 I hope everyone has this. Today, the United States Court of Appeals has affirmed a simple, fundamental American truth. How we are born and who we choose to love should not be a basis for discrimination in this country. Every American, regardless of race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, deserves the same dignity and respect, the same freedom to love and to marry, and to build a family. That's all this case is about. Not special rights or privileges, just fairness and equality. The same fairness and equality, the Supreme Court held 45 years ago in Loving v. Virginia after Mildred and Richard Loving were arrested for being an interracial married couple. The Supreme Court recognized that marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our existence and our survival. Fundamental because it's the promise of love, companionship, family that are the basis of our happiness, of a life fulfilled, the American dream. Take that promise away from someone, especially a young person, and you take their hope away. Hope that they'll one day find the person they love and enjoy the life affirming stability of marriage. What the court did today affirms that you cannot single out one group of people and deny them the dignity and respect which all citizens deserve. There are strong, loving, gay, and lesbian families all around us, people who are our neighbors, our family, our colleagues and friends, people who fight for, serve our country every day and protect us. We brought this case for them and for the millions of young, gay, and lesbians across this country in the hopes that they might be the first generation to grow up with full and equal protection of our laws and the promise of a future that isn't just a possibility for some, but for all. To those young people, you have a right to feel what is in your heart. You have a right to be who you are. And the court today has just taken a big step towards giving you the future and the protections you so deserve. When I was growing up in a small town in Arkansas, my mom taught me the golden rule, treat others as you wish to be treated. That's really all we're talking about here today. Being treated with the same basic respect and dignity as everyone else. Building an America where everyone is free to participate, free to contribute, and free to enjoy life to its fullest. An America that is the beacon of freedom, liberty, and equality for all people throughout the world. Thank you. I'm Ted Olson, one of the lawyers that we're representing, the plaintiffs in this case. My colleague and partner, Ted Butrus, is here with me today. Many of you know David Boyes, and his law firm were integral parts of this trip. He was in New York and could not get out here in time, but I'm sure that he's there, and his lawyers in his firm are celebrating as we are today with Ted and other members of our firm. I wanted to thank and pay special tribute to the plaintiffs, and you'll be hearing from them in a moment, and their families who are here with us on stage. It is not easy to be a participant in a landmark civil rights case that goes on and on and takes a great amount of time. They were put in the spotlight, and lots of pressure is put on them. They have been absolutely fantastic. They've been wonderful symbols of what we're doing today. They stand for the humanity of everything that we're doing. I also have to say how much I'm grateful, and we're all grateful, to the American Foundation for Equal Rights that Chad Leeds, Rob and Michelle Reiner helped get this started three years ago, Lance Black, who is another member of the board, and I guess other members of our board are not here, but they're here in spirit. This is a huge day. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which represents nine states and certain territories, has decided that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. It violates the fundamental human rights of citizens in this country. We had already won an important decision by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California a year and a half ago. This affirms that decision. It strikes down Proposition 8 as violating the fundamental charter of the United States Constitution. This case is about equality and freedom and dignity and fairness and decency. It is about whether we are going to eliminate government-sponsored discrimination written into the Constitution of the biggest state in the United States. It is about whether we're going to eliminate second-class citizenship, whether we're going to treat thousands, millions of our citizens as less equal, less respected, different, less entitled, isolated. We are bringing a stop to that discrimination. Discrimination on this level to our citizens hurts all of us. As Chad said, it is our neighbors, it is our brothers and our sisters, our sons and our daughters, our coworkers, our doctors, our contractors, our ministers. It is about us. It is about every one of us. And as the opposing witness said, in our case, at trial, we will be more American in this country when we eliminate discrimination based upon sexual orientation. Today, we are more American because of this decision. This is an important step. We're not at the end of the line yet, but I cannot overstate the importance of the decision today. We will have some opportunity for questions and answers, but those things I wanted to emphasize and underscore, this is very important. When the citizens of California voted to take away the right to marry from many, many, many of our citizens in California, they violated the United States Constitution. That cannot stand. Thank God for the judiciary in this country to respect the Constitution, to stand up from whatever pressures may be put upon the judiciary, and to say what the law is. That's what