DADT Temporarily upheld by appeals court

Should know more Monday...anyone have thoughts on this? I am so disgusted it could of been 100 % preventable by the president.

Obama's administration argues they need more time to work with the Pentagon to implement the appeal. Sounds like bullshit to me. We all know he is kissing the right wing's ass.

I know for a fact if it goes to congress nothing will be done for years. The congress in America really need to get their act together. They annoy the piss out of me. The democrats need to start sticking together like the republicans do. Too many free thinkers in the demo side. When a republican makes a decision they at least all ban together!

To the ones who will preach to me: I realize he is trying to play it safe for the conservative vote, but does he really want to be known in history as the man who could of done something on such an important issue and didn't. After he promised he was so pro-gay in his presidential campaign. That is what he will be remembered for in history.

I am really curious to know how democrats and libertarians on the board feel on this issue. I am also curious on the republican and conservative thought. I know you are on here too!

Lastly to the avid Obama supporters: Do any of you wish Obama would not run again and leave the way for Hilary? Do any wish Hilary would run again? Would you of voted differently in the primary Hilary vs Obama? Why or why not?

I know this is a porn board, but there is some intelligent life on here that like to speak about other things than tranny cock!

Obama is a puppet of the military-industrial complex, just like his predecessors. Never forget that hope and change always get swallowed up whole by reality and bureaucracy. That said, Obama could end this with a mere stroke of a pen and by the same way it began - executive order. Congress shouldn't go anywhere NEAR this issue and what's worse is that Obama's passing the buck and it should stop with him. He's Commander in Chief.

But from a political standpoint, the Dems, fearing a lost cause next month, may be setting up their wedge issues for 2012. Smart politics. Terrible governing.

~BB~

I think both parties are failures and they both pander to Wall Street in one form or another.

As far as DADT it's unfortunate because if they want to serve, let em. Obama could have at least done that.

I don't trust Hillary or Obama

right now watching
YouTube - The Obama Deception HQ Full length version
...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by south ov da border

I think both parties are failures and they both pander to Wall Street in one form or another.

As far as DADT it's unfortunate because if they want to serve, let em. Obama could have at least done that.

I don't trust Hillary or Obama

right now watching
YouTube - The Obama Deception HQ Full length version
...

---

I almost posted this video but decided against it, although I do think it's a must see for every US voter.

~BB~

I will have to watch it. I love documentaries and conspiracy documentaries.

Obama has really let me down as a President. He's a great speaker, but a terrible leader. I wish he would deliver on just one of the issues that were part of his campaign. It's really depressing that he would halt something as simple as this...

^^ I think he has let a lot of people down. It's so sad.

I never drank the Kool Aid, trust me these politicians only care about their own...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KellyShore

^^ I think he has let a lot of people down. It's so sad.

---

Truly sad. I know that Presidents can only ever do so much, but I thought that after Bush, things would have to certainly get better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KellyShore

^^ I think he has let a lot of people down. It's so sad.

---

That can happen when you promise the moon.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_771035.html

More excuses! Though Obama doesn't support DADT, it's his job as a president to fight for laws that are in place. *rolls eyes*

We are all used to the excuses...

Obama just wanted the glory. He didn't want to be up-staged by some cunt with a judicial robe on!!! I'm a 26 year retired Navy SEAL, I don't have an issue with gays and lesbians in the military.

As a former Marine, I must say that there is much more to it then just allowing gays into the military. I have seen first hand what happens when a person is gay and the amount of torment they go through.
In my barracks across the hall was a Marine that was gay, and every single day he was totally f*cked with. It became a personal safety issue. Nobody would listen to him...at any level.

Most people want to allow gays into the military and I agree that there should be complete and total equal rights for all, but what most don't know is what happens to the gays that are allowed in. It can be pure hell....I have seen it.

