The End of Marriage In Texas

[scott]

I'm surprised a thread has not been specifically dedicated to this topic - if one has or if this subject is discussed in detail somewhere else, I apologize.

Here is HJR6, Constitutional Ammendment to be voted on this Tuesday which has the intention of outlawing gay marriage.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/tlo/textframe.cmd?LEG=79&SESS=R&CHAMBER=H&BILLTYPE=JR&BILLSUFFIX=00006&VERSION=5&TYPE=B


A JOINT RESOLUTION proposing a constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by
adding Section 32 to read as follows:
Sec. 32.
(a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of
the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may
not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to
marriage.
SECTION 2. This state recognizes that through the
designation of guardians, the appointment of agents, and the use of
private contracts, persons may adequately and properly appoint
guardians and arrange rights relating to hospital visitation,
property, and the entitlement to proceeds of life insurance
policies without the existence of any legal status identical or
similar to marriage.
SECTION 3. This proposed constitutional amendment shall be
submitted to the voters at an election to be held November 8, 2005.
The ballot shall be printed to permit voting for or against the
proposition: "The constitutional amendment providing that
marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one
woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this
state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or
similar to marriage."

Now, I am no lawyer, but the way I read this - marriage between a man and a woman would no longer be allowed or recognized in the state of Texas - which clearly is not the intention of the bill (unless you want to have fun with conspiracy theories).

Again, I am not familiar with legalese, but my logic goes something like this.

(1) Marriage shall be defined only as the union of one man and one woman.
(2) Anything similar or identical to marriage as defined in (1) shall not be ceated or regonized.
(3) The union of one man and one woman is identical to the union of one man and one woman (fairly self explanatory).
(4) Per (2), the union of one man and one woman shall not be created or recognized by the State or any legal body residing therein.

Furthermore, one could argue that the union between a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) is neither identical or similar to the union between one man and one woman - therefor can be recognized.

So, on Tuesday will the tables be turned and straight couples will left in "life partner" relationships while gay couples are tying the knot?

I'm especially interested in FWD's take, for obvious reasons. I'd prefer to avoid a debate over the merits or problems with wanting to outlaw homosexual unions, we've been down that path before and no one is going to change anyone's mind. I'm just curious to discuss the legal parameters of the proposed constitutional ammendment.

On a side note, is it too much to ask that our politicians do a better job at writing Constitutional Ammendments?

[Yonivore]

It will be litigated -- eventually.

The trial will look at the intent of the amendment and that will be the end of it. It's a safe bet that existing marriages between one man and one woman will be left intact after the dust settles.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Stupid.

[Yonivore]

Stupid.
Finally, an admission from Johnny Marzetti. You could have kept it yourself -- it's not news.

[FromWayDowntown]

Respectfully, Scott, I think you're misreading the language and doubt seriously that it would ever be construed in that fashion.

In reading the proposal, section 1(a) creates a definition of marriage, which is defined to be only a union between one man and one woman. Section 1(b) is a further means of saying that neither the state nor a local government can decide that there should be some other relationship like the defined relationship of marriage. That means that, in Texas, there cannot be a legally-recognized relationship between anything other than one man and one woman -- not two men, not two women, not one man and two women, not three men and one woman, not a man and a dog, not a woman and a cat, and so forth.

Since "marriage" is defined in Section 1(a), that definition is not modified by section 1(b) -- the provided definition is the means by which to measure whether another relationship is similar or identical to marriage.

I think the language might be somewhat controversial inasmuch as it does not define what constitutes a "union," so it would raise questions about whether a common law marriage (as currenly recognized by Texas law) would remain legal if the amendment passes (as I'm certain it will). It also doesn't speak to what happens to existing unions that do not meet the definition in Section 1(a).

Section 2 is the Legislature's effort to try to make the law a bit more palatable by acknowledging that people who cannot become married can convey some of the benefits that are inherent in a marriage by the laws of guardianship, agency, and contract. I'm not entirely sure how much relief that provides, but I'm sure the Leg believes it's done the right thing . . . .

[Spam]

I don't get why some get so freaked out over gays.

