[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoNiZhAUWcg&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube- What Kind of Planet Are We On?[/ame]

excerpt
 

Prop. 8 suit closing arguments may be televised
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, February 26, 2010

(02-25) 14:35 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- Despite a rebuff from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Bay Area's federal judges are again proposing to allow cameras in their courtrooms, a plan that could lead to telecasting of closing arguments in a suit challenging California's ban on same-sex marriage.

The U.S. District Court in San Francisco has posted a rule change on its Web site that would allow its judges to take part in a pilot program of airing selected nonjury civil trials. The public comment period began Feb. 4 and ends Thursday.

The proposal is the same one Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker adopted in January after a week of overwhelmingly favorable public comment. But the Supreme Court intervened when Walker approved camera coverage of the trial over Proposition 8, the November 2008 initiative that outlawed same-sex marriage.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court - which has refused to telecast its own proceedings - rebuked Walker for shortening the usual comment period.

The court said it was not deciding whether federal judges could televise trials. But the conservative majority did not cite any public benefit in trial broadcasts and said any such project should start with a more routine case.

The justices cited statements by Prop. 8's sponsors that telecasting outside the courthouse would intimidate their witnesses. Sponsors withdrew four of their six scheduled witnesses, all academic experts, when the trial started Jan. 11 and did not reinstate them after the court barred cameras.

No federal trial in California has ever been shown on television or the Internet. Walker had proposed live, closed-circuit telecasts of the Prop. 8 trial to a few other federal courthouses and a delayed posting on YouTube.

Testimony in the lawsuit by two same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco ended Jan. 27, but Walker postponed scheduling lawyers' closing arguments until after a final round of briefs, due today.

If his court approves the new rule next week, Walker could allow camera coverage of the arguments along the lines of his previous order, subject to approval by Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Telecasting lawyers' arguments, without witness testimony, might pass muster with the Supreme Court, which hasn't objected to televised hearings of arguments before the Ninth Circuit.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BA1D1C76BK.DTL

from JoeMyGod
 

Australian Senate Rejects Marriage

In a lopsided vote, yesterday the Australian Senate rejected a marriage equality bill. But the result was closer than it seems.

The bill was introduced by the Greens but was defeated 45-5, just days before the world’s biggest gay celebration, Sydney Mardi Gras. Twenty-six senators were absent from the vote, with some of these choosing to abstain because they disagreed with their parties’ official stances against same-sex marriage. Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, who introduced the bill, said: ”There may have been a group of senators voting to keep discrimination against same-sex couples being able to marry the one they love, but well over one-third of all senators were absent for the final vote, presumably the only form of protest open to them.” Marriage equality campaigners claim that 60 per cent of Australian citizens support the right of gay couples to marry.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has been vehement in his opposition to same-sex marriage.

2 sides file pile of paperwork in Prop. 8 case

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, February 28, 2010

Opposing sides in the legal battle over same-sex marriage in California have laid out their cases in writing to a federal judge, disputing the status of gays and lesbians in society, the nature of marriage, and the motives behind the ballot measure that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

"Californians voted for Proposition 8 because they thought it would strengthen the institution of marriage (and) ... because they thought it would benefit children," sponsors of Prop. 8 said Friday night in papers filed in federal court in San Francisco.

Their opponents, representing two same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco, said those purported goals of Prop. 8 were contradicted by overwhelming evidence at a 12-day trial in January that allowing same-sex couples to wed would benefit their children and the institution of marriage. Regardless of the intentions of individual voters, they argued, the Prop. 8 campaign was designed to appeal to fear and deep-seated prejudice.

"The evidence demonstrates that Proposition 8's actual motivation was moral disapproval of gay and lesbian individuals," said the measure's opponents, plaintiffs in the federal court case. They said the ballot measure "sends a message to gay and lesbian individuals that they are not welcome in California."

