In a 5-4 ruling today the state supreme court of Washington has upheld the state’s DOMA law. Gay activists and their supporters were predicatbly dissapointed by the ruling, but many have stated that they believe in time the law will be changed. Groups in favor of preserving the traditional definition of marriage as a heterosexual one on the other hand are obviously happy about the ruling.
The ruling does not prohibit gay marriage from ever being recognized, it merely says that the issue is one that the legislature has jurisdiction over.
With the ruling, Massachusetts remains the only state which recognizes gay marriage.
“The ruling does not prohibit gay marriage from ever being recognized, it merely says that the issue is one that the legislature has jurisdiction over.”
That is pretty much my entire gripe with the gay lobby right now. Social issue… convince your congressman. Can’t convince him, elect a new one. Can’t elect a new one, organize into a stronger base.
Gay activists and their supporters were predicatbly dissapointed by the ruling… Groups in favor of preserving the traditional definition of marriage as a homosexual one on the other hand are obviously happy about the ruling.
There are a few statements in this article, apparently derived from the ruling, which really disturb me.
1) “Madsen wrote that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently show that gays are members of a suspect class â€â€? a reference to groups entitled to protection against discrimination by virtue of characteristics such as race – or that there is a fundamental right to marriage that includes the right to marry a person of the same sex.”
That scares me greatly, because it seems like that goes way beyond the issue of marriage. If gays as a class are not entitled to protection from discrimination, that means people can discriminate against them. Forget marriage, there are all sorts of other areas in which they could be discriminated against.
2) Ridiculously tortured reasoning. Obviously, I’m fully in support of gays having realistically equal marriage rights as straights (and by realistically I mean don’t give me “They have the same rights as everyone else–to marry someone of the opposite sex.” That’s not even close to the spirit of equality, so let’s not go there), but I do recognize that there are legitimate arguments to be made aginst this. And I welcome those arguments, because most of them demonstrate logical flaws in the existing marriage laws. ;) But some of this reasoning is just crazy. “the legislation was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by children’s biological parents.” The legislators are entitled to believe something which makes absolutely no sense? Does anyone here know a single person who would have kids under the status quo, but who wouldn’t procreate if gay marriage became permissible? The only way I can even imagine such a position is if someone were only willing to come out of the closet if (s)he could get married to someone of the same sex, but would otherwise go along with societal expectations and end up with kids that way. And, really, an unhappily closeted person isn’t likely to make a wonderful parent. Arguments that gay people haven’t demonstrated that they deserve the benefits of marriage are one thing–arguments that allowing them to get married will somehow destroy existing heterosexual marriages and prevent children from being born/raised by their parents are something else entirely.
I give Washington’s DOMA credit for not being blatantly unconstitutional to my admittedly not-legally-trained eye. I don’t like it, but it seems legally valid, and I’m not a resident of the state of Washington so my opinion about it really doesn’t matter a whole lot. Really, though, it’s not the outcome of this case that bothers me so much as the implications of the stated reasoning.
Russ, it’s not clear to me where you think that I conflated heterosexuals and those opposed to gay marriage. My first comment dealt with a typo of David’s–initially, he had that the traditional definition of marriage was a homosexual one, which is clearly not the case. He’s since fixed his typo–albeit without noting that the typo initially existed, so my first comment now makes me look rather insane. That could be the basis of the confusion. I don’t see where it could have come from in the secodn comment. I’m well aware of the fact that large numbers of straight people support gay marriage, though unfortunately (in my view) not as many as who oppose it.
I was refering to your first comment, where it appeared you equated groups in favor of the traditional definition and hetrosexuals. Your second comment had not appeared when I began typing.
Social issue… convince your congressman. Can’t convince him, elect a new one. Can’t elect a new one, organize into a stronger base.
That’s a thought-provoking comment.
I’m opposed to gay marriage, for all the cheesy reasons on right-wing radio that essentially boil down to 1) I’m married, 2) I’m not gay, and 3) I think gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry.
Lojo’s comment prompted reflection. (Appropriate not-a-lawyer-caveat aside), isn’t the spirit of the American constitution that I DON’T need a powerful lobby to be protected by our laws?
