46. Obergefell v. Hodges and the Ongoing Fight for Marriage Equality

Snarky Opener (0:00)

If same-sex marriage wasn't legalized till 2015, then I guess we can blame straight people for the 50% divorce rate, right?

Episode Introduction (0:26)

Hello, my LGBTQuties, and welcome back to another episode of A Jaded Gay.

I'm Rob Loveless, and today I'm a non-jaded gay just because I've been feeling empowered to take action.

You know, I've been saying in the past few episodes, maybe the past few months, I don't even remember anymore, but I've been saying that I've just felt stuck and that, you know, I felt like I was in a transitionary place, and I wasn't really sure what was on the horizon.

And lately, I've kind of just identified some ways to take action and hopefully find a way to move forward.

And I haven't been feeling as stuck. I'm still not where I want to be, but I just feel better based off of the actions I'm taking and hoping that I'm, like, making my way towards where I want to be in 2023.

Hoping for a better year ahead, so we'll see. But just feeling good overall.

The Fight for Marriage Equality (1:06) 

But today, we're actually going to leave 2023 and take a step back into 2015 and earlier to talk about marriage equality.

Specifically, we're going to be talking about Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage.

Now this case and its landmark ruling gets mentioned a lot, but I think a lot of us equate it with the legalization of same-sex marriage, and we don't actually realize the story behind it.

So, in this episode, we're going to take a deep dive into that case.

But first, you know the drill, let's pull our tarot.

Tarot (1:32) 

So, the card for this episode is the Two of Swords in reverse. And I believe we actually pulled the Two of Swords upright for our fuck Valentine's Day episode.

So, as you remember, with Swords, it's masculine energy, so it's action-oriented. It's tied to the element of air, which has a lot to do with how we communicate, our thoughts, our principles.

You know, think the pen is mightier than the sword, the sword of truth. And in numerology, the number two is tied to duality, partnership, and making choices.

Now, when we pulled it a couple episodes ago, we talked about how the woman on the card is depicted sitting in front of a rocky ocean.

Her back is facing it. She has a blindfold over her eyes, and she has two swords crossed over her chest.

And this can be representative of her turning her back on her irrational emotions and avoiding acting purely based off of emotion.

Instead, she has her eyes blindfolded with the swords crossing her chest so that way, she can really focus on processing her emotions, channeling her intuition, and making an informed, logical decision.

But when we pull this card in reverse, it can suggest that we've been allowing the thoughts and opinions of others to weigh too heavily on our decision-making process.

So, we're out of tune with our own decision-making process. But more specifically, it can also indicate that we're having trouble making a decision, that we feel stuck.

Maybe we are listening to everybody else's opinions and taking that into account instead of thinking of what we truly want and focusing on that.

Or maybe we don't even know where to begin when it comes to making a decision. So, we're stuck, we're unsure, and we may not have all the information we need.

Or maybe we're even closed off to information that can help us in the decision-making process.

So, with this card, it's really indicating that we need to take the time to really kind of quiet the voices of others and really listen to our own inner voice.

DeBoer v. Snyder (3:09)

So, going from swords to gavels, let's talk about Obergefell v. Hodges.

So, this case, it's actually comprised of six separate lawsuits that occurred between January 2012 and February 2014.

Now, this is going to be a very high-level look into these cases. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't understand all the ins and outs of the legal system. I only know habeas corpus because of Legally Blonde.

So just consider this some background information on these cases. And if you're interested in them, I definitely encourage you to go out and do more research and read about it.

But this is just very high level.

So, the first case was in Michigan. It's DeBoer v. Snyder.

And April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse were a lesbian couple and had a commitment ceremony back in February 2007.

Their first son was born in January 2009 who was adopted by Rowse in November 2009. Their second son was born November 2009 and adopted by Rowse in October 2011.

And then, they had a daughter in February 2010, who was adopted by DeBoer in April 2010. However, at the time, Michigan allowed adoption only by single people or married couples.

And since same-sex marriage wasn't legally recognized in Michigan, the state essentially had a ban on adoption by same-sex couples.

So, while DeBoer and Rowse were able to adopt their children individually, they couldn't adopt them jointly as a couple.

On January 23, 2012, DeBoer and Rowse filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging that the state's adoption law was unconstitutional.

And Richard Snyder, the lead defendant, was Michigan's governor at the time.

During a hearing on August 29, 2012, Judge Bernard A. Friedman expressed reservations regarding the plaintiffs' cause of action, and DeBoer and Rowse amended their complaint to challenge the underlying issue of Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage.

Judge Friedman then heard arguments on March 7, 2013, but delayed his ruling until after the Supreme Court's decisions in United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry.

