Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Dragonlady]

Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.

Real churches marry gay people all of the time.

Not Bible believing churches....501C3 churches do..... so they can maintain their tax free status....consider yourself "schooled".....

Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and other denominations, allow individual congregations to decide.

These are large world-wide mainstream churches.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.

Real churches marry gay people all of the time.

Not Bible believing churches....501C3 churches do..... so they can maintain their tax free status....consider yourself "schooled".....

Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and other denominations, allow individual congregations to decide.

These are large world-wide mainstream churches.

Yanno, there are those that say that Sunni's and Shia's should be allowed to decide their way as well.

Tribalism at it's best. Allow the individual tribes to decide what is best for the faith overall.

 

[IndependantAce]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

The right to marry is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

That gay Americans are entitled to due process and equal protection of the law is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in predicated solely on who they are violates their right to due process and equal protection of the law, rendering any such measure invalid and un-Constitutional.

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence, of which Obergefell is the progeny, is well over 100 years old, prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation.

If you’re going to ‘amend’ the Constitution to allow the states to deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law, you’ll need to pass an ‘amendment’ repealing the 14th Amendment.

Good luck

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

Marriage is not a right..

However since marriage licenses were born from racism, why do we still have them?

Wrong.

Marriage is in fact a right.

with that.

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

The right to marry is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

That gay Americans are entitled to due process and equal protection of the law is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in predicated solely on who they are violates their right to due process and equal protection of the law, rendering any such measure invalid and un-Constitutional.

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence, of which Obergefell is the progeny, is well over 100 years old, prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation.

If you’re going to ‘amend’ the Constitution to allow the states to deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law, you’ll need to pass an ‘amendment’ repealing the 14th Amendment.

Good luck with that.

Should be to hard; just repeal the 14th Amendment and draft a new one reinstating the parts which are worthy, but clearly define marriage as between opposite sex partners only.

Plus in doing so we could also get rid of abortion, killing 2 birds with one stone.

If Trump wins maybe we can work toward repealing the 14th Amendment..

 

[Syriusly]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

Hello 2015 calling.

Did you just wake up out of a coma and find out the Supreme Court ruled on this in 2015?

 

[Syriusly]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

The right to marry is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

That gay Americans are entitled to due process and equal protection of the law is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in predicated solely on who they are violates their right to due process and equal protection of the law, rendering any such measure invalid and un-Constitutional.

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence, of which Obergefell is the progeny, is well over 100 years old, prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation.

If you’re going to ‘amend’ the Constitution to allow the states to deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law, you’ll need to pass an ‘amendment’ repealing the 14th Amendment.

Good luck

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

Marriage is not a right..

However since marriage licenses were born from racism, why do we still have them?

Wrong.

Marriage is in fact a right.

with that.

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

The right to marry is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

That gay Americans are entitled to due process and equal protection of the law is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in predicated solely on who they are violates their right to due process and equal protection of the law, rendering any such measure invalid and un-Constitutional.

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence, of which Obergefell is the progeny, is well over 100 years old, prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation.

If you’re going to ‘amend’ the Constitution to allow the states to deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law, you’ll need to pass an ‘amendment’ repealing the 14th Amendment.

Good luck with that.

Should be to hard; just repeal the 14th Amendment and draft a new one reinstating the parts which are worthy, but clearly define marriage as between opposite sex partners only.

Plus in doing so we could also get rid of abortion, killing 2 birds with one stone.

If Trump wins maybe we can work toward repealing the 14th Amendment..

I am sure you will pursue that along with repealing the 13th Amendment.

 

[MaryL]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

I agree totally, but people are hammering away to indulge homosexuals on this, almost a tsunami FOR homosexual marriage. I DO NOT understand nor do I agree with the logic supporting gay marriage, I just don't understand it. Much like the support for Donald Trump. He is damned popular in the much the same vein, and that goes to the easily manipulated fickle and inexplicable nature of the American voter. PT Barnum said : YOU can fool most of the people some of the time, you cant can't fool all the people all the time.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, if you want to see what happens when religion hooks up with the state, check out the Vice Channel and watch Vice Essentials, the episode about being gay in Putin's Russia.

It's pretty scary when the religious leaders hook up with the government to enforce morality on the people.

Over in Russia, gays aren't just talked bad about, they have to worry about actual torture squads running around, beating and torturing them and posting the video on the 'net. And.............because they have State support for their actions, none of the aggressors are ever held accountable for their actions.