Shouldn’t American law protect my rights from tyranny, particularly the tyranny of the masses, assuming in this case that I want to do things that don’t harm myself or another, but nevertheless most people disapprove of?
America shouldn’t have laws that permit or deny something because the masses like it, even in cases like this one, where I stand with the masses…
It says no right here in the Sharia that gays can’t get married, and our very own Party of God is making sure no one sneaks by in those damn secular courts.
But isn’t that the point of a democratic republic such as ours? If the society is willing to have gay marriage, their elected representative should support it. (I know, alot of shoulds, and isn’t’s but let me fantasize)
Its a gay person’s right to go to their representative and make their case. If a significant portion of a representative’s constituency is made of gays, then it should be a significant portion of the decisions he makes on what bills he supports and not.
Of course, that ISN’T what happens, for sure, but that’s how it seems like it is supposed to work.
Nonetheless, my main point is that the judiciary is NOT the forum for a societal question such as this.
OLYMPIA, Wash. — The deeply divided Washington Supreme Court’s decision to retain the state ban on gay marriage may roil the already volatile court elections this fall.
Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, who is under attack from the right and from the building industry and others, joined the shaky 5-4 majority. That puts him on the side of public opinion, according to the polls, but might alienate some of his progressive backers, analysts said Wednesday. Alexander is opposed by attorney John Groen.
Two other justices up for re-election this fall, Susan Owens and Tom Chambers, were among the four dissenters and would have thrown out the state’s gay-marriage ban, called the Defense of Marriage Act.
Owens already was considered vulnerable and faces a strong challenge from state Sen. Stephen Johnson, R-Kent. Chambers is considered a safe bet for re-election and the case isn’t expected to hurt him much…
Judges should Not be Elected. (I have Spoken. :)
Yes, “accountability” is a Fine thing in its Place but the Interpreters of our Laws & Constitutions ought not be so Directly accountable to the Roiling, Broiling, Yelling, Smelling, strictly-Result-oriented Teeming Masses of: Us. :> Iow Democracy is Beautiful but it need not Extend so far as Voting in what are Tantamount to Referenda for the purpose of Proclaiming that the Law in fact Says that which We the evanescent Majority would (at the moment) Like it to say.
(Then again, David, at My Age Sonny I’m rather a post-intelligencer meself so whaddoo I know? :)
* * * * * * * * * * *
Note to the above Commenter Ned Lamont :) ~ re his Comment, “Vote Ned Lamont” :} ~ Indeed! ;>
One day after Bill Clinton rallied Democrats to Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman’s side, Ned Lamont resumed chipping away at the senator’s liberal credentials, cultivating Connecticut activists unimpressed with Lieberman’s record on abortion and gay rights.
…By national standards, Lieberman has a stellar record on gay rights and abortion issues. He is endorsed by Planned Parenthood Federal PAC and the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group.
…When the Human Rights Campaign endorsed him earlier this year, the organization said, “Sen. Lieberman’s strong support of fairness for all Americans, gay or straight, dates back three decades to a time when few of his peers were standing by his side.”
But that is no longer enough for some activists in Connecticut, where the gay rights movement is eyeing the next prize, gay marriage - a step Lieberman is unwilling to endorse.
…Anne Stanback, who is working for a gay-marriage law in Connecticut, said Lamont, a businessman whose only political experience was as a Greenwich town official, embraced the idea in the early days of his campaign.
“We’ve seen politicians tiptoe around this issue,” she said. “When we asked Ned about gay marriage, he said, `Yes, of course.’”
Lord Neddy, even the Deepest-Bluest states like CT (or MA, for That matter) are, Unfortunately but still Understandably, not yet Ready for the Primetime of full-on same-sex Marriage. Your “Yes of Course” Platform may ~ nay, Will ~ further Pad your probable Victorymargin on August 8 when the Participating (here Generously estimated) 13% of the total CT Electorate[see page 12 of the PDF] will likely Nominate you as the Dem US Senate candidate via Vote of (again very Liberally approximated :) about 8% of said Overall constituency ~ but your evanescent Win will not amount to a Hill of Beans in the ongoing struggle for Civil Rights, a battle in whose trenches Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT; re-elected to 4th term, as CfL-CT, 11/07/’06 :) has been Fighting for nigh on to 40 years.