The two sides filed hundreds of pages shortly before a midnight deadline, containing sharply contrasting summaries of the evidence presented at last month's trial, the first ever held in federal court on same-sex marriage.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, presiding over the nonjury trial, plans to review the material before hearing lawyers' final arguments, which have not yet been scheduled. Walker has indicated that his ruling will include detailed findings on the purposes and effects of Prop. 8, assessments that could hold the key to the measure's fate in appeals likely to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

Prop. 8, approved by 52 percent of the voters in November 2008, amended the California Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, overturning a May 2008 state Supreme Court ruling that extended marital rights to gays and lesbians. The state court upheld the initiative last May while also upholding 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in the state before Prop. 8 passed.

Because Prop. 8 eliminated rights that the California court had granted, plaintiffs in the federal suit want Walker to put it in the same category as a 1992 Colorado initiative that overturned local gay-rights laws and prohibited future anti-discrimination measures. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Colorado initiative in 1996 and said its sole purpose was to harm a disfavored minority.

Prop. 8's "express and stated purpose ... was to strip gay and lesbian individuals of constitutional rights" they had won in the state court, plaintiffs' lawyers said. They said Yes on 8 campaign messages "echoed fears that children must be 'protected' from gay and lesbian people."

Imbalance of evidence

The measure's sponsors, a conservative religious coalition called Protect Marriage, argued that subjective purposes were irrelevant and that Prop. 8 should be judged by its text: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." They also invoked President Obama - who said he opposes same-sex marriage for religious reasons, while also opposing Prop. 8 - as evidence that support for traditional marriage is not based in bigotry.

Friday's filings reflected, to some degree, the imbalance of evidence at the trial. Opponents of Prop. 8 presented 16 witnesses, including the individual plaintiffs - two gay men from Burbank and two lesbians from Berkeley - and a procession of university researchers to make the case that marriage is a historically evolving institution, that anti-gay discrimination is persistent and same-sex marriage would not affect heterosexuals.

Extending marital rights to gays and lesbians "strengthens the institution of marriage for both same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples," plaintiffs' lawyers declared, citing their witnesses' testimony. Despite some recent progress, they said, gays and lesbians "lack political power to defend their basic rights," are not protected from discrimination by federal laws or the laws of most states, and are the disproportionate targets of hate crimes and of ballot initiatives like Prop. 8.

Witnesses withdrawn

Protect Marriage withdrew four of its six scheduled witnesses at the start of the trial - saying they feared television coverage, which the Supreme Court had blocked - and presented two witnesses, political science Professor Kenneth Miller and the president of the Institute for American Values, David Blankenhorn.

The Prop. 8 sponsors cited research works, but no witness testimony, for one of their central assertions Friday: that "extending marriage to same-sex couples would result in a profound change to the definition, structure, and public meaning of marriage." Their opponents urged Walker to disregard such assertions, saying they contradict most academic studies and were never tested in court.

Citing Miller's testimony, Prop. 8's backers said gays and lesbians have strong political allies, particularly in California, and "have achieved the power they need to effectively pursue their goals through democratic institutions" without judicial intervention.

They cited Blankenhorn and the writings of conservative scholars for the conclusion that marriage is universally defined by "maleness and femaleness" and that one of its central purposes is "the encouragement of procreation under specific conditions" - a purpose best served, they argued, by limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

from Towleroad
 

TURIN, ITALY MAYOR 'MARRIES' LESBIAN COUPLE IN SYMBOLIC CEREMONY

Sergio Chiamparino, the mayor of Turin, Italy, 'married' a lesbian couple who have been together for nine years in a symbolic ceremony at the Rotonda de Valentino on Saturday.

Italian paper La Stampa reported that the couple had turned to him in an effort to institutionalize their love, and he agreed to serve at the ceremony. Same-sex marriage is not legal in Italy.