 

[IndependantAce]

You know, if you want to see what happens when religion hooks up with the state, check out the Vice Channel and watch Vice Essentials, the episode about being gay in Putin's Russia.

It's pretty scary when the religious leaders hook up with the government to enforce morality on the people.

Over in Russia, gays aren't just talked bad about, they have to worry about actual torture squads running around, beating and torturing them and posting the video on the 'net. And.............because they have State support for their actions, none of the aggressors are ever held accountable for their actions.

I'm sure if they kept it in the bedroom they wouldn't have anything to worry about.

If someone is publicly flaunting their homosexuality then I see no purpose in that other than to attract attention, and since many cultures historically have frowned on homosexuality, I'd say it's a pretty bad idea.

Problem is the "LGBT" movement is just about forcing acceptance on others; when sodomy laws were overturned homos already had the legal right to engage in relations without the state's intrusion, but they weren't content with that. Their goal was to make the state publicly give its stamp of approval to their lifestyle in the form of a "marriage license".

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, if you want to see what happens when religion hooks up with the state, check out the Vice Channel and watch Vice Essentials, the episode about being gay in Putin's Russia.

It's pretty scary when the religious leaders hook up with the government to enforce morality on the people.

Over in Russia, gays aren't just talked bad about, they have to worry about actual torture squads running around, beating and torturing them and posting the video on the 'net. And.............because they have State support for their actions, none of the aggressors are ever held accountable for their actions.

I'm sure if they kept it in the bedroom they wouldn't have anything to worry about.

If someone is publicly flaunting their homosexuality then I see no purpose in that other than to attract attention, and since many cultures historically have frowned on homosexuality, I'd say it's a pretty bad idea.

Problem is the "LGBT" movement is just about forcing acceptance on others; when sodomy laws were overturned homos already had the legal right to engage in relations without the state's intrusion, but they weren't content with that. Their goal was to make the state publicly give its stamp of approval to their lifestyle in the form of a "marriage license".

If they kept it in the bedroom they wouldn't have to worry?

Wrong.

One of the main tactics of a group called "Occupy Pedophilia" is to sign on to gay social sites, act like a gay person looking for another gay person, then they lure them to a secluded spot, surround them with 5 to 10 other guys, and then beat and torture them, in some cases they torture them to death.

And by the way, acceptance means that you are willing to live with something, even if you disapprove of it. Acceptance DOES NOT mean approval.

 

[MaryL]

Normal marriage is two people of the opposite sex having children and giving them shelter and place to grow until they are old enough to strike out on their own. Gays only have babies under manufactured mechanical circumstances. Thing is nobody CARES who screws WHO. Just don't make homosexually a broken form of sexuality, in need of parity with heterosexuality. Nice try, kids, but I am not buying it. Neither should you if you have common sense.

 

[mdk]

I'm sure if they kept it in the bedroom they wouldn't have anything to worry about.

If someone is publicly flaunting their homosexuality then I see no purpose in that other than to attract attention, and since many cultures historically have frowned on homosexuality, I'd say it's a pretty bad idea.

Problem is the "LGBT" movement is just about forcing acceptance on others; when sodomy laws were overturned homos already had the legal right to engage in relations without the state's intrusion, but they weren't content with that. Their goal was to make the state publicly give its stamp of approval to their lifestyle in the form of a "marriage license".

And yet here you are complaining about gays and gay marriage. It doesn't appear you are forced to accept or approve of anything.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Sexuality isn't a choice, it's hard wired into the brain's structure. Doctors in Sweden have shown that the structure of gay female brains is the same of what it is in straight males, and the structure of gay male brains is the same as what straight females have.

Homosexuality in the Brain | Brain Blogger

So, the only way to "cure" someone of being gay, is to basically go in, restructure the brain, and they will be straight.

Only problem is, we don't have anywhere near the technology to do that, and even if we did, who would pay for something that might potentially erase you and replace you with another version?

 

[IndependantAce]

Sexuality isn't a choice, it's hard wired into the brain's structure. Doctors in Sweden have shown that the structure of gay female brains is the same of what it is in straight males, and the structure of gay male brains is the same as what straight females have.

Homosexuality in the Brain | Brain Blogger

So, the only way to "cure" someone of being gay, is to basically go in, restructure the brain, and they will be straight.