Over at The Volokh Conspiracy, Dale Carpenter (a gay marriage supporter, I belive) argues that this court opinion is the most solidly reasoned upholding of a state gay-marriage ban he’s seen. I’m no lawyer (or even law student) so I’m willing to assume he’s right. I’m also perfecly willing to believe that the Washington DOMA law really should be allowed under the state constitution. But I had some of the same concerns and objections that Mike did, so I have to wonder: if this is a well reasoned opinion, what do the poorly reasoned ones look like?
Also interesting, Carpenter notices the court’s rather thinly veiled invitation to the plaintiffs to try again:
But plaintiffs have affirmatively asked that we not consider any claim regarding statutory benefits and obligations separate from the status of marriage. We thus have no cause for considering whether denial of statutory rights and obligations to same-sex couples, apart from the status of marriage, violates the state or federal constitution. (emphasis added)
Question to the opponents of same-sex marriage here: (and, for that matter, the supporters) Are you OK with civil unions which have the same “statutory benefits and obligations” as marriage, but not called marriage? And does the answer change if those benefits and obligations are “imposed” by a court ruling, as the Washington court seems to be hinting it might consider?
Sounds like it’s time to re-start the campaign to bring into existence an institution called Garriage - a less-red-flag-to-a-bull term than “Gay Marriage” … same rights and privileges and duties and advantages as Marriage - albeit let’s start it out without the Marriage Penalty with respect to taxation …
Oh - and, of course, it’s semi-distant cousin DISParriage - (Domesticity-In-Sin-Prevented Marriage) … this one would not require any religious component, and would replace the ‘Domestic Partnership’ arrangements …
Well, speaking as one of the supporters: if every state has such unions, the rights and responsibilities are exactly the same as in marriage, and there’s no issue about whether the one you entered into when you lived in CT is still valid when you move to OK, I’d be quite happy. I’d still have a few qualms–in virtually nothing is separate really equal under the law–but it would be so much better than how things stand that I’d gladly take the lumps. we could also then get rid of the difficulties many companies have in trying to figure out who gets access to health insurance benefits and whatnot — the people joined to the employees do, other romantic partners do not, and there’s a simple, fair, bright line. What I’d really rather see is for states as a whole to stop issuing marriage licenses altogether. We need a new term that hasn’t been used for either the hetero- or homosexual unions already — personally, I suggest “joined” — which would apply to everyone who enters into such a contract. Religious groups could still perform wedding ceremonies however they see fit, but legal status would depend entirely on filing the paperwork to be joined, and census data would no longer reflect whether or not you were married. I’d also prefer us to all use the term spouse, but I’m betting that’s even less likely to happen.
Like the Washington case, I can’t really speak knowledgeably on the technical state-constitution issues. What freaks me out is that the state legislature never saw fit to take this one off the books.
I’m not crazy about the separate-but-equal angle either, but it’s not like we’d be telling gays to sit on the back of the bus. I’d be OK with it. That is to say, I’d be OK with it as legislation. I wouldn’t want even rhetorical separate-but-equalness enshrined in the Constitution. (FMA).
“If any man and woman, not being married to each other, shall lewdly and lasciviously associate, bed and cohabit together, they shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.”
I don’t think we Have that in CT :) but if we did, I could state under oath in a Court of Law that I am Innocent. I was never in the Least bit Lewd or Lascivious about it. ;}
Vignette ~ circa 1971 ~ southernfried/dixiefied D.C. Cop, investigating neighbor’s complaint of Loud Partying at a Student-leased House ~
“..Aww ratt thayn, naoww Who occuhpies thet thar Basement bedroom?”
“Um well, like, that’s Christine and Michael’s room.”
Heh. “lewdly and lasciviously”. I saw that. Isn’t that part of the appeal? ;)
And (surprise, surprise), CT is not in fact among those states standing firm for good ‘ol american values. Some googling turned up the list of the steadfast seven six, which are:
Florida
Michigan
Mississippi North Carolina
North Dakota
Virginia
West Virginia
Guess the only surprise to me there is Michigan, but having never been, I can’t really say.