Then, on March 21, 2014, he ruled that Michigan's same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional and violated the plaintiffs' right to equal protection of the law.

And as a result, 323 marriage licenses had been issued in four Michigan counties.

However, Judge Friedman's decision was immediately appealed, and the next day, the appellate court placed a temporary hold on the district court's order allowing same-sex marriage through March 26.

So, after hearing arguments on March 25, an appellate court panel voted two to one to approve the state attorney general's motion to extend the state indefinitely until appeals had concluded.

Then a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit heard the appeal on August 6, 2014, along with similar cases from Kentucky (Bourke v. Beshear and Love v. Beshear), Ohio (Henry v. Himes and Obergefell v. Himes), and Tennessee (Tanco v. Haslam).

And here's a quick excerpt regarding the ruling of this appeal:

“On November 6, 2014, the Sixth Circuit handed down an opinion authored by Judge Jeffrey Sutton (and joined by Judge Deborah Cook) reversing the rulings of the courts below; Judge Martha Daughtrey dissented. With this decision, the Sixth Circuit became the first federal court of appeals since United States v. Windsor to uphold state laws denying marriage equality to same-sex couples and created a split among the circuit courts of appeals.”

And I kind of jumped ahead to that Sixth Circuit decision, so we'll get to that after these next few cases.

Obergefell v. Kasich (6:16)

So, the next one is in Ohio, and there were actually two cases. The first was Obergefell v. Kasich.

In June 2013, following the US Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor, Jim Obergefell and John Arthur decided to marry to obtain legal recognition of their relationship, and they married in Maryland on July 11 of that year.

However, they found out that Ohio, which was their state of residence, would not recognize their marriage, so they filed a lawsuit on July 19, 2013, and the lead defendant was Ohio Governor John Kasich.

Now, John Arthur was terminally ill, and the couple wanted the Ohio registrar to list Jim Obergefell as his surviving spouse on his death certificate based on their marriage in Maryland.

The local Ohio registrar agreed that discriminating against the same-sex married couple was unconstitutional, but the state attorney general's office announced plans to defend Ohio's same-sex marriage ban.

Then, on July 22, 2013, District Judge Timothy S. Black temporarily restrained the Ohio registrar from accepting any death certificate unless it recorded the deceased's status of death as quote-unquote married and his partner as quote-unquote surviving spouse.

And on August 13, Black extended this restraining order until the end of December, with oral arguments scheduled for December 18.

Now I'm going to read a quick excerpt about this from Wikipedia:

“Meanwhile, on July 22, 2013, David Michener and William Herbert Ives married in Delaware. They had three adoptive children. On August 27, William Ives died unexpectedly in Cincinnati, Ohio. His remains were being held at a Cincinnati funeral home pending the issuance of a death certificate, required before cremation, the deceased's desired funeral rite. As surviving spouse, David Michener's name could not by Ohio law appear on the death certificate, he sought legal remedy, being added as a plaintiff in the case on September 3.”

So going forward, the case was amended and restyled as Obergefell v. Wymyslo, with Ohio Health Department Director Ted Wymyslo being named as the lead defendant.

On October 22, 2013, plaintiff John Arthur died, and the state defendants tried to have the case dismissed, but Judge Black denied the motion to dismiss on November 1.

And on December 23, he ruled that Ohio's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions was discriminatory, and ordered Ohio to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions on death certificates.

Henry v. Wymyslo (8:37)

So still in Ohio on February 10, 2014, four legally married same-sex couples filed a lawsuit, Henry v. Wymyslo, also in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

And the suit was regarding adoption, and they were trying to get the state to have both parents listed on their children's birth certificates.

Similar to DeBoer v. Snyder, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to ask the court to declare Ohio's recognition ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.

Unrelated to this case, Ted Wymyslo resigned from his position as Ohio's director of health, and Lance Himes, the interim director, became the lead defendant.

And as such, the case was restyled to Henry v. Himes.

And on April 14, 2014, Judge Black ruled that Ohio must recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions, and, on April 16, state enforcement of his ruling, except for the birth certificates sought by the plaintiffs.

Bourke v. Beshear (9:27)

So now moving to Kentucky for two cases that were kind of intertwined. The first was Bourke v. Beshear.

So, on July 26, 2013, Gregory Bourke and Michael DeLeon, who were legally married in Ontario, Canada, filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Western District of Kentucky challenging Kentucky's refusal to recognize their marriage on behalf of themselves and DeLeon's two adopted children.

On February 12, 2014, District Court Judge John G. Heyburn ruled that Kentucky's marriage laws violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

However, Kentucky's Attorney General declined to defend the marriage laws on appeal.

