Dr. Ben Carson Apologizes For Saying Being Gay Is a Choice

matchlight said:

Now you are using the language of rational basis review--i.e. saying the "government has no legitimate interest in a law" that excludes same-sex partners from marriage. If this is just a matter for rational basis review, why were you so desperately trying to claim this is all about a fundamental right, and so calls for strict scrutiny? Which is it, no fundamental right and therefore rational basis review--or fundamental right and strict scrutiny?

You seem unsure of what you are saying, like you are just making it up as you go. I wonder if you are not presuming to know a lot more about constitutional law than you really do, and trying to cover up your lack of knowledge with a lot of bluster.

Click to expand...

Ironically, you are absolutely certain of what you're saying even though you are wrong.

Someone posted that marriage is not a right, so I posted proof that SCOTUS has said it is a fundamental right.

After I said that, you started going on about strict scrutiny, and because you're so determined to win the internets by finding something wrong with what I've said, you convinced yourself that somewhere along the way I claimed this matter will be decided on the basis of strict scrutiny. However, I never said that.

Throughout the thread, I have said that the bans will be overturned because the govt has no legitimate interest in banning SSM. If you don't believe me, go back and re-read my posts in this thread.

I'll wait :coffeepap:

matchlight said:

Now you are using the language of rational basis review--i.e. saying the "government has no legitimate interest in a law" that excludes same-sex partners from marriage. If this is just a matter for rational basis review, why were you so desperately trying to claim this is all about a fundamental right, and so calls for strict scrutiny? Which is it, no fundamental right and therefore rational basis review--or fundamental right and strict scrutiny?

You seem unsure of what you are saying, like you are just making it up as you go. I wonder if you are not presuming to know a lot more about constitutional law than you really do, and trying to cover up your lack of knowledge with a lot of bluster.

Click to expand...

As a follow up to my last response to you, I have gone back through the thread and found where and why you invented your straw man about me making any claim about this case being decided on the basis of strict scrutiny

Here is the post that claimed that marriage is not a right

zimmer said:

Marriage isn't a right anymore than healthcare is a right.

Click to expand...

Which I disputed

sangha said:

Sure it is

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

Click to expand...

You then mistakenly argued that marriage is not a right. You also bring up "the standards the Court applies to determine if a right is fundamental, for the purpose of applying to the states in Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process analysis" which is a reference to strict scutiny, albeit an oblique one

matchlight said:

That statement is not accurate. There is no fundamental right of nine-year-olds to marry. Neither is there any fundamental right to bigamous and polygamous marriage, or to incestuous marriage. And to date, the Supreme Court has never implied there is any fundamental right to homosexual marriage.

You might want to look into the standards the Court applies to determine if a right is fundamental, for the purpose of applying to the states in Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process analysis. It's stated pretty well in Washington v. Glucksberg, and Justice Scalia discusses it in detail in his dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas.

Click to expand...

I respond by repeating that marriage is a fundamental right, and the need for a legitimate interest. Note, I say nothing about strict scrutiny.

sangha said:

You are playing word games. SCOTUS has clearly stated that marriage is a fundamental right. In the circumstances you mention, the state has a legitimate interest that is furthered by such limitations.

Click to expand...

Redress is the poster who brought up strict scrutiny. In your haste to find fault with my argument, you came to believe that I said the court will apply strict scrutiny to such bans. So you posted:

matchlight said:

See above. Words matter in issues of constitutional law. Every decision in which the Supreme Court has discussed marriage as a fundamental right concerned marriage between one man and one woman. It has never suggested there is a fundamental right to marriage, period. "Furthering a legitimate interest" is the language of rational basis review. If there were a fundamental right to marriage in general, and not just to marriage between a man and a woman, a state would have to prove it had a whole lot more than just a legitimate interest in excluding the kinds of partners I mentioned from marriage. If that were true, laws excluding bigamists, polygamists, and incestuous or underage partners from marriage would not receive ordinary rational basis review, but rather strict scrutiny.

Click to expand...