July 26th, 2006 at 10:51:19 am
“The ruling does not prohibit gay marriage from ever being recognized, it merely says that the issue is one that the legislature has jurisdiction over.”
That is pretty much my entire gripe with the gay lobby right now. Social issue… convince your congressman. Can’t convince him, elect a new one. Can’t elect a new one, organize into a stronger base.
July 26th, 2006 at 11:07:38 am
“Groups in favor of preserving the traditional definition of marriage as a homosexual one on the other hand are obviously happy about the ruling.”
I think the word you’re looking for is heterosexual.
July 26th, 2006 at 11:30:04 am
Gay activists and their supporters were predicatbly dissapointed by the ruling… Groups in favor of preserving the traditional definition of marriage as a homosexual one on the other hand are obviously happy about the ruling.
Now THAT’S hard-hitting reporting!
July 26th, 2006 at 11:36:41 am
There are a few statements in this article, apparently derived from the ruling, which really disturb me.
1) “Madsen wrote that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently show that gays are members of a suspect class â€â€? a reference to groups entitled to protection against discrimination by virtue of characteristics such as race – or that there is a fundamental right to marriage that includes the right to marry a person of the same sex.”
That scares me greatly, because it seems like that goes way beyond the issue of marriage. If gays as a class are not entitled to protection from discrimination, that means people can discriminate against them. Forget marriage, there are all sorts of other areas in which they could be discriminated against.
2) Ridiculously tortured reasoning. Obviously, I’m fully in support of gays having realistically equal marriage rights as straights (and by realistically I mean don’t give me “They have the same rights as everyone else–to marry someone of the opposite sex.” That’s not even close to the spirit of equality, so let’s not go there), but I do recognize that there are legitimate arguments to be made aginst this. And I welcome those arguments, because most of them demonstrate logical flaws in the existing marriage laws. ;) But some of this reasoning is just crazy. “the legislation was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by children’s biological parents.” The legislators are entitled to believe something which makes absolutely no sense? Does anyone here know a single person who would have kids under the status quo, but who wouldn’t procreate if gay marriage became permissible? The only way I can even imagine such a position is if someone were only willing to come out of the closet if (s)he could get married to someone of the same sex, but would otherwise go along with societal expectations and end up with kids that way. And, really, an unhappily closeted person isn’t likely to make a wonderful parent. Arguments that gay people haven’t demonstrated that they deserve the benefits of marriage are one thing–arguments that allowing them to get married will somehow destroy existing heterosexual marriages and prevent children from being born/raised by their parents are something else entirely.
I give Washington’s DOMA credit for not being blatantly unconstitutional to my admittedly not-legally-trained eye. I don’t like it, but it seems legally valid, and I’m not a resident of the state of Washington so my opinion about it really doesn’t matter a whole lot. Really, though, it’s not the outcome of this case that bothers me so much as the implications of the stated reasoning.
July 26th, 2006 at 12:09:55 pm
Mike,
You are wrong. Hetrosexuals and people opposed to gay marriage are not the same. I am a member of the former group, but not the latter.
July 26th, 2006 at 12:47:38 pm
Vote Ned Lamont
July 26th, 2006 at 12:52:40 pm
Russ, it’s not clear to me where you think that I conflated heterosexuals and those opposed to gay marriage. My first comment dealt with a typo of David’s–initially, he had that the traditional definition of marriage was a homosexual one, which is clearly not the case. He’s since fixed his typo–albeit without noting that the typo initially existed, so my first comment now makes me look rather insane. That could be the basis of the confusion. I don’t see where it could have come from in the secodn comment. I’m well aware of the fact that large numbers of straight people support gay marriage, though unfortunately (in my view) not as many as who oppose it.
July 26th, 2006 at 12:58:19 pm
I was refering to your first comment, where it appeared you equated groups in favor of the traditional definition and hetrosexuals. Your second comment had not appeared when I began typing.
July 26th, 2006 at 1:24:42 pm
Haha, no no Russ, mike was merely correcting my typo, which i have since fixed, but left no note because i like making mike look crazy.
July 26th, 2006 at 2:54:23 pm
Lojo,
Social issue… convince your congressman. Can’t convince him, elect a new one. Can’t elect a new one, organize into a stronger base.