But Caliboy, doesn't that have to do with morale? I know the military uses the "dont be a faggot" tactic a lot. Some officials even make it known it's wrong to be gay. I think a lot of the men in the military are looking for guidance from the officials. Don't you think? I think if they used different tactics and had a zero tolerance policy for harassing gays things would turn around.

Obama's promise of Hope and Change was merely rhetoric to gain access to the White House. A pity so many of you believed. His actions thus far speak volumes about his ability to lead. Another pathetic case of a celebrity chaser. He should have quite a future as a reporter for TMZ once he is done destroying what is left of our country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaliBoy951

As a former Marine, I must say that there is much more to it then just allowing gays into the military. I have seen first hand what happens when a person is gay and the amount of torment they go through.
In my barracks across the hall was a Marine that was gay, and every single day he was totally f*cked with. It became a personal safety issue. Nobody would listen to him...at any level.

Most people want to allow gays into the military and I agree that there should be complete and total equal rights for all, but what most don't know is what happens to the gays that are allowed in. It can be pure hell....I have seen it.

---

CaliBoy951...Appreciate your sevice and dedication. I agree with what you've said. However, it is a paradym that has to change. If it doesn't, equal rights is merely a theory.

FYI I voted for Hilary. I thought he was a flashy talker, thats it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KellyShore

FYI I voted for Hilary. I thought he was a flashy talker, thats it.

---

Yeah, he could apparently sell a hot oven to a turkey!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KellyShore

But Caliboy, doesn't that have to do with morale? I know the military uses the "dont be a faggot" tactic a lot. Some officials even make it known it's wrong to be gay. I think a lot of the men in the military are looking for guidance from the officials. Don't you think? I think if they used different tactics and had a zero tolerance policy for harassing gays things would turn around.

---

I don't think it has to do with morale at all. It has to do with the fact that some "stuff" can no be accepted. For example, when you are in bootcamp and you are taking a shower with a bunch of guys at the same time and somebody says something because somebody has a "hard-on" that is EXTREMELY dangerous.

I can not stress enough how there is sooo much more than just allowing a gay person into the military.

On the other hand can it be fixed, sure, but I bet, and mark my words it will take something VERY bad to happen before they crack down. Once they threaten everybody with severe punishment (NJP), and set a few examples of punishing those who violate the rights of others.

Now, on the other hand, it is a two way street. I mean if you are gay and join the military you can NOT run around acting like a total "fag". Don't show up for an event with your boyfriend and be holding hands and kissing that will just bring more problems for yourself. In other words my advice would be to join the military do your job, make friends and then let it out that you are gay.

I hope that makes some sense? If not then remember I was in the Marines not the Air Force so we have the lowest ASVAB scores to join.....LOL!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KellyShore

But Caliboy, doesn't that have to do with morale? I know the military uses the "dont be a faggot" tactic a lot. Some officials even make it known it's wrong to be gay. I think a lot of the men in the military are looking for guidance from the officials. Don't you think? I think if they used different tactics and had a zero tolerance policy for harassing gays things would turn around.

---

That's a good point. Service members are by nature an institutionalized class and depend on the leadership for guidance. I've read a few stories in the last few days talking about how a lot of gays and lesbians are coming out to their units or to each other, but not to leadership. I think that says a lot, but it's obviously not enough.

~BB~

I just watched that documentary. It's a very scary thought. I never heard of the Bildaberg Group. The police state is also very scary. I am investigating as the video suggested. It is also scary to find out the treasurer at one time was the president of the Federal Reserve. Thank you for directing me to this video.

face it no president, is going to please everyone. Never has it happened and never will it happen!

I agree! As in most cases there is much more to it than just passing a law. I do agree that passing the law is the first step...

welcome. Another


YouTube - Fall of the Republic HQ full length version

...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptainPlanet

face it no president, is going to please everyone. Never has it happened and never will it happen!

---

I know there's a point here, somewhere.