Said Chiamparino: "I cannot marry you because Italian law does not allow it. But I wanted to attend this beautiful ceremony in the hope that my presence would serve to tell everyone that you are first-class citizens, like all of us...I'm here to put a symbolic seal on this union. It's a moment that sends a powerful message of happiness and suffering. Happiness because it is obvious that you love one another so much — suffering, because you cannot fully recognize that love."
http://towleroad.typepad.com/.a/6a00...8e5f88d970b-pi

In case y'all didn't know....

Chief US District Judge Vaughn Walker is a gay man. It's fairly common knowledge in the Bay Area, although he really never talks about it....he will not deny it if asked.

If he does find in favor of gay marriage all hell is gonna break loose The dirt and mud will fly.

White on same-sex marriage: Rosa Parks didn’t ‘move to the front of the bus to support sodomy’

By ANDY BIRKEY 2/23/10 9:05 AM



For the first time in Minnesota history, a legislative committee contemplated the legalization of same-sex marriage in the state on Monday. And while gay and lesbian families shared moving testimony about the hardships their families face because they cannot marry, a duo of congressional candidates stole the show with controversial commentary on gays and lesbians.

Barb Davis White, a Tea Party activist and Republican candidate for Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District, prompted shocked gasps from the packed hearing room when she said, “Rosa Parks did not move to the front of the bus to support sodomy.” Her testimony involved accusations that the movement for marriage equality is hijacking the civil rights movement.

“There is no difference between a black person and a white person other than their skin color when there’s a tremendous difference between a man and a woman,” said White, who was the GOP’s endorsed candidate against Rep. Keith Ellison in 2008. “Allowing a black woman and a white man to marry does not change the definition of marriage. However, allowing two men or two women to marry would fundamentally change that definition.”


GOP candidate Teresa Collett at Monday's hearing
White also garnered some laughs from the audience when she said, “Studies also show that the average homosexual has hundreds of sexual partners in his lifetime… and I repeat hundreds.”

“I’m here today to tell you that homosexuality and lesbian behavior is unhealthy,” claiming that gays and lesbians have higher rates of STDs than anyone else in the world, including “gay bowel disease,” an ailment that does not exist and is often used by religious right figures to paint gay men as diseased.

Another congressional candidate, St. Thomas University law professor Teresa Stanton Collett, who is running as a Republican for the 4th Congressional District, warned that Minnesota’s Christians are under attack.

“Make no mistake: Marriage, as a civil institution, as a legal institution, is grounded not merely in religion but also in the biological reality that sex makes children and children need a mom and a dad,” she said. “And should we choose to redefine that legally we will put the religious and moral beliefs of all Minnesotans at issue.”

“Churches and religiously affiliated institutions will lose their tax-exempt status,” she said. She claimed that Christian colleges would be forced to house same-sex couples in dorms, social work students would be kicked out of school if they refused to counsel gays and lesbians, politicians would revoke funds from religious organizations, and parents would be arrested for speaking out against homosexuality.

The hourlong testimony from both sides contemplated three bills: one to create civil unions, one to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages and one to allow full legal marriage for same-sex couples. The hearing was for informational purposes only, and no vote was taken.

Unfucking believable that these liars and haters receive such a public platform. It's especially distressing to me when I see women protesting gender equality in marriage. Sickening. :bigcry:

Sanctity of Marriage Campaign
 

This is soooooo freakin hilarious! Hahahahahaha.
Can't figure out why YouTube rated this inappropriate for all ages. Weird.
You'll have to click the link:

http://vodpod.com/watch/3076012-the-...snobeehive-com
:clap:

THAT was awesome!

http://prop8trialtracker.com/ interesting update.

another one bites the dust
 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7z4cGX8EAc"]YouTube- Anti-gay Republican lawmaker at gay club before DUI arrest[/ame]

oy vey....i got nothing else to say

love it
 

I heard on some show the trick he had picked up was of the 'pay me to suck your dick' variety.......