That’s a thought-provoking comment.
I’m opposed to gay marriage, for all the cheesy reasons on right-wing radio that essentially boil down to 1) I’m married, 2) I’m not gay, and 3) I think gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry.
Lojo’s comment prompted reflection. (Appropriate not-a-lawyer-caveat aside), isn’t the spirit of the American constitution that I DON’T need a powerful lobby to be protected by our laws?
Shouldn’t American law protect my rights from tyranny, particularly the tyranny of the masses, assuming in this case that I want to do things that don’t harm myself or another, but nevertheless most people disapprove of?
America shouldn’t have laws that permit or deny something because the masses like it, even in cases like this one, where I stand with the masses…
July 26th, 2006 at 3:51:53 pm
ah, I stand corrected. Sorry Mike.
July 26th, 2006 at 4:09:48 pm
I really wanted a thousand wives!
The law is to hard.I wanted to create
a huge nation of expeimental wives.
Man one day we will break the shackles
of the basic one Husband and one wife.
July 26th, 2006 at 6:25:56 pm
It says no right here in the Sharia that gays can’t get married, and our very own Party of God is making sure no one sneaks by in those damn secular courts.
July 26th, 2006 at 6:59:30 pm
Jazz -
But isn’t that the point of a democratic republic such as ours? If the society is willing to have gay marriage, their elected representative should support it. (I know, alot of shoulds, and isn’t’s but let me fantasize)
Its a gay person’s right to go to their representative and make their case. If a significant portion of a representative’s constituency is made of gays, then it should be a significant portion of the decisions he makes on what bills he supports and not.
Of course, that ISN’T what happens, for sure, but that’s how it seems like it is supposed to work.
Nonetheless, my main point is that the judiciary is NOT the forum for a societal question such as this.
July 26th, 2006 at 7:51:30 pm
David, the Seattle Post Intellingencer reports ~
Judges should Not be Elected. (I have Spoken. :)
Yes, “accountability” is a Fine thing in its Place but the Interpreters of our Laws & Constitutions ought not be so Directly accountable to the Roiling, Broiling, Yelling, Smelling, strictly-Result-oriented Teeming Masses of: Us. :> Iow Democracy is Beautiful but it need not Extend so far as Voting in what are Tantamount to Referenda for the purpose of Proclaiming that the Law in fact Says that which We the evanescent Majority would (at the moment) Like it to say.
(Then again, David, at My Age Sonny I’m rather a post-intelligencer meself so whaddoo I know? :)
* * * * * * * * * * *
Note to the above Commenter Ned Lamont :) ~ re his Comment, “Vote Ned Lamont” :} ~ Indeed! ;>
Lord Neddy, even the Deepest-Bluest states like CT (or MA, for That matter) are, Unfortunately but still Understandably, not yet Ready for the Primetime of full-on same-sex Marriage. Your “Yes of Course” Platform may ~ nay, Will ~ further Pad your probable Victorymargin on August 8 when the Participating (here Generously estimated) 13% of the total CT Electorate [see page 12 of the PDF] will likely Nominate you as the Dem US Senate candidate via Vote of (again very Liberally approximated :) about 8% of said Overall constituency ~ but your evanescent Win will not amount to a Hill of Beans in the ongoing struggle for Civil Rights, a battle in whose trenches Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT; re-elected to 4th term, as CfL-CT, 11/07/’06 :) has been Fighting for nigh on to 40 years.
July 26th, 2006 at 7:59:45 pm
Over at The Volokh Conspiracy, Dale Carpenter (a gay marriage supporter, I belive) argues that this court opinion is the most solidly reasoned upholding of a state gay-marriage ban he’s seen. I’m no lawyer (or even law student) so I’m willing to assume he’s right. I’m also perfecly willing to believe that the Washington DOMA law really should be allowed under the state constitution. But I had some of the same concerns and objections that Mike did, so I have to wonder: if this is a well reasoned opinion, what do the poorly reasoned ones look like?