From Poliglot, a politcal column in one of the most reputable gay newspapers

Does yesterday's ruling mean the new military policy on accepting gays has been stayed? Not exactly:

The judges' order means that a temporary stay of the trial court injunction of DADT has been granted until the Ninth Circuit can decide -- sometime after Oct. 25 -- whether to issue a stay pending the appeal of the case to the Ninth Circuit.
This does not immediately change the military's policy of not enforcing DADT, as the Oct. 15guidance from Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Clifford Stanley stated that, while seeking a stay, "the Department of Defense will abide by the terms of the injunction" and stated that "additional guidance" would come if a stay is granted.
This also is not a stay of the order that will last through the appeal. This is only a temporary stay granted through the time when the Ninth Circuit can decide -- sometime after the Oct. 25 deadline given to the LCR attorneys to respond to the stay request -- whether to issue a stay pending the outcome of the appeal. The decision will likely come soon after the Oct. 25 submission by LCR because the court will not hear oral arguments in the case and stated in its order that the government will not be allowed to file a reply brief, which would happen in the ordinary course of appellate briefing.If a stay is granted pending the appeal, however, DADT would likely go back into effect in the interim, as the appeal is not even scheduled to complete the briefing process until the second week of March 2011.

http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/...t-stays-d.html

The Obama administration is trying to change this horrible policy in a correct and more important lasting fashion. The "stay" is for only for a few days and is to give the Plaintiffs, who got the policy overturned time to further reinforce their arguments, which they get to do without the Justice Department getting to respond. The Court has already indicated it was not inclined to grant a more lasting stay. The matter will be appealed but its far more likely to be unsuccessful later if there is no real change in how the military get its job done with gays serving openly during that time.

The Justice Department has to defend even odious laws like DADT unless they are clearly and incontrovertibly unconstitutional. People on the right have wanted to impeach Obama since before he took office. They have since advocated that he should be impeached for not doing enough to enforce laws on immigration. They would love to have him be derelict in his duty in some concrete way, like not following the process of the law, to give some superficial legal cover for their seditious actions.

A fight, whether its in the ring, or for rights isn't won or lost until the bell rings. Any "knockout punch" that Obama throws before then such an executive order, or any dive his administration takes in this lawsuit might win the round but not the battle. That will only be won through legislation (fat chance with all the present obstructionism) or through a thorough judicial process (which is what the present plan is trying to allow)


FK

Well, the UK has allowed practicing homosexuals openly in it's ranks for years. From wjhat I understand it was never an issue,there were many more issues with allowing women into most jobs ,even though women aren't allowed to do certain jobs even today,there has been no end of issues. The US was ahead of us on integrating women front, so perhaps they can learn from us on serving homosexuals ?. What people have to remember however is that being in the military isn't the same as working for a civilian employer and military law as opposed to civilian law, values and standards have to be different and harsh in areas that many civvies would not understand. This has to be done to ensure a competent fighting force. Iam not in the military but I am in a job where some are ex army ,which has to have different employment rules than you get in most civilian jobs, for it to function effectively and more important for employees safety and wellbeing.

It is suicidal ,frankly for a country to have some civilian values within it's military. So some people need to smell the coffee. That being said, practicing homosexuals can and do make excellent soldiers,why lose the talent? and this comes from someone very conservative. What you do, is make them subject to those same values and standards that you subject hetrosexual soldiers too.If needs be make it harsher for all. A homosexual nco for instance who takes advantage of a male lower rank can be punished in the same way ,that a hetro sexual nco takes advantage of a female soldier.

But Iam aware that while we speak the same language america is different culturally. So this is why, I wouldn't completely condemn obama's caution, as perhaps it would be less workable in the US military because of the attitude and culture of it's soldiers. You wouldn't want ,in this time of world strife to have an army with internal problems because of political correctness being forced on it . Perhaps you need to get to the route of why american people think this way about homosexuals? We all know for instance what many in the african american community think of Gay marriage so I can't see them being tolerant or what rednecks might think of sharing a barrack room with am open homosexual.