So, the state's appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was pursued by Governor Steve Beshear. The Sixth Circuit stayed Judge Heyburn’s ruling pending appeal.

Love v. Beshear (10:12)

Now this leads us into the second case, Love v. Beshear.

Two days later, February 14, 2014, two additional couples filed a motion to intervene in Bourke, challenging Kentucky's constitutional ban on the freedom to marry.

Timothy Love, Lawrence Ysunza, Maurice Blanchard, and Dominique James asked to be allowed to intervene in the suit because their challenge to Kentucky's ban on same-sex marriage within the state raised substantially the same arguments as the original suit.

Maurice Blanchard and Dominic James had held a religious ceremony on June 3, 2006, and Kentucky county clerks repeatedly refused them marriage licenses.

Meanwhile, Timothy Love and Lawrence Ysunza had been living together as a couple for 30 years.

Following the February 12 ruling, the couple tried to obtain a marriage license at the Jefferson County Clerk's Office on February 13, 2014, but were refused.

So, for Bourke v. Beshear, Judge Heyburn issued a 21 day stay on February 28, 2014. On March 4, 2014, the State Attorney General announced that he would neither appeal the state's position nor request further stays.

On March 19, Judge Heyburn extended his stay pending action by the Sixth Circuit, noting the state granted by the US Supreme Court in a similar Utah case.

And an appeal was lodged in the Sixth Circuit that same day.

However, regarding Love v. Beshear, on July 1, 2014, Judge Heyburn ruled that Kentucky's ban on allowing same-sex marriage in the state violates the equal protection clause in favor of the same-sex plaintiffs.

Unsurprisingly, this decision was sent to the appeals court. And by the time oral arguments for Bourke v. Beshear were scheduled, this decision for Love v. Beshear was already handed down.

So, the Sixth Circuit consolidated the cases for the argument, and on November 6, 2014, the Sixth Circuit ruled that Kentucky's ban on same-sex marriage did not violate the Constitution, which reversed the decisions of both Burke and Love v. Beshear.

Tanco v. Haslam (12:00)

And then lastly in Tennessee, there was Tanco v. Haslam.

On October 21, 2013, the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed a lawsuit on behalf of three legally married same-sex couples, challenging Tennessee laws that prevented the state from respecting their marriages and treating them the same as all other legally married couples in Tennessee.

And the suit named Governor Bill Haslam and three other state officials as defendants.

On March 14, 2014, District Court Judge Aleta A. Trauger ruled that Tennessee must recognize the plaintiffs' marriages, holding that the state's discriminatory marriage laws violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

The state of Tennessee immediately filed a stay on this decision, but on March 20, Judge Trauger denied this request, saying that the court's order did not open the floodgates for same-sex couples to marry in Tennessee, and applied only to the three same-sex couples at issue in the case.

The Tennessee Attorney General filed an appeal in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, asking the circuit court to stay the injunction.

And on April 25, 2014, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that the case be assigned to a panel of judges for decision as soon as possible, and entered an order temporarily preventing enforcement of the district court's order.

On November 6, 2014, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the court's ruling.

The Sixth Circuit Ruling (13:15)

Now, it's interesting putting this together, because there was a lot of movement in the fall of 2013 and the spring of 2014 with these cases.

And I remember spring of 2014 when I was in college, I was taking a journalism class, and we had a guest speaker. And unfortunately for the life of me, I cannot remember who he was.

But I know he specifically came to speak about marriage equality in Pennsylvania. And at the time, I was closeted and not really paying attention to LGBTQ+ issues, so I didn't realize all this was happening.

But it is interesting to look back on this and see how the timing aligned with when we had that guest speaker.

Anyway, turning to the Sixth Circuit. They consolidated Obergefell v. Himes with Henry v. Himes and then consolidated Bourke v. Beshear and Love v. Beshear.

On August 11, Ohio Governor John Kasich appointed Richard Hodges to succeed Himes as Ohio's health director, and the case was restyled once again, to Obergefell v. Hodges.

Then on November 6, 2014, in a decision styled DeBoer v. Snyder, the Sixth Circuit ruled two to one that Ohio's ban on same-sex marriage did not violate the US Constitution.

And following that decision, claimants from each of the six district court cases then discussed filing an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Obergefell v. Hodges Ruling (14:23)

So fast forward to January 16, 2015, the Supreme Court agrees to review the case and consolidates the four same-sex marriage cases together.

So as a refresher, because that was a lot of information I threw at you, that's DeBoer v. Snyder in Michigan, Obergefell v. Hodges in Ohio, Bourke v. Beshear in Kentucky, and Tanco v. Haslam in Tennessee.