I dunno if this is still true about Sacto and the police......

when I lived there, the cops would cruise K Street (now Faces I believe) around closing so they could bust the queers......it was well know amongst all of us who hung out there.....don't leave the bar staggering and laughin and carryin on in the street......you will get pulled over within 10 blocks.....the cops never cruised the straight bars at closing time ..........

and the stories I could tell you about Sacto politicians and cocaine in the bathroom and drunk driving. ..... laughin .........but hey........it was the early to mid 80's.........different time............I believe Moonbeam Jerry Brown was the Governor (and that's a whole nuther set o rumors about sexuality and drugs)..........hey isn't he running again.......crap he must be in his 70's by now....Meg Whitman will be the next governor of CA.

-----------
I really wish they would quit calling these politicians, who pick up tricks at gay bars or do the toe tap in the airport potty, gay men..........they are not..........they are men who have sex with men........and that is a whole different thang..

Craig Ferguson On Sen. Roy Ashburn
 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5KI8si3m98"]YouTube- Craig Ferguson 3/4/10B Late Late Show MONOLOGUE[/ame]

:cracked:

from 2005
 

Good News Regarding Mexico City and Passing Marriage Equality--interesting article about it.
 

Same sex marriage
 

I wanted to share a link with you of a very wonderfil wedding chappel that does legal same sex marriages. True that it isn't legal and standing in other states when you return..But...It does give the couple the chance to have a real wedding and if one partner wants a name change...to have that done as well.
The packages they have are very affordable as well,

CLICK HERE TO SEE:


http://ctlgbtlaw.files.wordpress.com...x-marriage.jpg



http://ctlgbtlaw.files.wordpress.com...x-marriage.jpg

same sex marriage
 

Sorry I left wrong link here is the right one! For the chappel...It's nice!!!

http://www.iowasamesexweddings.com/

Haha check this out:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gi...0720..1&v=info

The 1,000,000 Gay Men and Allies Against Roy Ashburn Having Sex Ever Again
:superfunny::huhlaugh: :p :thumbsup: :giggle: :spit:

GLAD- Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders are collecting DOMA Stories, if anyone is interested in reading them or contributing their story:

http://www.glad.org/doma/stories

Yays
 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSKcq5U_MLs"]YouTube- First Same-Sex Marriage in DC[/ame]

Remarkably brave women:

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...xid=yahoo-feat

TOO 'Effin CUTE!
 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjPgnDT-2Sg&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube- HUSBANDS AND HUSBANDS[/ame]

ACLU OF PA PRAISES SENATE COMMITTEE FOR VOTING DOWN MARRIAGE AMENDMENT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 16, 2010

HARRISBURG- The Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee today voted against legislation to amend the state constitution to ban same sex marriage. The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania hailed the vote as a victory for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community in the commonwealth.

"The efforts to embed discrimination against LGBT people into our constitution have failed for a third time," said Andy Hoover, legislative director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, citing failed attempts to pass similar legislation in 2006 and 2008. "This committee today recognized that LGBT people are our neighbors, our co-workers, our friends, and our family members and that they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect."

Senate Bill 707, introduced by Senator John Eichelberger of Blair County, was tabled by an 8-6, bipartisan vote of the committee. Although Senate rules allow the bill to be considered again at any time, Hoover noted that it is unlikely that the bill will be brought up before the end of the 2010 legislative session.

"This vote today spoke loud and clear," Hoover said. "Members want to move on and address truly pressing issues for the people of Pennsylvania."

Committee members who voted for the motion to table SB 707 included Republicans Pat Browne, Jane Earll, and Mary Jo White and Democrats Daylin Leach, Lisa Boscola, Wayne Fontana, Michael Stack, and Jay Costa.