So you see, it was you who brought up strict scrutiny in the discussion you and I have been having. I've never said nor believed that the court will apply it here. Instead of deciding the issue on the basis of marriage being a fundamental right, they will decide if the states can discriminate on the basis of gender which is subect to a lesser form of scrutiny.

matchlight said:

Now you are using the language of rational basis review--i.e. saying the "government has no legitimate interest in a law" that excludes same-sex partners from marriage. If this is just a matter for rational basis review, why were you so desperately trying to claim this is all about a fundamental right, and so calls for strict scrutiny? Which is it, no fundamental right and therefore rational basis review--or fundamental right and strict scrutiny?

You seem unsure of what you are saying, like you are just making it up as you go. I wonder if you are not presuming to know a lot more about constitutional law than you really do, and trying to cover up your lack of knowledge with a lot of bluster.

Click to expand...

It is interesting you should say this. A number of rulings, going back to the initial ruling on Prop 8 case in California have stated that while SSM bans should be subject to Strict Scrutiny due to marriage being a fundamental right, that since the bans actually do not survive Rational Basis Review, the point is moot. Whether SCOTUS will agree with that line of reasoning remains to be seen. The oral arguments in April should be fascinating as one side tries to get Rational Basis Review, the other tries to get Strict Scrutiny, and both sides explaining why SSM bans pass(or fail) at all 3 levels, since SCOTUS could use any of the 3.

sangha said:

This is why the difference between rights and powers is important

The rights of people do not come from the govt. Instead, the powers of govt come from the people. So the issue is not if people have such a right; It's whether or not the govt has the power to limit marriage to certain people when it has no legitimate interest in doing so.



The constitution says no.

Click to expand...

If what you say were true, gay marriage would be legal throughout the country. I probably will be some day but not today.

It's true that powers of the government should come from the people. I used to resist the notion that corporations in reality wielded government power, but no longer. Someone or something gives the government power but I would no longer go so far as saying the people were responsible. The government does however create rights through legislation.

Deuce said:

So, do you think the states have the right to define marriage as between a Muslim man and a Muslim woman?

Click to expand...

Beats the **** out of me. What a foolish question.

chromium said:

The courts have seized certain powers they were never intended for, you are right about that. However, enforcing equal protection is not one of those. It is in the constitution the same as the 1st or 2nd amendment. It's definitely in the court's purview. You know why? Because the amendment says "equal protection" NOT "equal protection of heterosexuals, right handers, people 6 foot or taller" etc. If these groups become oppressed in the course of time, the 14th has been violated. The courts are mandated to render judgment on whether that has occurred in specific cases, such as the ballots in 13 states that have still banned SSM

The legislature is free to repeal or create new amendments, as it tried to ban SSM under Bush II, but they failed. They lost, get over it

Click to expand...

Given that the marriage laws were 100% equally applied to everybody without exception and everybody, gay, straight, or whatever had to play by the same rules in each and every state, even though the state laws do vary a bit from state to state, it is hard for me to see how the laws that existed violated equal protection for anybody.

The courts should not require any state to change its laws when they already apply equally to everybody and harm nobody.

If the existing law does not meet the needs of those who for whatever reason do not wish to marry or who cannot marry or who don't want to marry somebody of the opposite sex, then create a new law to accommodate those who can't or don't want to benefit from the existing law but who need what a legally recognized family provides. Don't make everybody else change a definition that has been part of human culture for more than four millennia.

sawdust said:

Beats the **** out of me. What a foolish question.

Click to expand...

It's not a foolish question, and your dodge is telling.

See, you claimed the Feds don't have the right to interfere with a state's right to define marriage. I offered up a potential definition, and now suddenly you "don't know" whether states have the right to do that.

So do states have unlimited right to define marriage, or does any state definition of marriage still have to comply with the US constitution?

Deuce said:

It's not a foolish question, and your dodge is telling.

See, you claimed the Feds don't have the right to interfere with a state's right to define marriage. I offered up a potential definition, and now suddenly you "don't know" whether states have the right to do that.

So do states have unlimited right to define marriage, or does any state definition of marriage still have to comply with the US constitution?

Click to expand...

You asked a question which involves the first amendment. It was a foolish question.

sawdust said:

If what you say were true, gay marriage would be legal throughout the country. I probably will be some day but not today.
....

Click to expand...

Not today, but give or take a few days, marriage equality will be achieved Monday, June 29, 2015, shortly after 10:00 am EDT.

Plan on it.