the United Circuit did today. Today marks the culmination of what has been a transformational year. Today, the Ninth Circuit of Appeals said to our family and millions of Americans that we are equal under the law, that the right to marry the person you love is a fundamental freedom and that full federal marriage equality is within our grasp. For so long, gay and lesbian couples, families and kids have endured discrimination. For so long, our government has been the perpetrator of this very personal discrimination. Now with the ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, the dismantling of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, victory for marriage equality in New York, and a focus internationally on gay rights as human rights, we can see over the dark wall of discrimination. We can see a place where freedom and respect come more easily, and where protection from harm is what our government does for us and not to us. Brick by brick, these dark walls of discrimination are being dismantled. I grew up in Bakersfield, California, afraid of who I really was, afraid to come out, afraid to fall in love, afraid to dream of a future that would include not only joy but heartbreak and disappointment. I did not let myself want to have a family because I could not imagine how that dream would ever become a reality. And although it's been a long road, now Sandy and I are closer to achieving this reality. We are anxious to get married before our youngest children, our twin boys, Spencer and Elliot, graduate high school next year and begin their lives as adults. We look forward to the closure and celebration that will come from the end of Prop 8 and the beginning of married life together. Very soon, Proposition 8 will be gone forever. When that day comes, we can all celebrate a victory for freedom, fairness, and equality. We can't wait for that day, we can't wait. Well, hello, I'm Sandy, I'm Chris's partner, hopefully soon to be her wife. Thank you all for being here today. Thank you so much to the AFRA Group, Lance and Rob Michelle, Chad, our amazing lawyers, legal team, everybody who supported us in this case, in this fight for marriage equality. We're very moved to be with you here today. Today I look at Chris, my amazing partner of 12 years, with amazing and tremendous love and gratitude and excitement for what lies ahead because for us that's finally going to be marriage. Chris and I fell in love about 12 years ago and as we joined households, we became a family. We walked the twins to school together the very first day of school so many, many years ago and next year, God willing, we'll drive them to college and they'll begin that part of their lives. When we got together, our older two sons were in grammar school, today they're grown adult men who could get married if they wanted to. As other couples, we've experienced the highs and lows of family, we've lost a parent and we started welcoming the next generation into our family with a new grand-nephew this past year. Growing up in Iowa, I was always taught that you live by the golden rule, you work hard and you're treated fairly by your government and by the people and today's ruling, the affirmation of the ruling really brings us as a family one step closer to that reality in our own lives. Today's ruling makes this thing possible that we've been hoping for for so long which is full of quality. As moms, I know that Chris and I both really want our own children to experience the best that life has to offer, our greatest hope for them is that they fall in love and are loved and they get to be their best selves and fulfill their own dreams. We want this for our kids certainly but we want it for other kids. We want it for kids in Iowa, we want it for kids in Los Angeles, we want it for all kids gay and straight. Today, our court sends a powerful message to us and to our children and our children's children and that is that we are all equal, we all deserve the same rights and we all matter. Thank you so much. Hello, I'm Spencer Perry, I'm Chris and Sandy's son. First I'd like to thank my parents, Paul and Jeff, everyone at the A4 board and everyone at Gibson and Dunn for making this possible and taking the next step towards marriage equality in the United States. The fight that these people that my parents have pursued is a fight that gay people everywhere are fighting. They're discriminated just for being who they are and loving who they love. Marriage equality is the next step to finally showing California that my parents are equal, that our family is equal. I'm very fortunate to live in a home with a lot of love and on a day goes by that my brothers and myself don't consider ourselves extremely fortunate to have grown up with such an outstanding parents but Proposition 8 has done a really, really good job of trying to tear that love apart. When Proposition 8 doesn't allow parents like mine to marry, it isn't just defining their love as taboo or wrong. It says that our family, that my brothers, that my mothers shouldn't belong and we don't get to be the same as my friends' families. With this ruling, in the eyes of the government, my family is finally normal. We aren't different and we don't need a trial to prove that we love one another. Families in the same government that, when what Proposition 8 means is that I know that the government that I trust to protect me, the government that has fought for civil rights for centuries for other families is the same government that turns a blind eye to the violence and the persecution that the gay community suffers. A government that has taken action specifically saying, this minority does not have the rights of the majority, but there's hope. If anything, with this case, we can see that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. All