Repeal: FAIL
 

From Joe.My.God.-

Marriage Repeal Fails In New Hampshire

The attempt to place a marriage equality repeal resolution before every town council in New Hampshire has been judged a failure after an overwhelming majority of the state's municipalities refused to take part or voted the resolution down. Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) exults via press release:

New Hampshire citizens this month said no to an anti-equality campaign to create pressure for a statewide vote on marriage equality through non-binding resolutions at town meetings. Of the 139 communities that have considered these resolutions, a clear majority of 80 towns (57.6%) have rejected it. Another 86 communities did not discuss the anti-marriage petition at their town meetings. Nine more towns will take up the issue in the coming months. “We are thrilled that legislators and New Hampshire’s citizens have not wavered in their support for the equality of all families,” said GLAD staff attorney Janson Wu. “Finally, New Hampshire can move on to more pressing issues, like jobs and the economy.”
:LGBTQFlag:

This is the big one!
 

GLAD’s DOMA Challenge Heads to Court May 6


April 08, 2010
On Thursday, May 6, 2010, the Federal District Court in Boston will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), in the case of Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, brought by GLAD in March 2009.

The hearing will address the central issue of the case – is DOMA constitutional? –six years after the first same-sex couples in the country started marrying in Massachusetts, the result of GLAD’s groundbreaking marriage case, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.

Arguing before U.S. District Judge Joseph L. Tauro on behalf of seven married same-sex couples and three widowers will be Mary L. Bonauto, GLAD’s Civil Rights Project Director. Bonauto was the lead attorney in Goodridge.

As a result of DOMA, passed by Congress in 1996, plaintiffs in GLAD’s lawsuit have been harmed in various ways, including denial of survivor benefits on a deceased spouse’s pension; denial of health insurance coverage for a spouse on a federal family plan; denial of Social Security death and widower benefits; and the payment of extra federal income taxes due to the inability to file jointly as married.

In opposing the government’s Motion to Dismiss and arguing in favor of the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, GLAD will assert that DOMA Section 3 violates the federal constitutional guarantee of equal protection as applied to federal income taxation, Social Security benefits, and federal employee and retiree benefits.

The Washington Post has called Gill “at once restrained and daring… potentially revolutionary.” The National Law Journal says Gill “could be the gay marriage test with the greatest national impact.”

Information about the case, the plaintiffs, and the attorneys representing them can be found at www.glad.org/doma.

Hearing Details

Gill et a.l v. Office of Personnel Management et al.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
10:30 a.m. EST
John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse

For more information, or for interviews with plaintiffs or attorneys, contact Carisa Cunningham at (617) 426-1350 or ccunningham@glad.org.

From GLAD
http://www.glad.org/doma

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/blog/e...eedom-to-marry



http://www.freedomtomarry.org/blog/e...eedom-to-marry

Rock for Equality
 

From the LosAngelesTimes:

By Ruben Vives
April 12, 2010

State and local officials joined hundreds of people outside the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center in Hollywood on Sunday morning to kick off a national grass-roots campaign demanding equal Social Security benefits for same-sex couples.

The rally and march -- dubbed Rock for Equality -- was put together by the center and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in conjunction with the Aids Community Action Foundation, said Jim Key, a spokesman for the center.

At the rally, Rep. Linda T. Sanchez (D-Lakewood), who is a member of the House Subcommittee on Social Security, announced that she would sponsor legislation to provide equal Social Security benefits for same-sex couples.

"I don't think it's right that Americans should be treated differently by the country they love because of who they love," she said, triggering thunderous applause and cheers from the crowd.

"Right now, same-sex marriage couples pay equally into a system that they don't receive equal benefits from in return," Sanchez told the crowd. "Shame on this country for allowing that to happen."

As of now, people in same-sex relationships are denied Social Security survivor benefits from their deceased partners because the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages or domestic partnerships as valid relationships.

Sanchez's bill calls for the Social Security Administration to recognize those civil unions or domestic partnerships as valid relationships for the purpose of disbursing survivor benefits that heterosexual couples with a marriage certificate now receive.

"I'm saying to the Social Security Administration, this must stop," Sanchez said.

Rep. Judy Chu (D-El Monte), who also attended the event, offered to coauthor the bill.

"In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act as a law to protect the elderly from poverty. It was a great moment, but the act wasn't perfect," Chu told the crowd.