And the purpose of this was for the Supreme Court to resolve two questions:

• Whether the 14th Amendment required states to license the marriages of same-sex couples
• And whether the 14th Amendment required states to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples legally entered into other states

And obviously, we know this case was renamed Obergefell v. Hodges. So, on April 28, 2015, oral arguments in the case were heard.

The plaintiffs were represented by civil rights lawyer Mary Bonauto and Washington, D.C. lawyer Douglas Hallward-Driemeier.

U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., representing the United States, also argued for the same-sex couples. The states were represented by former Michigan Solicitor General John J. Bursch and Joseph R. Whalen, an associate solicitor general from Tennessee.

Then on June 26, 2015, in a five-four decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment required all states to grant same-sex marriages and recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states.

Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the majority opinion and was joined by justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.

Meanwhile, Chief Justice John Roberts and justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence, Thomas, and Samuel Alito dissented.

Supporting the majority decision, there were four main reasons why the Supreme Court found that the fundamental right to marry applies to same-sex couples. And I'm reading this straight from Cornell's Legal Information Institute:

“First, "the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy." Second, "the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals," a principle applying equally to same-sex couples. Third, the fundamental right to marry "safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education"; procreation is not a necessary condition to a legal right, but it is one of the factors that make the right worth protecting. Fourth, "marriage is a keystone of our social order," and "[t]here is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle"; and for no reason denying the same-sex couples the right to marry is against the social principles of our society.”

 And from the dissenting opinion, here are a few quotes from Chief Justice Roberts:

“Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law.”

“Unlike criminal laws banning contraceptives and sodomy, the marriage laws at issue here involve no government intrusion. They create no crime and impose no punishment. Same-sex couples remain free to live together, to engage in intimate conduct, and to raise their families as they see fit. No one is ‘condemned to live in loneliness’ by the laws challenged in these cases—no one.”

And here's one from Justice Thomas:

“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well. Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples. The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability.”

Anyway, I remember the day the decision was made. I had just come out the fall before, and I was living in Jersey at the time, and I was actually at the gym that morning, and saw the news on the TV.

And obviously, I was thrilled with the decision, but I don't think I really realized the gravity of how important this was.

You know, being out recently, I hadn't been as aware of LGBTQ+ issues, and we were living in the time of the Obama administration, and I kind of had this false sense of security that people were more tolerant than they are.

And 2016 onwards proved otherwise. But I do have a specific memory of some local backlash to this.

That same weekend, I went to Mass at a Catholic church nearby. And during the homily, the priest read a letter from the bishop, which basically criticized the Supreme Court's ruling.

And one line really stands out to me that I can remember all these years later. The letter said, you know, just because it's a law doesn't mean it's a good law that we have to follow.

After all, at one point in history, slavery was legal. And obviously, you know, there was backlash across the country.

A few days after this decision, there was the whole Kim Davis thing, which I really don't want to get into that in this episode. And of course, we had Mike Huckabee, who was by her side, defending her. Barf.

Respect for Marriage Act (18:55)

But I do want to fast forward a bit to talk about the Respect for Marriage Act, which was signed into law on December 13, 2022.

So, this legislation was actually first introduced by three Democratic members of Congress on September 15, 2009.

And the purpose of it was to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which is also known as DOMA.

And for those of you who don't know, DOMA banned federal recognition of same-sex marriage by limiting the definition of marriage to the union of one man and one woman, and it further allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states.

And it was originally signed into law on September 21, 1996, by Bill Clinton.

Anyway, the Respect for Marriage Act went through rounds in the House and Senate without really moving forward. But following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022, there was a renewed push to get the Respect for Marriage Act signed into law.

Specifically, Justice Clarence Thomas had urged the Court to overturn its rulings establishing a fundamental constitutional right to use contraception, the right of same-sex couples to marry, and the right to form intimate sexual relationships with other consenting adults, following the Roe v. Wade decision.

So, the Respect for Marriage Act was reintroduced in July 2022 and passed with a large bipartisan vote of 267 to 157.

And surprisingly, 47 House Republicans voted yes, showing their support for this legislation, which makes it the most pro-LGBTQ vote in congressional history as of recording this.

It was then sent to the Senate, which made some amendments to the legislation. And on November 29, 2022, the Senate voted 61 to 36 to pass the bill, with 12 Republicans backing it.

On December 8, the Senate's version of the act was passed in the House, and it was signed into law on December 13, 2022, by President Biden.

So, here's what the legislation specifically does. This act provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages.