of the rallies, the marches, the speeches have pushed us to a more equal society and seem to be a more equal United States. In the words of David Blankenhorn, we'll be more American. Thank you. Good morning, thank you all for being here. My name is Paul Katami, I'm a plaintiff in the case, and I can remember being gay as far back as I can pretty much remember anything. No one asked me to be gay, I didn't choose to be gay and it certainly wasn't because of the way I was raised. The thing I did choose was to hide that I was gay when I realized how the LGBT community could be treated in the world. I was bullied, I was harassed, and so I chose to hide my true self and create a life that really wasn't my own, and that was my choice, not to be gay, but to hide it. And today, I know that being gay doesn't make me any less American, it certainly doesn't make me any less of a human being. I'm proud to be gay, it's a part of who I am and that will never change. And as a gay American, I believe in our freedoms, I believe in the truth, and I believe in our judicial system. The district court's ruling in our favor was based on fact and it was based on the truth, and the Ninth Circuit's decision today affirms that we're all born equally and we all deserve equal rights because in the end, the truth wins. Today's ruling is important for millions of gay and lesbian couples, that desire to be a part of an institution that has immediate and universal recognition, it's the institution of marriage. Today's decision also is important for us as a nation because it affirms that equal rights and fundamental freedoms should never, ever be lobbied for, they should never be voted for, and they should never be subjected to the whim of a political campaign. And today's decision is important to that young me that never dreamt that I would wake up in a country or I could marry the person that I love. I never allowed myself that opportunity until today. So I'd like to introduce you to my co-planetiff, my partner, my best friend, and my husband-to-be, Jeff Cirillo. Thank you. My name is Jeff Cirillo, I'm also a plaintiff in this case and I am a gay American. Today is a great day, not only for the gay and lesbian community, but for America as well. The Ninth Circuit's decision affirms the principle of equal human dignity for every American and that it's unfair to single out a group of people for separate treatment. With today's ruling, Chris and Sandy, Paul and I, and millions of other Americans will very soon be able to marry the person we love. Finally, we will be able to stand before our family and our friends and make the one promise we have all longed for, the promise of love and commitment that we will honor for the rest of our lives. Standing alongside me are many special people. My partner in life, Paul Katami, you have been my rock and if it was possible, I think this lawsuit has brought us even closer together. The poet Roy Croft once said, I love you not only because of what you are, but for what I am when I'm with you. Also on stage are the two people who have always accepted me for who I am. My parents, Dominic and Linda, they've been married for over 43 years. Love and commitment have long been the values of my family, both my mother's parents and my father's parents were both married for well over 50 years. Paul and I have been together for almost 11, so we have a long way to go to catch up, but today's decision by the Ninth Circuit will allow us to one day share the sense of pride and security that we all long for and that only marriage can bring. Paul and I would like to thank Ted Olson and David Boyes. They are not just remarkable lawyers, they are remarkable human beings who believe in the fundamental freedoms of this country and who have convinced the courts that marriage is one of them. We would also like to thank Robin Michelle Reiner, Lance Black and the entire AFER Board for having the courage to say the time is now, the waiting is over. And we have to certainly thank the entire team at AFER led by Adam Omaefer. Paul and I would like to thank Chris and Sandy as well. We are so proud to be on this journey with you and we admire you and we certainly hope that we can be the strong role models for our kids that you are to yours. Last but not least, Paul and I would like to thank our fearless leader Chad Griffin who has led this historic fight to end discrimination with poise and determination. We would not be standing here if it wasn't for you. An entire community thanks you. I would like to end with a simple quote from John F. Kennedy. He said, the best road to progress is freedom's road. I'd like to introduce my father Dominic. Thank you. Thank you son. And I'd like to thank you to everyone who's here today for their support, perseverance and commitment to make sure that everyone in this country is treated fairly. I just want to say how proud I am of my son Jeff and his partner Paul. Jeff's mom and I loved them both very much and we couldn't ask for a better son or soon to be son-in-law. My wife and I admire the courage they've shown and standing for what's right. I think all people, whether they're gay or straight, should be treated the way each of us would like to be treated. I am grateful for the court's decision today. Thank you very much. We have time for a few questions. Thank you sir. Here we go. I actually have two questions please. First of all, you know that there are a lot of ballot initiatives and various legislatures are considering marriage bills. Now what kind of impact do you think this ruling will have on what's happening around the country regarding marriage? That's number one. And number two, you're probably aware that a group called Love, Honor, Cherish is trying to gather signatures to overturn Prop 