[scott]

While I can read into that being the intent, to the Average Joe like me, that clearly is not the way it reads. My biggest complaint, outside of whether or not this Ammendment has any merit, is that laws are passed with this ambiguity in place that requires interpretation of the intent.

The whole thing could be avoided by simplying re-writing 1(b) as:

This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage, other than as described in 1(a).

Even with your explanation, it reads to me like this:

(a) Gobbledygood shall be defined as the intersection of kangaroos and bananas.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state many not create or recognized any legal status indentical or similar to Gobbledygood.

If I saw that written somewhere, my only interpretation would be to think that Gobbledygood is outlawed.


I think the language might be somewhat controversial inasmuch as it does not define what constitutes a "union," so it would raise questions about whether a common law marriage (as currenly recognized by Texas law) would remain legal if the amendment passes (as I'm certain it will). It also doesn't speak to what happens to existing unions that do not meet the definition in Section 1(a).

I think another point of potential controversy down the road is what constitutes "identical or similar." A man marrying a man is not identical to a man marrying a woman, but is it similar? What is our guide for determining similarity?

[jochhejaam]

I don't get why some get so freaked out over gays.
Who's freaking out? It's not like anyone's trying to criminalize homosexual behavior.
Many object to the attempt to normalize an abnormal behavior. That doesn't come close to "gay bashing".




.

[boutons]

Fucking ignorant Texas hick shit-kickers sticking their hypocritical, self-righteous noses in other peoples' personal lives, hinding by the pretext of Christ and the Bible.

TX also contributed POS like dubya, Rove, Delay to the national scene. Nice fucking state.

[BronxCowboy]

Fucking ignorant Texas hick shit-kickers sticking their hypocritical, self-righteous noses in other peoples' personal lives, hinding by the pretext of Christ and the Bible.

TX also contributed POS like dubya, Rove, Delay to the national scene. Nice fucking state.

:lol
Not bitter there, are we boutons?

[BronxCowboy]

And yes Scott, regardless of intent, it is a poorly worded document.

[Yonivore]

And yes Scott, regardless of intent, it is a poorly worded document.
I don't disagree, either. I'm just saying wording won't interfere with intent -- in this case anyway.

[spurster]

This is why looking at intent is such a bad idea. The language says X, but no really, we really intended Y. Sure, sure, tell us another one. Who can tell me what a yes or no vote intends?

A similar thing goes for the constitution. It's not only the intent of the original writers, but all those in the states (the legislatures?) who voted for it. That a lot of intents, and probably not all that consistent with each other.

[Yonivore]

This is why looking at intent is such a bad idea. The language says X, but no really, we really intended Y. Sure, sure, tell us another one. Who can tell me what a yes or no vote intends?

A similar thing goes for the constitution. It's not only the intent of the original writers, but all those in the states (the legislatures?) who voted for it. That a lot of intents, and probably not all that consistent with each other.

I agree.

Personally, I wish they would get out of the marriage business.

[Spurminator]

Very confusing... 1b almost looks like a sentence that someone meant to come back and finish but forgot to before deadline.

[BronxCowboy]

I agree.

Personally, I wish they would get out of the marriage business.

:tu
Good point. Unfortunately a marriage license is the easiest way to establish eligibility for spousal benefits.

[Hook Dem]

Fucking ignorant Texas hick shit-kickers sticking their hypocritical, self-righteous noses in other peoples' personal lives, hinding by the pretext of Christ and the Bible.

TX also contributed POS like dubya, Rove, Delay to the national scene. Nice fucking state.
"hinding"? ......official word in your non-hick state? :lol

[Yonivore]

:tu
Good point. Unfortunately a marriage license is the easiest way to establish eligibility for spousal benefits.
There shouldn't be any government benefit to being married. That's what's causing all this nonsense...gays want beneficiary coverage and joint filing status, why else would it matter? They can find churches that will marry them...but, without the "official" government seal of approval it don't count.

I say, we quit extending benefits to married heterosexuals and be done with it. Go get married in the church of Mookie.

[Yonivore]

yet the state legislature still hasn't come through on school funding or nursing home funding
Schools should be funded locally and nursing homes should be private enterprises.

[FromWayDowntown]

Schools should be funded locally.