AlbqOwl said:

Given that the marriage laws were 100% equally applied to everybody without exception and everybody, gay, straight, or whatever had to play by the same rules in each and every state, even though the state laws do vary a bit from state to state, it is hard for me to see how the laws that existed violated equal protection for anybody.

The courts should not require any state to change its laws when they already apply equally to everybody and harm nobody.

If the existing law does not meet the needs of those who for whatever reason do not wish to marry or who cannot marry or who don't want to marry somebody of the opposite sex, then create a new law to accommodate those who can't or don't want to benefit from the existing law but who need what a legally recognized family provides. Don't make everybody else change a definition that has been part of human culture for more than four millennia.

Click to expand...

They made the same argument about interracial marriage. "Everyone already has the same right to marry someone of the same race!" This is not a compelling argument. Here's why:

This isn't an equal footing situation. If the state wishes to make a distinction of race in any law for any reason, that distinction is subject to challenge under strict constitutional scrutiny. The burden is on the state. The measure in question must be "narrowly tailored" to meeting a "compelling state interest." There is no compelling state interest in preventing a white person from marrying a black person. The state has nothing to gain from this.


Now, it's true that same-sex marriage bans aren't a distinction of race, so the same standard does not necessarily apply. Traditionally, strict scrutiny has applied to issues of race, religion, or any constitutionally-enumerated or "fundamental" right. SCOTUS has called marriage a fundamental right before, so some argue that strict scrutiny applies.

Issues of gender fall under an intermediate level of scrutiny. The measure in question must be "substantially related" to furthering an "important state interest." Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is clearly a distinction of gender, so I would argue that intermediate scrutiny applies at a minimum. Once again, we find that no state interest is furthered by preventing a man from marrying a man, or a woman from marrying a woman. In fact, significant state interest lies in promoting stable family units that are more likely to be self-sufficient and successfully raise children. Marriage furthers this interest, which is why various rights and benefits are given to married couples in the first place. Same-sex couples are more likely to be monogamous, stable, and better able to raise children if they are married.

The burden is on the state wishing to restrict a choice, not the individual wanting to make it. If you can't provide a sufficient reason to prevent a man from signing a legal contract with a man, you don't get to stop that choice.

sawdust said:

You asked a question which involves the first amendment. It was a foolish question.

Click to expand...

Excellent. You've gone with the second option. The federal constitution still restricts the actions of the state via the first amendment.

So you've agreed that the state's right to define marriage is still subject to constitutional restrictions. This includes the 14th amendment. So the real issue here isn't "states rights vs federal powers," it's "states actions vs the 14th amendment." The underlying question is whether or not a same-sex marriage ban violates the 14th amendment. States' rights aren't in question here. They have the power to define marriage. But they have to do it in compliance with equal protection under the law.

Deuce said:

Excellent. You've gone with the second option. The federal constitution still restricts the actions of the state via the first amendment.

So you've agreed that the state's right to define marriage is still subject to constitutional restrictions. This includes the 14th amendment. So the real issue here isn't "states rights vs federal powers," it's "states actions vs the 14th amendment." The underlying question is whether or not a same-sex marriage ban violates the 14th amendment. States' rights aren't in question here. They have the power to define marriage. But they have to do it in compliance with equal protection under the law.

Click to expand...

I actually don't know what you're talking about with respect to what I've said. Let me try again.

Carson said he thinks marriage is between a man and woman but he also said that the states have the duty to regulate marriage. If the states allow gay marriage, he accepts the decision of the state even though he disagrees with it. Some people have called it hypocritical. I've repeatedly said that it's possible to support states rights and disagree with state policy.

I've also said that I personally don't give a **** about gay marriage. If fact I don't care enough about it to talk about it. I do care about states rights and the separation of power between the federal government and the states. I favor decentralized power and limited government and states rights are the only reason for me to waste my time talking about it.


And your question was foolish.

sawdust said:

I actually don't know what you're talking about with respect to what I've said. Let me try again.

Carson said he thinks marriage is between a man and woman but he also said that the states have the duty to regulate marriage. If the states allow gay marriage, he accepts the decision of the state even though he disagrees with it. Some people have called it hypocritical. I've repeatedly said that it's possible to support states rights and disagree with state policy.