8, put an initiative on the ballot for 2012 to overturn Prop 8. I was wondering if you could give your impression of what you think of that effort as well. Thank you. You want to take the second ballot? Yeah, sure. Sure, I'll take the second one. The only people after our trial court victory and after the tremendous victory today that probably wish they could go back to the ballot would be the opposition, those who oppose marriage equality. So we are so grateful for the victory here today in a trial, and we look forward to very soon Californians being able to wed again. As to the effect of this decision on what's happening throughout America, just like the district court decision, which was 130 plus pages of carefully reasoned analysis of the evidence, the expert testimony, the facts, the law, the Constitution, the precedents that have led to this point, this decision, 80 pages, the majority opinion is 80, carefully reasoned, tightly thought out legal analysis based upon United States Supreme Court decisions. This will have an enormous impact in various different ways. One, it is an important legal precedent for other courts throughout the United States. Two, because it is a precedence that's so thoughtfully and carefully considered and tied to what the United States Supreme Court has said already. This court talked about the importance of marriage and the difference between marriage and something called domestic partnership or whatever name it might be called in civil unions in other parts of the country, marriage is different. The language of Judge Reinhart's decision and his colleagues with respect to what marriage means in this country is overwhelming. And when you take away a right that have been granted to the people of your community, your state on the basis of sexual orientation, that is discrimination, that violates the Equal Protection Clause. The other point that's so important is that every legal decision allows the American people to hear more about what these issues are, to ask questions, to think about these issues. In my experience, we've been working on this for three years, the more you talk to people, the more they listen, the more they realize this is right and this is inevitable. So this will change court decisions, it will change public opinion, it will change what legislatures do. It is, I cannot overstate the importance of this decision. Can you just grab the mic there? When will we hear about the stay? If there is a stay, if there's not a stay, when can people get married? And one other question, my understanding is there is a two one breakdown on the constitutionality question. What was the breakdown on the bias issue as related to Walker? What is the latter part? The breakdown of the judges, the appellate judges on the bias question. The latter part, the court addressed whether or not the district judge because of his sexual orientation should have been allowed to hear this case. The court unanimously held that he was entitled to hear the case, it was right to hear the case and you cannot disqualify someone on the basis of their interest in the ultimate outcome as ordinary citizens or other citizens might be. That is a unanimous decision. The first part of your question, oh the stay, what in the last words of the opinion on page 80, I think you'll find it, the court stayed the effect of its decision until the mandate is final which will be 14 days for the other side if they wish to ask for a re-hearing by the entire Ninth Circuit and then seven days after that if that 14 days goes by would be the end so we're talking about February 28. Now what I suspect but don't know is that our opponents, the proponents of proposition eight will seek a stay pending some further analysis by the United States Supreme Court or some application to the court and then we'll urge the Ninth Circuit to lift the stay. Here we have a district court that's decided that this proposition eight violates constitutional rights of citizens throughout California. The Ninth Circuit has affirmed that we have said right from the beginning that discrimination and violation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution can't just keep going while the courts are litigating this issue especially in light of these decisions. Other questions, can you wait on the mic? So one back there and then one up here. There's the mic behind you. The mic is behind you. Oh, thanks, sorry, I think that's easier. I was gonna ask about the Supreme Court and the likelyness of this going to the Supreme Court. I'm behind the cameras. Sorry, wedged in the middle. You probably can't see, yeah, I'm sorry. Why are you hiding? Sorry, I was just typing down your really important words. I was gonna ask about the Supreme Court and the likelyness of this heading to the Supreme Court. Why don't you go, Ted Butrus has been just waiting for that question. I'm ready. You'll have to forgive us, we hold this in a place with the wood floor and marble all over the place and the acoustics aren't great. So if you don't hear what we say, we'll be glad to repeat it. Absolutely, we anticipate that the proponents of Proposition 8 will seek Supreme Court review. The way the Night Circuit crafted the opinion very carefully, I think the logic under the Romer case, under the Lawrence versus Texas case, it's unassailable and it followed what the Supreme Court has said. And the way the court wrote the decision, I think it will make it much harder for the proponents to get Supreme Court review. That said, when we brought this case three years ago, we thought this is a case that should be decided by the Supreme Court. So we have always anticipated the Supreme Court ruling on these issues. In the Romer case, I remember when we were all sitting around, we first looked at this case and