So kids in poorer areas should just suck on it? Doomed to lives of marginal literacy and continued economic struggles, just because their local communities cannot sufficiently fund adequate schools?

That's a shocking statement to me.

[FromWayDowntown]

There shouldn't be any government benefit to being married. That's what's causing all this nonsense...gays want beneficiary coverage and joint filing status, why else would it matter? They can find churches that will marry them...but, without the "official" government seal of approval it don't count.

I say, we quit extending benefits to married heterosexuals and be done with it. Go get married in the church of Mookie.

It's more than just the joint filing status and beneficiary coverage. Section 1(b) of the proposed amendment pretty much spells that out; there are health care issues and testamentary or non-testamentary succession to property that are fairly significant as well.

I can't see how the State can function without marriage as a recognized status, mostly for survivorship issues related to real property rights where there is no will or something like that. If people don't have wills, the defined succession of property to those with whom they are related would create a mess (particularly in Texas where mineral rights are so significant) of fairly significant proportions.

[Yonivore]

So kids in poorer areas should just suck on it? Doomed to lives of marginal literacy and continued economic struggles, just because their local communities cannot sufficiently fund adequate schools?

That's a shocking statement to me.
Money doesn't provide a good education. This has been proven over and over again since Johnson't war on Poverty was started.

Shit, our schools are churning out sub-standard students now. Where are the bright minds produced by the small schoolhouses of the early 20th century?

Screw money, get back to the basics. You can teach reading, writing, and math on a shoestring. Get the state bean counters and test-givers out of the way. Quit requiring so much paperwork of the teachers and just let them teach.

The system isn't working, no sense in pouring more money down that hole.

And, besides, a child that wants to learn will learn. You read about them all the time.

[Yonivore]

It's more than just the joint filing status and beneficiary coverage. Section 1(b) of the proposed amendment pretty much spells that out; there are health care issues and testamentary or non-testamentary succession to property that are fairly significant as well.
That's what wills are for.


I can't see how the State can function without marriage as a recognized status, mostly for survivorship issues related to real property rights where there is no will or something like that. If people don't have wills, the defined succession of property to those with whom they are related would create a mess (particularly in Texas where mineral rights are so significant) of fairly significant proportions.
Oh well, I guess people are just going to have to think and plan for themselves. Freakin' government titty babies need to take care of business.

[FromWayDowntown]

That's what wills are for.

I guess then, for those who don't have wills written before they pass away, it will just be too bad, so sad for those who would have otherwise inherited their property, as economic opportunists swoop in to make land claims and displace families? That sounds like excellent public policy.


Oh well, I guess people are just going to have to think and plan for themselves. Freakin' government titty babies need to take care of business.

It's not like we're talking about welfare or some subsidy program. I'm simply saying that if you do away with the institution of marriage (however it is defined) you create significant problems with things like the disposition of real and personal property. At the very least, in instances in which there are not wills, your idea will contravene the whole "less litigation" notion, since you'll be doing just the opposite in requiring people to go through litigation to resolve title and other property disputes. That sounds like a great idea. :rolleyes

This dog-eat-dog mentality that you appear to profess doesn't seem to account much for the real-world consequences that it creates.

[FromWayDowntown]

Money doesn't provide a good education. This has been proven over and over again since Johnson't war on Poverty was started.

Shit, our schools are churning out sub-standard students now. Where are the bright minds produced by the small schoolhouses of the early 20th century?

Screw money, get back to the basics. You can teach reading, writing, and math on a shoestring. Get the state bean counters and test-givers out of the way. Quit requiring so much paperwork of the teachers and just let them teach.

The system isn't working, no sense in pouring more money down that hole.

And, besides, a child that wants to learn will learn. You read about them all the time.

Look, if you're going to tell me that students aren't being taught well or correctly, I'll agree with you. Standardized testing (which, IIRC, was one of the President's pet projects at least while he was Governor of this State) is the bane of public education.

Nevertheless, there's a difference between spending money to teach to tests and spending money to lure qualified teachers into schools to teach students. To some extent, that problem is mitigated by state funding of education. I'd guarantee that purely localized funding of education will ensure that poor school districts will struggle mightily to keep and retain good teachers, which will, in the long run, be detrimental to the quality of education that such school districts can offer.

