IVF for you is only a request. Hmm."

They had already made their "request" and had it granted. When it was refused and they were forced to go elsewhere and pay more money for a promised service, they had to turn to the courts because the doctors weren't men of their word.

"“But when it WAS required the other doctor also refused.”

What do you mean by “required”? Was her job or her life on the line if she did not receive IVF?"

It was "required" in the same way it would be "required" if your family needed IVF to become pregnant.

"“This forced the woman to go to a different practice and pay higher ‘out of network’ costs for health care.”

If every person that has been unsatisfied with their healthcare could file a lawsuit on the basis of discrimination, then there would be no end to it!"

Fortunately, there is not that much discrimination. Most doctors treat people equally. This woman was unfortunate enough that the medical practice covered by her insurance did not.

"This happens all the time, not just with homosexuals. Truly, people that absolutely need treatment from out of network docs should get it, but not if it is just a nice thing to do like IVF, a tummy tuck or vasectomy. Just like everyone else does, I’m sure they could have worked it out with another plan/doctor."

Put yourself in their shoes. Say you wanted a vasectomy. The doctor at your preferred provider says -- I don't do vasectomies, I'm Catholic. But this other doctor will. When it's time for your vasectomy, the other doctor decides no, he won't do it either.

And since you have scheduling issues, it must be done immediately, and you have to pay an extra, say $3000 to another doctor, wouldn't you feel mistreated?

"NPR says that the anti-discrimination laws that Catholic Charities wouldn’t follow was treating same-sex couples the same as heterosexual couples, therefore not placing children from their agency in same-sex homes."

Had nothing to do with their marital status, only their sexual orientation.

"You didn’t answer whether the comment from CA Supreme Court was made in passing or made a law. My understanding is that their comment is not law."

Not a lawyer. Seemed like a pretty clear indication of what they felt should (or should not) be done.

"If prop 8 doesn’t pass, there’s a slim chance our legislators will be motivated to write a law protecting our religious freedom in regards to gay marriage."

You have the First Amendment. Religious freedom will be. Search my blog for a post called "Shipmates." There is a link to a very interesting article there, about how religious freedom and marriage equality are tied up with each other in case law.

It’s important to recognize that these cases from Mass, the IVF docs, etc, are only the beginning of the consequences we face by re-defining the divine and long lasting term of marriage.

Philip Riedel (Project Team) said...

Wow. Congratulations! I'm super excited for you both. I'd wish you the best but you already have it.

Reuven said...

Would you tell your kids that it's OK to take candy from an stranger?

Then why are California Evangelicals accepting this "help" from the Mormon "Church?"

This is an attempt for Mormons to gain a toehold in the CA Evangelical Community.

Don't be fooled! VOTE NO ON PROP 8 and make their plans for naught. We can address same-sex marriage later.

Anonymous said...

"Would you tell your kids that it's OK to take candy from an stranger? Then why are California Evangelicals accepting this "help" from the Mormon "Church?""

California Evangelicals are accepting contributions from members of the mormon church because they feel the same on one specific issue. Just because the core beliefs of certain religions are different that doesn't mean the members can't unite for a cause that they believe in. And just because you don't believe the teachingsof the mormon church doesn't mean that it isn't a church.




"This is an attempt for Mormons to gain a toehold in the CA Evangelical Community."

The mormons aren't trying to gain a toehold in the Evangelical Community. Their sole purpose is to stand up for their beliefs. Every person in this country is entitled to their beliefs. Some peoples are different than others. Luckily, Americans have the right to vote. On November 4 we'll see what the majority decides. Whether it passes or not everyone will know that they stood up for what they feel is right whether they're mormon, catholic, evangelical, athiest, or worship the devil himself.



"Don't be fooled! VOTE NO ON PROP 8 and make their plans for naught. We can address same-sex marriage later."

Wheter you're voting No or Yes, don't make you decision based on a biased opinion about a church that you don't see eye to eye with. Vote on the issue at hand. That is what educated, logical voters do.

JEREMY AND SARAHLYNN said...

Tom, I really appreciate your answers to my questions. Thank you. You bring up some interesting points to consider.

The most interesting point that you bring up is that a committed couple- no matter their gender- can help stabilize society. This seems true at first glance. I'm not a politician or a scientist, so I can't give a ton of "proof" for what I believe. But I try to be as educated and open minded as I can. I also look at both sides of an argument as objectively as I can, which is why I've been reading your blog and asking you questions and answering yours. But above all, I feel very strongly that what my church teaches is true. I thank you for these discussions and I wish you all the best.