thought, this is almost identical to what happened in Romer. And today's opinion says it's remarkably similar to what happened in Romer. And in Romer, the Supreme Court unequivocally said, it's not allowable under the Equal Protection Clause to single out a particular group. And it was another case involving sexual orientation and strip away their rights because of who they are. That issue, we believe the court got exactly right. And if and when the Supreme Court looks at the issue, we think that they will agree with what the Ninth Circuit held today. Thank you. Good question here in the front. Hi, Andrew Gumbel from The Guardian in Britain. The last question anticipated part of my question, but I have a little bit more, which is I looked at the beginning of the ruling. I haven't read all 128 pages, but there seemed to be a distinction drawn between the circumstances in California where you already have people recognized as being legally married in same-sex partnerships and others who are denied. And drawing a distinction between that and the broader question of whether same-sex couples are allowed to marry generally. How confident or how do you see whether this, if it's the end of the road or a ruling by the Supreme Court will settle Prop 8 in California narrowly or will settle the question of gay marriage more generally for Americans everywhere? There's two answers to that question, it seems to me. One, the decision, the judges were very carefully focused on the specific circumstances in California because that made the case so compellingly more strong about its unconstitutionality. The Romer case that Ted Butrus was talking about was a Colorado case, which they called Amendment One, which then withdrew protections for gay and lesbian individuals under various statutes throughout the state of Colorado. The Supreme Court struck that down on the grounds that we are making distinctions on the basis of a class of citizens and then taking away rights that have been given to them or have been granted to them by legislatures and that sort of thing. So taking away the rights of individuals based upon a class determination is unconstitutional. As Ted Butrus mentioned, that is exactly what happened here because the California Supreme Court recognized that under the California Constitution, gay and lesbian individuals had a constitutional right in California to get married. Proposition 8 took that right away. So the Ninth Circuit says the facts of California make this a particularly compelling case for the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8. However, the court went on to point out the importance of marriage as a fundamental right to all Americans, the meaning of marriage, the fact that gay and lesbian individuals were accorded other rights in California but denied the right to call themselves married. And that is a building block of our society. Even the opponents, the Ninth Circuit decision recognized, said how important marriage was. In fact, their whole case was based upon that. And then the Ninth Circuit went on to say, withdrawing that right on the basis of sexual orientation cannot stand under the Equal Protection Clause. So while the court made a very focused, thoughtful decision on the strongest ground possible, which is what courts do, they also rendered decisions based upon the district court analysis and their own analysis that conveys a significance much more broadly with respect to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. So the answer to your question is this is a case that is we feel extremely strong in terms of being upheld in the Supreme Court because it's based so solidly on the Supreme Court's precedent itself in Romer. But that all of the other aspects and arguments that we presented to the court are in this opinion as well. The wrongness of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, the taking away of that right, that's all in here. And so it's a very strong opinion across the board. Something else I just wanna add to that is make no mistake about it, today is a historic victory for marriage equality and freedom and for the plaintiffs and their families behind me, but it is a monumental loss for those who oppose marriage equality, freedom and liberty. As you know, across the country, there are a number of states, including our nation's capital who has passed gay marriage either through the legislature or through judicial decisions. And those who oppose marriage equality and who want to revoke those rights that have been granted, will not see today's decision in positive light. As you know, particularly in New York, they've announced they're going to attempt to recall and remove those who voted for marriage equality and attempt to reverse the decision. And the same in a number of other states around the country. And I think that's really important to note and to remember, it's also important to remember, California is one eighth of the population of this country. We now have the anchors of soon to be California and we know New York and our nation's capital and a few in between and several that are on their way. So today is a historic day, not just for California but for America. And Chad, can I add one point there? Because I think it's particularly significant. One of the reasons we brought the case is because we all saw that if a state recognized the right to marry and marriage equality, that right could be taken away. And that's what the Ninth Circuit today held violates equal protection. It's also significant, one of our expert witnesses testified that gay men and lesbians have been the most frequent target of voter initiatives meant to take away their rights. Today's decision says not only in the context of marriage equality, but more broadly, that's wrong. The majority