I mean, surely you wouldn't suggest that localized funding would result in a school district like Edgewood becoming competitive with one like Alamo Heights. That suggestion strikes me as preposterous.

Your Machiavellian/social determinism view of things strikes me as exceedingly uncaring in the area of education, given the realities of the economics of this state.

[SpursWoman]

Finally, an admission from Johnny Marzetti. You could have kept it yourself -- it's not news.


:lmao

[IcemanCometh]

yonivore doesn't give a fuck about anything

[Nbadan]

Money doesn't provide a good education. This has been proven over and over again since Johnson't war on Poverty was started.

:rolleyes

So Edgewood provides the same quality education as Reagan? Of course money makes a difference, but Yonivore is right about one thing, it's not just money that makes a difference, it's parental involvement in the kids education. Turn off the TV and read to your kids, talk to your kids teachers about their class progress and monitor the district training policies for teachers. It does a world of good.

[Nbadan]

Shit, our schools are churning out sub-standard students now. Where are the bright minds produced by the small schoolhouses of the early 20th century?

Back then Kids didn't have Nintendo, or Playstation360, or Nickelodeon, or god knows what else competing for their time. Reading a good book was welcomed entertainment and edumakational at the same time. Today, the traditional skills of reading, writing and arithmetic are being replaced with Power-point, Excel, and Word. The real challenge today is adapting school-houses and training teachers to educate kids ready to compete in business in the 21st century, not the 20th. That's exactly what Bill Gates has been saying lately.

[Extra Stout]

There shouldn't be any government benefit to being married. That's what's causing all this nonsense...gays want beneficiary coverage and joint filing status, why else would it matter? They can find churches that will marry them...but, without the "official" government seal of approval it don't count.
If it were just about receiving the benefits married couples yet, this would not be much of a controversy. That would be easy to do using something similar to Section 2 of the proposition.

The homosexual activists want to use the coercive power of government to force public affirmation of gay relationships as "marriages." It's about changing the culture and destigmatizing their lifestyle, not about visitation rights and whatnot.

I imagine the religious activists are upset about Section 2. For them, it's about using the coercive power of government to stigmatize and punish homosexual relationships.

My opposition to the concept of gay "marriage" comes from my belief that 1) heterosexual monogamous marriage is a highly desirable social construct, 2) it is subject to erosion in our society because the impetus for it has been partially abrogated by the welfare state, so 3) the state should avoid further social engineering with regard to the institution of marriage.

[RandomGuy]

I don't get why some get so freaked out over gays.


http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/gaythread2.jpg

[RandomGuy]

Fucking ignorant Texas hick shit-kickers sticking their hypocritical, self-righteous noses in other peoples' personal lives, hinding by the pretext of Christ and the Bible.

TX also contributed POS like dubya, Rove, Delay to the national scene. Nice fucking state.

Don't hold back man. I get the sense you are trying to say something but are too shy to do so. We are all friends here, so go ahead.
:lol

[Marcus Bryant]

Looks like the trendy crowd will lose this round.

[RandomGuy]

I guess then, for those who don't have wills written before they pass away, it will just be too bad, so sad for those who would have otherwise inherited their property, as economic opportunists swoop in to make land claims and displace families? That sounds like excellent public policy.

It's not like we're talking about welfare or some subsidy program. I'm simply saying that if you do away with the institution of marriage (however it is defined) you create significant problems with things like the disposition of real and personal property. At the very least, in instances in which there are not wills, your idea will contravene the whole "less litigation" notion, since you'll be doing just the opposite in requiring people to go through litigation to resolve title and other property disputes. That sounds like a great idea. :rolleyes

This dog-eat-dog mentality that you appear to profess doesn't seem to account much for the real-world consequences that it creates.

Money has no conscience.

Yonivore probably thinks that those silly lifeboats are a waste of money too.

Airbags?

Unneeded governmental intrusion.

Child car seats?

We can't afford the police to enforce that.

Food inspectors?

Pork barrel politicing at its worst.

Federal Aviation Administration?

Airlines can be trusted not to cut corners. I mean if people have to die before we do something that is too bad...

[bigzak25]

i don't agree with it. it saddens me, as a matter of fact.