Specifically, the act replaces provisions that define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and a spouse as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognize any marriage between two individuals that is valid under state law.

(The Supreme Court held that the current provisions were unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor in 2013.)

The act also replaces provisions that do not require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states with provisions that prohibit the denial of full faith and credit or any right or claim relating to out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin.

(The Supreme Court held that state laws barring same-sex marriages were unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015; the Court held that state laws barring interracial marriages were unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.)

The act allows the Department of Justice to bring a civil action and establishes a private right of action for violations.

The act does not:

1. Affect religious liberties or conscience protections that are available under the Constitution or federal law
2. Require religious organizations to provide goods or services to formally recognize or celebrate a marriage
3. Affect any benefits or rights that do not arise from a marriage
4. Or recognize under federal law any marriage between more than two individuals

The Respect for Marriage Act Doesn’t Codify Marriage Equality (21:42)

However, don't celebrate just yet, because this does not codify Obergefell v. Hodges.

Instead, it only forces states without marriage equality laws to recognize LGBTQ+ marriages from other states.

So, God forbid, if Obergefell v. Hodges is overturned, the Respect for Marriage Act would not stop any state from once again refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

And would there be a way to reinstate marriage equality nationally if the Supreme Court strikes it down?

Well, here's what independent news organization The 19th says:

“Legal experts aren’t totally sure, but the general consensus is that it would be very challenging to do. States, not Congress, legislate marriage rights, so many legal experts have concluded that Congress can’t pass a bill that compels states to issue marriage licenses to LGBTQ+ couples. Some advocates have suggested that an amended version of the Equality Act, the anti-discrimination protection bill pending in Congress, could provide a venue for securing those rights. Still, versions of that bill have stalled in the legislature for nearly 50 years.”

So, while I'm glad the Respect for Marriage Act was passed, I still don't feel at ease. I mean, look at the history of marriage equality.

Going back to those cases from as early as 2012, they were granted the right only to have the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals overturn it, which then led to Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 which recently came under threat following the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

And now we have this Respect for Marriage Act, but marriage equality still isn't fully protected. So, we can't be complacent if we want equal rights.

Additionally, we've seen a record number of anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ+ bills introduced and passed in state legislatures over the past two years that threaten access to health care and resources.

So, we need more than just the Respect for Marriage Act. We need an equality act to be passed to fully protect us from discrimination.

And the ACLU has a page set up that makes it really easy to send an email to your senators, urging them to pass the Equality Act. I did it. It takes less than a minute.

You just enter in your information, and it sends it directly to your state senator. I did it, and within minutes, I received an automated response confirming that my state senator received the email.

So, I've included the link to this in the episode notes, so as soon as you're done listening to this, do it. Send your email to your state senator.

Episode Closing (23:49)

Because, like the Two of Swords in reverse says, we might feel like we're caught between a rock and a hard place, and that we're at a stalemate.

That we're stuck, that we can't move forward, that we're unable to take action.

And you know, obviously one person, myself or one of the listeners out there, we're not able to just write this legislation and have it passed.

But we can come together as one, utilize the page that the ACLU set up, and contact our state senator. It might seem small, but it's a start of taking action.

And we should also share this with our family, our friends, those who don't realize the threat to marriage equality.

Because I think a lot of us, myself included, initially thought the Respect for Marriage Act protected us, and clearly, it doesn't.

And when things like this happen, I tend to feel out of control, and it's easy for me to just want to wallow in my pity and give up. But we can't. We can't be complacent.

We need to take action if we want true equality. So, once you're done listening again, please follow the link in the episode description, send that email to your state senator.

Share this episode with your family and friends. Encourage them to reach out to their state senator as well.

Really, we need to get as many voices as we can pushing this out so that hopefully an amended version of the Equality Act can be passed someday, so we are fully protected.

And I know that's a heavy topic, and I think next week is a heavy topic too, so I'm sorry. I don't know why I do this, but we will have some more fun. Lighter episodes coming up as well.

Connect with A Jaded Gay (24:59)

But as always, thank you for listening. I'd love to hear any feedback or answer any questions. You can contact me, rob@ajadedgay.com. Please also remember to rate, review, and subscribe.

You can also connect with the podcast on Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and SoundCloud @ajadedgaypod. You can connect with me, Rob Loveless, on Instagram @rob_loveless.

You can also support the show by becoming a monthly donor for as little as $1 a month on Patreon @ajadedgaypod.

And remember, every day is all we have, so you got to make your own happiness.

Mmm-bye.

Outtake (25:57)

Oh, God, I don't know if I'm gonna pronounce these names right.

Oh, well, if you just say it confident enough, nobody's gonna challenge you. All right, let's try this.