Only problem is, we don't have anywhere near the technology to do that, and even if we did, who would pay for something that might potentially erase you and replace you with another version?

Actually the brain has been shown to be neuroplastic and can change on its own. If anything "makes" people gay or transgender it's likely testosterone or estrogen imbalances which can be correct through natural means.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Sexuality isn't a choice, it's hard wired into the brain's structure. Doctors in Sweden have shown that the structure of gay female brains is the same of what it is in straight males, and the structure of gay male brains is the same as what straight females have.

Homosexuality in the Brain | Brain Blogger

So, the only way to "cure" someone of being gay, is to basically go in, restructure the brain, and they will be straight.

Only problem is, we don't have anywhere near the technology to do that, and even if we did, who would pay for something that might potentially erase you and replace you with another version?

Actually the brain has been shown to be neuroplastic and can change on its own. If anything "makes" people gay or transgender it's likely testosterone or estrogen imbalances which can be correct through natural means.

Yanno.....................I posted the scientific research link that can support my claim.

Question is....................can you? Do you have a link to prove that it is because of imbalances in the brain (which was already formed)?

I posted links, can you?

 

[WinterBorn]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

Gay marriage itself is not a constitutional right. But the SCOTUS ruled that the equal protection clause applies.

There is no legitimate reason for any state issued marriage license. But to claim marriage is all about procreation is inaccurate. Otherwise the state would not allow birth control for married couples. It would also not allow the infertile or the old to marry.

 

[DGS49]

"Marriage," in the legal context, is an institution created by the State in order to promote and foster tangible social objectives which the State deems important. Those objectives are mainly, the protection of the interests of children, and the protection of the interests of the non-working wife.

In the case of homosexuals, neither of these social objectives is applicable. Homosexuals cannot reproduce, so there will be no offspring (absent extraordinary intervention), and any decision to designate one of the partners as a non-working "wife" or spouse would be entirely voluntary, thus protection by the state is unnecessary.

It is possible, however, for any State to deem it important to promote monogamy among homosexuals, especially male homosexuals, in light of the AIDS pandemic - and possibly other factors. So there is no constitutional or logical reason why any given state could not expand its definition of "marriage" to include same-sex couples, or for that matter, related-by-blood couples, parent-child couples, or multiples (polygamy). This can only be done according to the Constitutions and laws of the various states.

And such a decision by a state would not diminish or effect the decision of any "church" to recognize only traditional marriages within its own membership. (Although the USSC under President Clinton will surely disagree).

But the "Constitutional" argument for forcing States to accept gay "marriages" is preposterous and obviously flawed. There is no right of "privacy" in the Constitution, and there are no "group" rights other than the right to "peaceably assemble" under the First Amendment. The very idea that a "couple" has "Constitutional" rights is ridiculous and totally unprecedented.

 

[Syriusly]

[Q
Problem is the "LGBT" movement is just about forcing acceptance on others; when sodomy laws were overturned homos already had the legal right to engage in relations without the state's intrusion, but they weren't content with that. Their goal was to make the state publicly give its stamp of approval to their lifestyle in the form of a "marriage license".

So to answer your original OP- Americans have a constitutional right to marriage- including gay Americans and straight Americans.

And what do you know of what the 'goal' of American gays are? From the beginning what they have fought for is to be treated legally equally before the law.

Remember- people like you didn't repeal discriminatory anti-gay sodomy laws- the Supreme Court had to force you to accept that change. States still have those laws on the books.

I have gay friends who have gotten married- and they wanted only one thing- to be treated equally in marriage- and now they are treated exactly equally with my wife and I- and that is how it should be.

 

[Syriusly]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

Gay marriage itself is not a constitutional right. But the SCOTUS ruled that the equal protection clause applies.

There is no legitimate reason for any state issued marriage license. But to claim marriage is all about procreation is inaccurate. Otherwise the state would not allow birth control for married couples. It would also not allow the infertile or the old to marry.

Marriage is a constitutional right- and the Supreme Court has ruled that the equal protection clause applies to all Americans- regardless of gender or sexual preference.

I think that there is a legitimate reason for state issued marriage licenses- but you are correct- as court repeatedly pointed out during the arguments, States don't care about procreation and marriage- except for when they are trying to deny marriage to gay couples.

My 80 year old uncle recently married- exactly as legal a marriage as that of two fertile twenty year olds who planned on getting married.