BUT, if a man wants to marry a man, or a woman wants to marry a woman, that's their choice. the law should LIMIT to 2 consenting adults though.

[samikeyp]

Fucking ignorant Texas hick shit-kickers sticking their hypocritical, self-righteous noses in other peoples' personal lives, hinding by the pretext of Christ and the Bible.

Does that include the Texans voting against it? :rolleyes

[Oh, Gee!!]

Can I catch "the gay" if one of them coughs on me?

[TonyMontana]

Fucking ignorant Texas hick shit-kickers sticking their hypocritical, self-righteous noses in other peoples' personal lives, hinding by the pretext of Christ and the Bible.

TX also contributed POS like dubya, Rove, Delay to the national scene. Nice fucking state.


boutons calling others ignorant...that's rich...:lmao


true followers in Christ know that all sins are forgiven, except blasphemy against your own holy spirit.

now, if a couple is just lusting after each other and not loving, God help them.

but if a couple is in love, however sexually deviant society may percieve it, the may God Bless them.

contrary to popular belief, Gay society is welcome in the House of the Lord.

i do not believe that being 'straight' is a requirement for entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven.

[Extra Stout]

We should observe what happens in Canada before we plunge headlong into redefining marriage in this country.

[scott]

We should observe what happens in Canada before we plunge headlong into redefining marriage in this country.

At the risk of nitpicking - marriage has never been "defined" before - and the opponents of gay marriage are just as guilty as the proponents at trying to define anything.

[gtownspur]

^^^are you that stupid. you mean to tell me if you were living in the 1900's you wouldnt have a clue that marriage is between a man and a woman? Please pull your self out of URANUS and come back to earth.

[FromWayDowntown]

^^^are you that stupid. you mean to tell me if you were living in the 1900's you wouldnt have a clue that marriage is between a man and a woman? Please pull your self out of URANUS and come back to earth.

Find me that 1900 statute or constitutional provision and we can talk. Scott's right: the government had never defined marriage until the last 5 years or so; society and religious groups had, but government had not.

[scott]

Just another for the gtownspur greatest hits collection.

[jochhejaam]

Find me that 1900 statute or constitutional provision and we can talk. Scott's right: the government had never defined marriage until the last 5 years or so; society and religious groups had, but government had not.

If the State only sanctioned ceremonies between a man and a woman by officials certified or recognized by the State doesn't that constitute a definition?

I understand that challenges to the tradidional definition of marriage call for a redefined or more concise definition as aberrational challenges attempt to dilute or amend that definition.

Any projections on how the vote is going on this issue?

[samikeyp]

People voted overwhelmingly in favor of the proposition. Supposedly gays getting married threatens marriage. I am married and gays getting married doesn't threaten my wife or myself or our marriage. Go figure.

[gtownspur]

Find me that 1900 statute or constitutional provision and we can talk. Scott's right: the government had never defined marriage until the last 5 years or so; society and religious groups had, but government had not.
There was no need to clarify marriage back then. Everyone knew it was a union between man and woman. Marriage has always been defined as marriage between man and woman. By that same pathetic logic, we now have women thinking they're men and vice versa. DO we need a law to explain that a man has a penis and a woman a vagina???

[gtownspur]

Just another for the gtownspur greatest hits collection.

just another collection of greatest hot air by scott.

[jochhejaam]

People voted overwhelmingly in favor of the proposition. Supposedly gays getting married threatens marriage. I am married and gays getting married doesn't threaten my wife or myself or our marriage. Go figure.
Thanks for the update Samikeyp

[FromWayDowntown]

If the State only sanctioned ceremonies between a man and a woman by officials certified or recognized by the State doesn't that constitute a definition?

Again, show me some sort of legislation saying that the State only sanctioned one-man/one-woman unions. If there was no statute, then there was no definition, just a custom. The recognition that states were discriminating brought challenges to the custom, and the challenges have begotten constitutional amendments across the nation.

Those amendments aren't the end of the story, since there will, inevitably, be a challenge in federal court concerning whether those provisions are violative of the United States Constitution.


I understand that challenges to the tradidional definition of marriage call for a redefined or more concise definition as aberrational challenges attempt to dilute or amend that definition.