I've also said that I personally don't give a **** about gay marriage. If fact I don't care enough about it to talk about it. I do care about states rights and the separation of power between the federal government and the states. I favor decentralized power and limited government and states rights are the only reason for me to waste my time talking about it.


And your question was foolish.

Click to expand...

My question illustrated a point: states do not have a right to violate the federal constitution. They can't define marriage as between a Muslim man and a Muslim woman because that is a distinction of religion that both the 1st and 14th amendments would prohibit.

They can't define marriage as between a male and a female because the 14th amendment prohibits this.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

Click to expand...

Such a power is prohibited by the constitution and therefore not reserved to the States.

Deuce said:

My question illustrated a point: states do not have a right to violate the federal constitution. They can't define marriage as between a Muslim man and a Muslim woman because that is a distinction of religion that both the 1st and 14th amendments would prohibit.

They can't define marriage as between a male and a female because the 14th amendment prohibits this.


Such a power is prohibited by the constitution and therefore not reserved to the States.

Click to expand...

Your question was just to make a point to yourself. Congratulations. I hope you got your point. In an attempt to get back to reality, rights come from government and rights don't exist until government codifies them into law. You can amendment this and that but until the law is changed in every state the right for gays to marry each other simply isn't universal in this country. It's certainly not universal in the world. ISIS is pushing people off the roofs of multi story building just for being suspected of being gay. Being gay in Iran can get you seriously hurt, or dead. I think gay marriage is a rather minor issue.

Like i said before he is drowning before the race even started.

sawdust said:

I actually don't know what you're talking about with respect to what I've said. Let me try again.

Carson said he thinks marriage is between a man and woman but he also said that the states have the duty to regulate marriage. If the states allow gay marriage, he accepts the decision of the state even though he disagrees with it. Some people have called it hypocritical. I've repeatedly said that it's possible to support states rights and disagree with state policy.

I've also said that I personally don't give a **** about gay marriage. If fact I don't care enough about it to talk about it. I do care about states rights and the separation of power between the federal government and the states. I favor decentralized power and limited government and states rights are the only reason for me to waste my time talking about it.

And your question was foolish.

Click to expand...

But the point is you don't recognize gay "rights" if you support the ability of states to abridge them - they are only privileges, that can be denied or granted at the will of the state. Carson tried to play it both ways - supporting "human rights and Constitutional protections for gay people" but opposing gay marriage, claiming it's a religious institution, as if that was a meaningful assertion given that marriage is available to anyone of any religion or no religion at all.

Nice try Ben, but no cigar.

sawdust said:

I actually don't know what you're talking about with respect to what I've said. Let me try again.

Carson said he thinks marriage is between a man and woman but he also said that the states have the duty to regulate marriage. If the states allow gay marriage, he accepts the decision of the state even though he disagrees with it. Some people have called it hypocritical. I've repeatedly said that it's possible to support states rights and disagree with state policy.

I've also said that I personally don't give a **** about gay marriage. If fact I don't care enough about it to talk about it. I do care about states rights and the separation of power between the federal government and the states. I favor decentralized power and limited government and states rights are the only reason for me to waste my time talking about it.


And your question was foolish.

Click to expand...

I am sure you favor "states' rights" with respect to slavery, segregation, racial profiling, and a slew of other ill-conceived atrocities various states have conducted over the years, before the fed stepped in to stop them

sawdust said:

Your question was just to make a point to yourself. Congratulations. I hope you got your point. In an attempt to get back to reality, rights come from government and rights don't exist until government codifies them into law. You can amendment this and that but until the law is changed in every state the right for gays to marry each other simply isn't universal in this country. It's certainly not universal in the world. ISIS is pushing people off the roofs of multi story building just for being suspected of being gay. Being gay in Iran can get you seriously hurt, or dead. I think gay marriage is a rather minor issue.

Click to expand...

And ISIS is merely christianity a couple centuries later. Hell, private sex acts were illegal in various states until a decade ago, or you believe texas should still be able to barge into bedrooms and make arrests as they did to that gay couple? Every injustice is perceived as 'minor' when it's your own culture that's the perpetrator.

But of course, to gay couples who have been deprived of everything from co-adoption, to hospital visitation, to immigration, court testimony, it isn't a minor issue at all, or don't they count in your view?