Homosexuals can be subject to prejudice in the UK too, but there isn't this ingrained fear of them, that there seems to be in the states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KellyShore

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_771035.html

More excuses! Though Obama doesn't support DADT, it's his job as a president to fight for laws that are in place. *rolls eyes*

---

So you would prefer chaos & anarchy ???

As to policy, morale issues, etc. It isn't that simple. There is strongly worded regulation & policy against sexual harassment & assault, yet incidents continue to occur with alarming regularity. The same with fraternization.

As to guidance, the MC Commandant has openly stated he is not in favor of it - at least he didn't do what Gen Pace did... He also stated that the Marine Corps troops are largely against it, so there is a long uphill fight - at last in the Marines.

Face it the top brass doesn't want it changed.

Then you have to consider that the entire DADT is a mask to the underlying regulation which in essence states that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service". Removing DADT alone without changing the underlying regulation will only allow punitive investigations to happen again like they were in the early 90s.

Paladin - Correct me if I am wrong, the President is in charge of the armed forces. If he put an executive order for zero tolerance when it comes to discrimination and bullying against gays for every branch, no one could go against it. If they did there would be consequences. It would go along swimmingly eventually. In the armed services you serve a chain of command, do you not?

I mean when they allowed women into the armed forces there was a lot of gripe, hate, and fight against it. Did they still allow it? YES! Because it should be a human right to serve your country proudly no matter sex or sexuality.

I am sure there will be bumps along the way. There were plenty when women were allowed to serve. Men couldn't take a woman doing a "mans" job. That is part of the sacrifice they made. They were brave enough to still serve and eventually they found their place in the armed forces. Gays and lesbians will have to do the same.

Women wanted equal rights. Including serving in the armed forces. They knew there would be hate, degradation, and possibly violence. They knew all of this. You can bet the GLBT know this too, but that freedom means more to them. Their basic human right is what they want. Is what anyone wants.

Discrimination is wrong and the constitution says we are all free. It is what our country is supposedly based on. Who cares if the officials that are now in charge are against DADT. They follow orders from the higher ups. Paladin are you making excuses? It feels like it.

Keeping DADT in place promotes hate and discrimination. Do you not see that? It does more harm, than good. There is just no excuse for discrimination in my mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KellyShore

I mean when they allowed women into the armed forces there was a lot of gripe, hate, and fight against it. Did they still allow it? YES! Because it should be a human right to serve your country proudly no matter sex or sexuality.

---

That's a bad example because our military highly dislikes placing women in front line combat positions, we currently do not require women to register for the draft, and we would have to redo the laws to allow a gender-blind draft. It's also a big PR and political disaster whenever women are KIA. Remember that woman with the broken ankle who was rescued a few years ago? That would have been a non-story if she had been a guy. But since she's female, our media went nuts over the story. Our society simply does not view men and women the same when it comes to war. We wouldn't even let women serve on submarines until I think it was last year.

Sexuality is unique in that anyone could be bi or gay. You wouldn't be able to segregate them like our military used to do with blacks. You wouldn't be able to choose whether or not you can draft them or place them in certain positions like we do with women. Anyone anywhere at any time could be gay and the only way anyone would know was if they were out about it.

DADT was basically a policy of putting our heads in the sand and yelling "I can't hear you LALALALALALALALALALALA" thinking that if its not seen and not talked about, it doesn't matter. As long as gays went along with the denial they could serve all they want. But really that does nothing to fix the problem since it unfairly abuses gay couples by keeping the spouses of gays from receiving benefits, allows people to continue to perpetuate a hostile environment where homosexuals would be harassed & abused by their peers, and fails to protect those who are outted belligerently by third parties. Simply waiting for tolerance to approve on its own did not help one bit with letting women, blacks, or any other group serve in the military in the past. The issue had to be forced each and every time and each and every time people got over it eventually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SarahG

That's a bad example because our military highly dislikes placing women in front line combat positions, we currently do not require women to register for the draft, and we would have to redo the laws to allow a gender-blind draft. It's also a big PR and political disaster whenever women are KIA. Remember that woman with the broken ankle who was rescued a few years ago? That would have been a non-story if she had been a guy. But since she's female, our media went nuts over the story. Our society simply does not view men and women the same when it comes to war. We wouldn't even let women serve on submarines until I think it was last year.

