one of the ways in which you claim it s meaningful is a new argument i haven t seen anywhere else before, you claim that the argument in the successful overturning of doma, the windsor case, was actually influenced by the failed case in the prop 8 fight. i talked to a lot of people involved in both of these cases involved in the drafting of the windsor briefs, who really took issue with that characterization. they said, actually the reasoning in the two cases was very different, but the olson case laid out a very different logic on olson s side. in fact, the reasoning in the windsor case came from the windsor briefs. how do you respond to that? robby caplan is a wonderful lawyer. i talk about her in the book, her and edie. they were in the case, asking for a limited you know, it was a limited decision. it was a decision to say, you don t have to recognize you don t have to overturn bans