If it's really minor, then the fix should be simple and it should not have led to dozens of ballot drives and hysteria from the right wing. Now those who spread lies and hate and discrimination want to downplay the importance of reversing their oppression. Well it won't fool me

JasperL said:

But the point is you don't recognize gay "rights" if you support the ability of states to abridge them - they are only privileges, that can be denied or granted at the will of the state. Carson tried to play it both ways - supporting "human rights and Constitutional protections for gay people" but opposing gay marriage, claiming it's a religious institution, as if that was a meaningful assertion given that marriage is available to anyone of any religion or no religion at all.

Nice try Ben, but no cigar.

Click to expand...

No, I don't particularly support gay rights per se. I think that gays are the only class defined by an activity. If I started sucking dick, I could join the class. Yes, I do believe some people are born gay but I also believe that some are a result of nature and nurture. It's not a one size fits all category. A girl I used to date tried women because she thought it was trendy.

Having said that, it's ok with me if gays get married. Just don't look for me at the rally.

chromium said:

And ISIS is merely christianity a couple centuries later. Hell, private sex acts were illegal in various states until a decade ago, or you believe texas should still be able to barge into bedrooms and make arrests as they did to that gay couple? Every injustice is perceived as 'minor' when it's your own culture that's the perpetrator.

But of course, to gay couples who have been deprived of everything from co-adoption, to hospital visitation, to immigration, court testimony, it isn't a minor issue at all, or don't they count in your view?

If it's really minor, then the fix should be simple and it should not have led to dozens of ballot drives and hysteria from the right wing. Now those who spread lies and hate and discrimination want to downplay the importance of reversing their oppression. Well it won't fool me

Click to expand...

Legal civil unions would accomplish the same things that marriage would do but that's not the point. Some people feel discriminated against because they can't have the flowers and the cake. I say, let them have flowers and cake. I don't care.

sawdust said:

Legal civil unions would accomplish the same things that marriage would do but that's not the point. Some people feel discriminated against because they can't have the flowers and the cake. I say, let them have flowers and cake. I don't care.

Click to expand...

I don't much care, either--as far as my own state's law is concerned. But unlike the proponents of the homosexual agenda, I respect the Constitution. Because I do, I very strongly oppose the Supreme Court's rewriting it to concoct a new "right" every intellectually honest person knows damn well it was never meant to guarantee. Every state should be free to include same-sex partners in their marriage laws, or to continue to exclude them, however a majority in the state sees fit.

This is a lot like what the proponents of the abortion agenda were doing four decades and more ago, and they finally succeeded in persuading the Supreme Court to back their play with one of the most poorly reasoned, embarrassing decisions in its history. Roe v. Wade is such a notoriously bad piece of substantive due process garbage that for more than twenty years now, the Court itself has backed away from it. Starting with Casey in 1992, the Court stopped trying to back the absurd, arbitrary proclamation in Roe that abortion is a fundamental right. The justices, understandably, do not want to have their names associated with such a ridiculous assertion, which was never supported by one iota of legal reasoning.

Having seen the damage one monumental turkey of a decision has done to this country, the last thing anyone should want--including homosexuals--is once again to torture the Constitution out of shape for the sake of ginning up another phony "right."

matchlight said:

I don't much care, either--as far as my own state's law is concerned. But unlike the proponents of the homosexual agenda, I respect the Constitution. Because I do, I very strongly oppose the Supreme Court's rewriting it to concoct a new "right" every intellectually honest person knows damn well it was never meant to guarantee. Every state should be free to include same-sex partners in their marriage laws, or to continue to exclude them, however a majority in the state sees fit.

This is a lot like what the proponents of the abortion agenda were doing four decades and more ago, and they finally succeeded in persuading the Supreme Court to back their play with one of the most poorly reasoned, embarrassing decisions in its history. Roe v. Wade is such a notoriously bad piece of substantive due process garbage that for more than twenty years now, the Court itself has backed away from it. Starting with Casey in 1992, the Court stopped trying to back the absurd, arbitrary proclamation in Roe that abortion is a fundamental right. The justices, understandably, do not want to have their names associated with such a ridiculous assertion, which was never supported by one iota of legal reasoning.