cannot target a minority group and take the rights away from them simply because of who they are. So I think it's very significant both for marriage equality, for California, and for our constitutional jurisprudence. Just one more question. There's a mic behind you, Ted. Thank you. I wanted to follow up on a point, I think, that Ted Boutros that you made. This decision, could you just elaborate more on why this decision, I think you said this decision maybe made it, makes it even more unlikely that the Supreme Court will actually take this case? I'll address it briefly and then turn it back. See, we have a Ted asking Ted and Ted a question. So this is very consistent. First, because of the way the court showed such great restraint in looking at what the Supreme Court has said and stayed very close to the Romer decision and applied Romer, this case doesn't raise any sort of thorny, complex issue that conflicts with another decision from another court. It follows Supreme Court law. It follows Supreme Court precedent. In addition, because it's focused on the characteristics of Proposition 8, it makes it less likely that the Supreme Court would need to weigh in. And I think that it makes it even more likely that the decision of the Ninth Circuit will remain the law of the Ninth Circuit. And if the Supreme Court takes the decision, as I said, I think it's extraordinarily well done and supported by multiple cases and that the Supreme Court would affirm the decision. I'll add this, that we don't predict what the Supreme Court is going to do, whether it takes a case or doesn't take a case. We don't predict the outcome of Supreme Court decisions because the court decides these cases. We are very confident that this court, this is the kind of challenge that is right down the core of what the Supreme Court said is impermissible under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. From the very beginning, we've been planning to be in the United States Supreme Court to vindicate for all Americans the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. The fact is that there's a high likelihood in any event that the Supreme Court is going to be concerned about a case where the Constitution of the state of California, the biggest state in the United States, has been struck down. This is something that is going to be very hard for the United States Supreme Court to ignore. Ted's point is, and I agree with it, that the strength, particular strength of the Ninth Circuit decision is how it was focused on the particular facts in California that made this such an egregious and apparent on its face manifest violation of the Constitution based upon the Lawrence v. Texas case, the Romer case that Ted talked about, and the earlier case of Loving v. Virginia, where the United States Supreme Court in 1967 struck down unanimously statutes, eight, 16 statutes in the United States that would have prevented people from marrying someone of a different race. I've made the point before, that before the Loving decision, the mother and father of the president of the United States could not have been married. In Virginia, they would have been in jail. They would have been convicted of a felony for violating one of those 16 laws. That's how far we've come in this country. And you put that case together with the Lawrence v. Texas case that upholds the constitutional right of individuals to engage in private sexual activity with respect to someone that they love. That is a constitutional right. That constitutional right and engaging in that constitutionally protected activity cannot be the basis from taking away the constitutional right to marry. And then the Romer case comes along and says, if you have these rights under a particular state, they cannot be taken away on the basis of classification such as this. All of those cases add up to an insurmountable burden for our opponents that cannot be overcome. We submit when it does, if it does, get to the United States Supreme Court. OK. One question over here. It's very quick and very practical. Going back to the stay, so you're saying that you are going to urge the Ninth Circuit to lift the stay at what point? We will be urging when it's presented to the Ninth Circuit as we presume it will be by our opponents, they will want to keep the stay in effect while they litigate further either in the Ninth Circuit or in the United States Supreme Court. We will oppose that stay. We will say that time has come to stop this discrimination. We have a district court decision. We have an appellate court decision. The time has ended. These people are being hurt every single day. Thank you. Intended was the irony to hold this news conference here in the former Catholic cathedral. I couldn't hear. I'm sorry. How intended was the irony to hold this news conference here in the former Catholic cathedral? It's a beautiful place. We had to have a news conference about marriage in a place where marriage takes place. Imagine not knowing when a decision is going to come and having to have an available space at a moment's notice. It's a beautiful event space, though. Yes? The United States government's position on defensive marriage is something that the courts will read. And they did read when they were rendering this decision. We know that because we put it before them. And the courts that consider the Defense of Marriage Act will read this decision. As you know, courts build upon momentum and precedent. They will read this very carefully reasoned, thoughtful opinion from the Ninth Circuit. And I think that will have an impact. You can never measure these things in advance. You can't quantify them. But it will have a major significant impact on the defense of marriage cases. Thank you, Ken. All right. Thank you all very much. Thank you.