Sexuality is unique in that anyone could be bi or gay. You wouldn't be able to segregate them like our military used to do with blacks. You wouldn't be able to choose whether or not you can draft them or place them in certain positions like we do with women. Anyone anywhere at any time could be gay and the only way anyone would know was if they were out about it.

DADT was basically a policy of putting our heads in the sand and yelling "I can't hear you LALALALALALALALALALALA" thinking that if its not seen and not talked about, it doesn't matter. As long as gays went along with the denial they could serve all they want. But really that does nothing to fix the problem since it unfairly abuses gay couples by keeping the spouses of gays from receiving benefits, allows people to continue to perpetuate a hostile environment where homosexuals would be harassed & abused by their peers, and fails to protect those who are outted belligerently by third parties. Simply waiting for tolerance to approve on its own did not help one bit with letting women, blacks, or any other group serve in the military in the past. The issue had to be forced each and every time and each and every time people got over it eventually.

---

Wow! Perfectly worded.

:Bowdown::Bowdown::Bowdown::Bowdown::Bowdown:

~BB~

Sarah I agree - Especially on the last part. Where I also stated it does more harm, than good. It fuels hate... I have no argument there. However women are still allowed the choice to serve. GLBT aren't given the choice. Their husband and children also get benefits from their serving.

Furthermore, I don't think it's a bad example at all. It's not like the armed forces will go out of their way to put a gays/lesbians in the military. You wont see recruiters at gay events and bars trying to recruit. I think the fight is very similar.

I do empathize that women are still fighting their way in the military, but it's not as bad as it was say ten or twenty years ago. Why, because women have fought their way every step of the way! There will always be discrimination. Women who serve realize this. Especially ones that do their job better than most men. Male chauvinism will always be around. That isn't a question!

Gays/Lesbians will still have to fight too for their place. There will always be that person who doesn't agree. The military protects women though. Allows them to serve. Whether they draft or not is not the issue. The issue is they are allowed the human right to.

I am not sure why you think it's a bad example.....

Not to mention it's not fair if they search into your love life, emails, letters, and other means to find out your sexual orientation. They do that many times, because of rumors and suspicion. DADT being abolished would protect the many men and women who were discharged by this unfair act. What are they supposed to do not have a love life or sexual life at all, due to serving in armed forces. I think it's very sad Obama didn't do more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KellyShore

Sarah I agree - Especially on the last part. Where I also stated it does more harm, than good. It fuels hate... I have no argument there. However women are still allowed the choice to serve. GLBT aren't given the choice.

---

Women are only allowed to serve in LIMITED CAPACITIES. They're not treated the same as men. They are not eligible for draft, they are not allowed into front line combat positions. They are treated as second-rate soldiers in our military. Period. They have never in the history of our military been treated the same as men. Not today, and not tomorrow.

Gays on the other hand... as long as they help perpetuate the denial they can serve and are treated the same as their peers. A gay woman is treated like a straight woman. A gay guy is treated like a straight guy. Until that is, they come out of the closet, demand their spouses be treated the same, or have someone with an axe to grind hostilely out them to their SO's. Or something like that.

Sarah you are arguing treatment of man and woman in the military. I am arguing they are still allowed to serve in the military. They still get benefits. I know many women who out rank men in military as well. Who have fought the front lines.

The injustice is the men and women who get outed by gossip, rumors, and rummaging through their mail and emails. They get discharged unfairly. They followed the orders of DADT, but they were preyed upon. It happens a lot.