Having seen the damage one monumental turkey of a decision has done to this country, the last thing anyone should want--including homosexuals--is once again to torture the Constitution out of shape for the sake of ginning up another phony "right."

Click to expand...

It is dishonest to pretend that the SSM lawsuits are trying to concoct a new right when you already know that the basis of the lawsuits is equal protection, which is not a new right

But that is consistent with your accusing me of saying the case would be subjected to strict scrutiny, and then when I prove you wrong, you disappear for two days (while posting in other threads) and then return to the thread in the hopes that your blunder will be forgotten or overlooked

sawdust said:

No, I don't particularly support gay rights per se. I think that gays are the only class defined by an activity. If I started sucking dick, I could join the class. Yes, I do believe some people are born gay but I also believe that some are a result of nature and nurture. It's not a one size fits all category. A girl I used to date tried women because she thought it was trendy.

Having said that, it's ok with me if gays get married. Just don't look for me at the rally.

Click to expand...

It's not the activity. Many experiment at some point but without physical attraction, you wouldn't be gay.

It's an emotional attraction to the same sex as well, hence the desire to marry. If it were strictly "sucking dick" there would be no push for marriage rights. Then there's the mannerisms that often comes with it, to one degree or another. It can be a bona fide identity, like race or anything else.

chromium said:

It's not the activity. Many experiment at some point but without physical attraction, you wouldn't be gay.

It's an emotional attraction to the same sex as well, hence the desire to marry. If it were strictly "sucking dick" there would be no push for marriage rights. Then there's the mannerisms that often comes with it, to one degree or another. It can be a bona fide identity, like race or anything else.

Click to expand...

You miss the point. Every minority is designated by the accident of birth. Some gays are born gay and I believe, some are gay as a result of nature and nurture. Every individual is unique with a unique set of circumstances. One thing defines the class however and that is sexual attraction. Therefore, those who are genetically gay, and those who are gay for other reasons define their class by sexuality. Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against minority status for gays, only pointing out that the class is defined by an activity, regardless of DNA or other causes. The truth is I have no idea why I'm even talking about it. That's the way I see it and I'm done, I have nothing else to say and no more to add.

chromium said:

or you believe texas should still be able to barge into bedrooms and make arrests as they did to that gay couple?

Click to expand...

That should have been up to the majority of the residents of Texas. However silly I personally thought their sodomy law was, I would not have presumed to claim that law violated any constitutionally guaranteed right. Neither did the majority of the Supreme Court in Bowers v. Hardwick, its first "gay" decision in 1986. The Court got that case right, especially in finding that there is no fundamental constitutional right to homosexual sodomy.

But just seventeen years later, the majority in Lawrence v. Texas overruled Bowers, basing its decision on a novel and bizarre idea that Justice Stevens had proposed in his dissenting opinion in Bowers. And that is that the belief of a majority that an act is immoral and unacceptable is not reason enough to prohibit that act by law. The fact that belief had been the basis of morals legislation in every state in this country from the very first, as well as in the laws of every civilized society we know of, did not trouble either Stevens or the Lawrence majority.

But not wanting to look like fools, Justice Kennedy and the others in the Lawrence majority were very careful to leave untouched Bowers' holding that homosexual sodomy is not a fundamental right. At least one poster here, though--possibly feeling nothing he could say could make him look any more foolish--was less concerned about that. In post after post, he made various desperate, contrived arguments that homosexuality is a fundamental right. Apparently his Wikipedia legal research on fundamental rights had not been too thorough.

As soon as it was pointed out that the Supreme Court in substantive due process analysis considers a right fundamental only if it is both "deeply rooted in this nation's history and traditions" and "essential to a scheme of ordered liberty"--which as Justice Scalia has rightly noted it would be "quite absurd" to claim of homosexuality--the poster began to backpedal frantically. Now he denies he ever claimed what anyone can see he repeatedly did say, right there in black and white, in post after post, and claims same-sex marriage is not about due process at all. His new story is that it is about equal protection.

Now those who spread lies

Click to expand...

I think the most scurrilous spreaders of lies about all this are the proponents of the homosexual agenda. Their brazen intellectual dishonesty is right there on full display in a number of these threads, for anyone to see. But then many of them are leftists, and lying is part and parcel of being a leftist. Their fallen idol President Pinocchio is Exhibit A.