"In 1966, members of the armed services were added. In 1983, federal employees were added. And, in the year 2010, that will be the year people from the LGBT community will be added," she said.

About 700 people -- young, middle age and old -- attended the rally, including Maria Garcia, 44, of North Hollywood, who had arrived an hour early with her 23-year-old son, Philip Garrelts, who is gay.

"Every mother should do this for her children," she said. "There should be equal rights for everyone."

Holding a cup of coffee in one hand and a dog leash in the other, Diem Tran, 29, of West Hollywood brought her dog, Mochi, to the rally.

"Same-sex couples should get Social Security benefits," Tran said. "It's different from the marriage argument -- this is more about a need for economic equality."

Shortly after the rally, supporters holding up signs and rainbow and American flags marched down Hollywood Boulevard, past tattoo and souvenir shops, and then down Vine Street to the Social Security Administration office chanting, "Equal rights, now."

ruben.vives@latimes.com

Times staff writer Corina Knoll contributed to this report.

Everyone is excited about Obama's directive granting lgbtq couples hospital/medical rights, and of course it's a very good thing, but I'm not so sure it signals any real support for legitimizing queer couples or same-sex marriage in the long run.

NYT article link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/us...7hospitals.htm

Same sex partners decide medical!!!
 

Why only marriage will protect us...
 

Cross posting this on same " Obama sets regs for gays to "visit" in hospitals".... I think it is very important for us to realize that until we really are treated "equally", this sort of thing can and will continue to happen.

http://www.bilerico.com/2010/04/sono...couple_and.php

Here's an interesting twist
 

Maybe people will eventually realize that "equal" means equal. Nothing less. Nothing more.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5255991,00.html

Very interesting. I remember years ago when Vermont was the first U.S. state to grant civil unions, some straight couples tried to apply and were turned away. Civil Marriages were then adopted before the issue could play out and civil unions were discontinued. Should be interesting to see how this works out ultimately in places where heterosexuals sue for civil union equality. Thank you for posting!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8376937.stm

Presbyterian Church charges Northern California minister over gay weddings


Associated Press

Posted: 03/29/2010 01:43:55 PM PDT
Updated: 03/29/2010 01:43:56 PM PDT


SANTA ROSA — A retired Presbyterian minister in Northern California is again facing charges she violated church law when she officiated at the weddings of gay couples.

The Rev. Jane Spahr, 67, was acquitted two years ago of similar charges when the church's top court found that she did not violate denominational law because the ceremonies she performed were not real marriages.
But this time, the same-sex marriages at issue were legal in California. The 16 weddings were performed in 2008 before voters banned the unions with the passage of Proposition 8.

Spahr's lawyer, Scott Clark, said it's unprecedented that the church is trying to sanction a minister for performing legal marriages.

The prosecution counters, however, that while the marriages may have been legal under state law, they were "expressly prohibited" by the church.
The case hinges on "a narrow issue of church law," said prosecutor JoAn Blackstone, who added that the local presbytery committee that investigated the Spahr case found it didn't have "any wiggle room" in deciding to press charges.

"This isn't about her character," she said. "It's only about church law."
The constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) defines marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman. The church's Supreme Judicial Council has ruled that ministers can bless same-sex unions as long as the ceremonies are not called a marriage and don't mimic traditional
weddings.

The charges, formalized earlier this month, say Spahr "publicly, intentionally and repeatedly" violated church laws and "failed to further the peace, unity and purity of the church."

Spahr acknowledges the allegations and said she performed the weddings as a "matter of conscience."

"It's a real faith issue for me," she said. "I think I would be in jeopardy if I didn't do it."

Spahr, a lesbian who lives in San Francisco, used to lead a ministry for gay Presbyterians until she retired in 2007.

She faces sanctions ranging from public censure to a prohibition against performining ministerial duties, including marriages, Clark said. A trial on the new charges will likely take place in August or September.