I don't know that the challenges are "aberrational." It seem so me that the are pretty much pervasive inasmuch as they are occurring (and are likely to occur) in virtually every state.

[FromWayDowntown]

People voted overwhelmingly in favor of the proposition. Supposedly gays getting married threatens marriage. I am married and gays getting married doesn't threaten my wife or myself or our marriage. Go figure.

I don't understand why some are so quick (and joyous) about limiting liberty, but that appears to be a growing agenda.

[gtownspur]

^^^If gays want to get married let them do so. this ban does not deny them to hold a marriage ceremony. It just denies them to interpret them to their values.

[FromWayDowntown]

^^^If gays want to get married let them do so. this ban does not deny them to hold a marriage ceremony. It just denies them to interpret them to their values.

Is it possible to have an indefinite "them?"

The answer is: apparently so.

I have no idea what idea you're trying to express there, gtown.

[gtownspur]

okay. So your for inaction of changing the marriage laws. RIght on.

[FromWayDowntown]

okay. So your for inaction of changing the marriage laws. RIght on.

I'm all for laws being applied equally to all persons in this country. That is because I believe in personal liberties and don't think the government should be in the business of limiting the rights of persons who've done nothing to warrant a limitation on their rights. But that may just be me -- I'm crazy with my belief in the sanctity of personal liberty.

[samikeyp]

I don't understand why some are so quick (and joyous) about limiting liberty, but that appears to be a growing agenda.

sad but true.

[ChumpDumper]

Did it end?

[gtownspur]

NO! Contrary to the stupid thread topic, people are still gonna have marriage ceremonies like before. just not with a stray cat, great dane, or Your siblings.

[ChumpDumper]

My siblings are already married -- not to each other. Wording counts.

[gtownspur]

and at my cousins wedding there was a stray cat. But somehow no one got that one wrong.

[ChumpDumper]

So your cousins can marry each other?

[gtownspur]

yes if theyre 3rd cousins... No jk. I forgot to type a ' in cousins.

[Vashner]

Damn now NBAdan can't marry Sulu.

[jochhejaam]

Originally Posted by boutons
Fucking ignorant Texas hick shit-kickers sticking their hypocritical, self-righteous noses in other peoples' personal lives, hinding by the pretext of Christ and the Bible.

TX also contributed POS like dubya, Rove, Delay to the national scene. Nice fucking state.

Don't hold back man. I get the sense you are trying to say something but are too shy to do so. We are all friends here, so go ahead.
:lol



Yeah, I don't know why bouts always beats around the bush (no pun intended) and feels the need to candy-coat everything.
State your point for crying out loud!

[jochhejaam]

Can I catch "the gay" if one of them coughs on me?
If he's spoonin' you when he coughs you've probably already caught it.

[jochhejaam]

I don't understand why some are so quick (and joyous) about limiting liberty, but that appears to be a growing agenda.
What do you mean by "quick" and since when is liberty defined as the majority view having to acquiesce to the minority view?


I would''t say joyous, more like breathing a sigh of relief that morality hasn't plummeted to the depth where the State officially recognizes homosexual marriage. No one's trying to restrict their sexual preferences or activities, nor is there any form of Gay Bashing going on.
Texas isn't ready to cave in to the "enlightened" minority of people who abhor morality. That's a good thing.

Democracy lives on, the minority was given a voice, it was heard, it was rejected and the voice of the majority prevailed.

Like someone posted, they can do the ring, gown and tux thing without approval from the State. Go for it.

[JoeChalupa]

I knew it. :rolleyes

[Mr. Peabody]

What do you mean by "quick" and since when is liberty defined as the majority view having to acquiesce to the minority view?



Liberty isn't about the majority having to acquiesce to the minority, but it also isn't allowing a majority to oppress a minority and restrict personal rights and freedoms.
________
condo for sale in Pattaya (http://pattayaluxurycondos.com)

[SpursWoman]

Yeah, I don't know why bouts always beats around the bush (no pun intended) and feels the need to candy-coat everything.
State your point for crying out loud!


Yeah, I'm always left scratching my head...wondering what makes people so afraid of expressing their opinion?

[jochhejaam]

I knew it. :rolleyes
Substantial, keep 'em comin' Joe.