Also interesting, Carpenter notices the court’s rather thinly veiled invitation to the plaintiffs to try again:
But plaintiffs have affirmatively asked that we not consider any claim regarding statutory benefits and obligations separate from the status of marriage. We thus have no cause for considering whether denial of statutory rights and obligations to same-sex couples, apart from the status of marriage, violates the state or federal constitution. (emphasis added)
Question to the opponents of same-sex marriage here: (and, for that matter, the supporters) Are you OK with civil unions which have the same “statutory benefits and obligations” as marriage, but not called marriage? And does the answer change if those benefits and obligations are “imposed” by a court ruling, as the Washington court seems to be hinting it might consider?
July 26th, 2006 at 9:21:37 pm
Sounds like it’s time to re-start the campaign to bring into existence an institution called Garriage - a less-red-flag-to-a-bull term than “Gay Marriage” … same rights and privileges and duties and advantages as Marriage - albeit let’s start it out without the Marriage Penalty with respect to taxation …
Oh - and, of course, it’s semi-distant cousin DISParriage - (Domesticity-In-Sin-Prevented Marriage) … this one would not require any religious component, and would replace the ‘Domestic Partnership’ arrangements …
July 26th, 2006 at 11:03:10 pm
Well, speaking as one of the supporters: if every state has such unions, the rights and responsibilities are exactly the same as in marriage, and there’s no issue about whether the one you entered into when you lived in CT is still valid when you move to OK, I’d be quite happy. I’d still have a few qualms–in virtually nothing is separate really equal under the law–but it would be so much better than how things stand that I’d gladly take the lumps. we could also then get rid of the difficulties many companies have in trying to figure out who gets access to health insurance benefits and whatnot — the people joined to the employees do, other romantic partners do not, and there’s a simple, fair, bright line. What I’d really rather see is for states as a whole to stop issuing marriage licenses altogether. We need a new term that hasn’t been used for either the hetero- or homosexual unions already — personally, I suggest “joined” — which would apply to everyone who enters into such a contract. Religious groups could still perform wedding ceremonies however they see fit, but legal status would depend entirely on filing the paperwork to be joined, and census data would no longer reflect whether or not you were married. I’d also prefer us to all use the term spouse, but I’m betting that’s even less likely to happen.
July 26th, 2006 at 11:12:48 pm
/i>DISParriage must be what they had in North Carolina until the recent ruling that struck down their 201 year old anti-cohabitation law:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/wireStory?id=2216429
Like the Washington case, I can’t really speak knowledgeably on the technical state-constitution issues. What freaks me out is that the state legislature never saw fit to take this one off the books.
July 26th, 2006 at 11:18:10 pm
I’m not crazy about the separate-but-equal angle either, but it’s not like we’d be telling gays to sit on the back of the bus. I’d be OK with it. That is to say, I’d be OK with it as legislation. I wouldn’t want even rhetorical separate-but-equalness enshrined in the Constitution. (FMA).
July 27th, 2006 at 9:31:20 am
Aaron ~ re NC ~
“If any man and woman, not being married to each other, shall lewdly and lasciviously associate, bed and cohabit together, they shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.”
I don’t think we Have that in CT :) but if we did, I could state under oath in a Court of Law that I am Innocent. I was never in the Least bit Lewd or Lascivious about it. ;}
Vignette ~ circa 1971 ~ southernfried/dixiefied D.C. Cop, investigating neighbor’s complaint of Loud Partying at a Student-leased House ~
“..Aww ratt thayn, naoww Who occuhpies thet thar Basement bedroom?”
“Um well, like, that’s Christine and Michael’s room.”
“Thet’s Fo’-nickayshun.”
;>
July 27th, 2006 at 10:31:21 am
[…] onger base.” Washington State Supreme Court upholds state Defense of Marriage Act [The Irish Trojan]
[…]
July 27th, 2006 at 12:31:25 pm
Joe,
Heh. “lewdly and lasciviously”. I saw that. Isn’t that part of the appeal? ;)
And (surprise, surprise), CT is not in fact among those states standing firm for good ‘ol american values. Some googling turned up the list of the steadfast
sevensix, which are:Florida
Michigan
Mississippi
North CarolinaNorth Dakota
Virginia
West Virginia
Guess the only surprise to me there is Michigan, but having never been, I can’t really say.
July 27th, 2006 at 4:25:30 pm
Hey look at that, my first track back :)