 

[Syriusly]

"Marriage," in the legal context, is an institution created by the State in order to promote and foster tangible social objectives which the State deems important. Those objectives are mainly, the protection of the interests of children, and the protection of the interests of the non-working wife.

In the case of homosexuals, neither of these social objectives is applicable. Homosexuals cannot reproduce, so there will be no offspring (absent extraordinary intervention), and any decision to designate one of the partners as a non-working "wife" or spouse would be entirely voluntary, thus protection by the state is unnecessary.

Sorry- that argument just doesn't fly. The evidence doesn't support your claim.

"protection of the interests of children"- there are multiple examples of how the state doesn't relate marriage to this.

1. Divorce- virtually every state now offers 'no fault' divorce- which does not consider the 'protection of the interests of children' in deciding whether or not parents can divorce. If 'protection of the interests of the children' were a priority, then that would be at least one of the primary factors in determining whether or not to grant a divorce- it isn't even mentioned.
2. First Cousins- several states such as Wisconsin(which forbid gay marriage) allow the marriage of First Cousins- BUT only if they can prove to the state that they cannot have children together.
3. Infertile couples- States don't care whether couples can- or want to have children when it comes to marriage. The state happily married my 80 year old uncle to his 70 year old bride and there is no chance they will have any children together. If it was about the 'potential for procreation' the State would treat an infertile couple the same as a gay couple.
4. Homosexual couples do have children- as noted by Justice Kennedy :“There is an immediate legal injury and that’s the voice of these children,” he said. “There’s some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don’t you think?”

And "protection of the non-working wife"? Really? Marriage law has been gender neutral in regards to marital support for a couple of decades now- so a non-working husband has just as much protection as a non-working wife- and the non-working spouse in a marriage that happens to be between two persons of the same gender.

More importantly, spouses are treated as partners before the law- regardless of whether 1 spouse works or not. This was of course the issue of the case regarding DOMA. Two women- legally married, but the Federal Government charged inheritance tax on the surviving spouse- simply because they were the same gender.

Worth remembering their case- because I challenge you to tell me that these women were not married:
Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer: 'A love affair that just kept on and on and on'

Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were together for 40 years before they married in 2007. When Spyer died in 2009 Windsor, in the midst of her grief, was ordered to pay $363,000 in estate taxes as the federal government did not recognise the pair's marriage.

The couple moved into an apartment near Washington Square in Manhattan, where Windsor still lives, and bought a house together in Southampton, Long Island. Windsor rose to the highest technical position within IBM, and Spyer saw patients in their apartment. In the years following the Stonewall riots they both marched and demonstrated for equal rights.

In 1977, aged 45, Spyer was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. They could still dance, Windsor told Buzzfeed, with Spyer ditching her crutches at the dance floor and leading with her good leg.

As Spyer's health deteriorated, Windsor eventually became her full-time care giver. Getting ready for bed could take an hour, preparing to leave the house in the morning three or four, she said in an interview with the NYU alumni magazine.

In 2007, Spyer's doctors told her she had one year left to live.

"Having gotten the bad prognosis she woke up the next morning and said: 'Do you still want to get married?'," Windsor said. "And I said 'Yes'. And she said: 'So do I'."

The pair flew to Canada that year with six friends and were married in Toronto. Windsor wore white, Thea was in all black. The ceremony was officiated by Canada's first openly gay judge, justice Harvey Brownstone.

"Many people ask me why get married," Windsor said in remarks on the steps of the supreme court in March, the day the court heard arguments in her case against Doma.

"I was 77, Thea was 75, and maybe we were older than that at that point, but the fact is that everybody treated it as different. It turns out marriage is different.

"I've asked a number of long-range couples, gay couples who they've got married, I've asked them: 'Was it different the next morning and the answer is always: 'Yes'.' It's a huge difference."

 

[Syriusly]

Normal marriage is two people of the opposite sex having children and giving them shelter and place to grow until they are old enough to strike out on their own. .

Wow- so let me review some of the people I know who you say don't have a 'normal marriage'

• My 80 year old uncle recently married his 70 year old bride- both have grown children- to you- 'not normal'
• A good friend has been married for 40 years- she had to have her ovaries removed shortly after they married- they never had any children- to you- their marriage is 'not normal'
• George Washington married Martha Washington- they never had any children- to you their marriage was 'not normal'

Rather than you going around and judging persons marriages- maybe just focus on making your own marriage a good one.