they were saying it rests on that. you have to understand it s a love story like a heterosexual. what was interesting in the kennedy brief, and i ve talked to lawyers a lot of different lawyers. what was interesting in the kennedy decision is how he kept coming back and back and back to the importance of marriage. and that, the importance of marriage, it was a blending of these two and the argument from the people involved, and windsor came so vividly from the windsor briefs. robbie said, if the prop 8 case hadn t been next to her, they might not have ruled as broadly as they do. even your staunchest critics have said it raises awareness. one thing people do take issue, though, is the beginning of this book. you write, quote, this is how a revolution begins. you re talking about an election of a party in 2008, with the number of activists that people like andrew sullivan.
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