Honestly, I hope you are right that if Prop 8 doesn't pass it won't have any effects. But I can't ignore the urgency in our prophet's and apostles' voices that "Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan... We warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets... We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

Tom said...

Jeremy and Sarahlynn -

I appreciate your willingness to engage on this issue in a kind and constructive way, and I appreciate your willingness to look at both sides of the issue with an open mind. I endeavor to do the same. (It's how I was ultimately converted in terms of the Equal Rights Amendment all those years ago!)

As ever, I fully respect your right to hold your religious beliefs.

But in my last ditch effort to convert you to voting "no" on 8, I want to remind you of a couple of things.

First, remember that it was the LDS church that once had a different definition of what they wanted "marriage" to be -- and were run out of more than one state, in part because of that minority belief.

Second, Christ's statement about "render unto Caesar," which says to me that our civil lives can have separation from our religious lives.

Many civil laws agree with what we find in scripture -- e.g., thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal. But many do not. It's perfectly legal for me to eat bacon (thank goodness!), even though the Old Testament prohibits it.

Most (but unfortunately, not ALL) are laws are grounded in logic and reason. It makes sense to have laws against stealing -- our society would devolve into chaos if we couldn't expect our possessions to be protected. It makes sense to have laws against drunk driving and littering and smoking in public places.

But it makes NO logical sense to deny loving, committed couples the right to legally affirm their commitment to each other. The only arguments I see presented are:

- Marriage is traditionally man-woman.

Well, not exactly. Used to be man and many wives and concubines. Be that as it may, tradition is no defense, as we have changed MANY traditions (slavery, women's right to vote) as our world has changed.

- Children deserve a mother and a father

I think I've addressed this one pretty completely -- marriage equality won't reduce OR increase the number of children being raised in mom/dad households.

- God says this is how it should be.

My God says different. Who are we to believe? That's why this argument doesn't fly in courts.

So if one can come up with no rational reason to deny marriage equality, other than "this person whom I respect and obey in religious matters says I should," I'm hoping you will be able to continue to follow him in religious matters, but leave THIS civil right alone.

Thanks for reading.

My best to you and your family.

Yvonne said...

CONGRATULATIONS on your marriage!!! I too have donated... and after I get my tiny lil paycheck into the bank tomorrow, I will donate more!

Anonymous said...

"Here's my point. If you pass Proposition 8, gay people aren't going away. If Proposition 8 fails, heterosexual couples can still have children. NOTHING about prop 8 encourages or discourages the formation of traditional families. I said it in the original post to which we are now commenting, so I will say it again: if we can't get married, we're not going to suddenly go straight and start making babies. And either way the vote goes, nothing is stopping heterosexual couples from marrying, having babies and staying together to raise them."
The above is what you said. Here is what I say:
NO NO NO (I can't emphasise this enough) should have to be raised by a gay couple. That is not at all fair to make them be reaised in that situation which will affect them greatly every day for their lives, but to which they have no control!
You say that weater the votes come back yes or no, nothing will change, then why do you care so much.
Please do not make others think that they should make my children be taught that you are okay!!

Tom said...

"Here is what I say:
NO NO NO (I can't emphasise this enough) should have to be raised by a gay couple."

I think you meant to say "no CHILD should have to..."

Prop 8 will have no effect on parenting.

"That is not at all fair to make them be reaised in that situation which will affect them greatly every day for their lives, but to which they have no control!"

Again, Prop 8 has ZERO effect on parenting. Pass or fail, couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual, married or domestic partnered or shacking up (or not even that) can still have children.

"You say that weater the votes come back yes or no, nothing will change, then why do you care so much."

Because nothing will change about having children -- but plenty will change if Prop 8 passes.

"Please do not make others think that they should make my children be taught that you are okay!!"

Now we get down to it, don't we? And your side wonders why you get called "bigots" so much.

Tyler Jorgenson said...

Congratulations.

I wanted to thank you again for your comment on my blog sometime ago. I also wanted to apologize for failing to examine the issue more fully and using misinformation to support my view.

I appreciate the tact you have taken in your defending your views of Prop 8. I am embarrassed at the immaturity on both sides with the sign stealing, picketing turned to arguments, etc.

I wish you a life of happiness.

Tom said...

Tyler -

Thank you so much for your kind words. They are very much appreciated.

I'm also glad that you were able to find accurate information here. Though I am a very strong opponent of Proposition 8, I endeavor always to present the truth about the issue.

Thanks again for participating in the discussion.