Lastly, I said women are still fighting for their place. They will continue to do so. Gays/Lesbians can't begin their fight in the armed forces, because they are discharged and not allowed to serve. Women again at least have the right to serve. Nor do I think women should be drafted. A majority of women do not want to serve. They want to be mothers and are not military ready. I do not really think that's unfair treatment. It's more of an advantage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KellyShore

Sarah you are arguing treatment of man and woman in the military. I am arguing they are still allowed to serve in the military. They still get benefits. I know many women who out rank men in military as well. Who have fought the front lines.

The injustice is the men and women who get outed by gossip, rumors, and rummaging through their mail and emails. They get discharged unfairly. They followed the orders of DADT, but they were preyed upon. It happens a lot.

Lastly, I said women are still fighting for their place. They will continue to do so. Gays/Lesbians can't begin their fight in the armed forces, because they are discharged and not allowed to serve. Women again at least have the right to serve. Nor do I think women should be drafted. A majority of women do not want to serve. They want to be mothers and are not military ready. I do not really think that's unfair treatment. It's more of an advantage.

---

To put it another way... if a woman wants to be treated the same as a straight guy in our military, there is really nothing she can do about it. She can't go in the closet to get treated fairly. She can't deny being a woman to get better treatment.

Gays are unique in that if they play by the rules & norms, they can fly under the radar and be treated the same as anyone else. A gay guy can hide it and deny it and play his cards right and end up being treated no differently from a straight guy.

They can serve, they can be treated the same... but it comes at the cost of not having spouse benefits, not being able to be frank about their personal lives, not being able to live their life without constant fear of being outted.

In theory... a gay porn star could under DADT join the military and serve the same as a straight guy. As long as it never becomes common knowledge and never becomes a "problem" then the denial can be perpetuated and everyone is pretending to be happy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KellyShore

Sarah you are arguing treatment of man and woman in the military. I am arguing they are still allowed to serve in the military. They still get benefits. I know many women who out rank men in military as well. Who have fought the front lines.

The injustice is the men and women who get outed by gossip, rumors, and rummaging through their mail and emails. They get discharged unfairly. They followed the orders of DADT, but they were preyed upon. It happens a lot.

Lastly, I said women are still fighting for their place. They will continue to do so. Gays/Lesbians can't begin their fight in the armed forces, because they are discharged and not allowed to serve. Women again at least have the right to serve. Nor do I think women should be drafted. A majority of women do not want to serve. They want to be mothers and are not military ready. I do not really think that's unfair treatment. It's more of an advantage.

---

I feel as though change always come from above in the military, and until that happens there will be "issues". Do I think the "winds of change" are blowing...yup!

It will take a very high ranking military person to come out, and then make the changes (or something very bad), and punish those that do not follow those changes.

Remember in early 90's about all that sexual harassment with those Air Force women, well I remember mandatory "sexual harassment" classes. Each Marine in my unit HAD to have 3 hours, if not we were subject to NJP...they were NOT f*cking around.....period.

It will take that exact process to make the change.


My 2cents....again!

Sarah, they spy on the guys and girls all the time....whether they out themselves or not..you have a feminist side you are arguing....its cool. The difference? If they are outed they are discharged, exempt, and no rights at all. Women still have rights in the armed services, still get benefits, and still are protected. A gay or lesbian shouldn't have to FLY under the radar Sarah. Just like a woman shouldn't have to. Women have been serving in the military before they were allowed. Many dressed up as men. I understand your points, but not every unit works against women. Many women out rank men, do better jobs, and are serving on the front lines.

I totally agree with you Cali...that's why I said it would take an executive order. Women are protected, gays/lesbians aren't. I would guess if the DADT was abolished they would put protocol into place. Just like they did when they allowed women into the armed services.

Kelly, you must realize that DADT was put in place to prevent commanders from going and initiating investigations on hunches, suspicions, etc. It DID NOT change the basic regulation that i referenced earlier. The regulation needs changing in essence to strike that paragraph from each service's policy regulation. I do not think an executive order can do that, but it is possible. However the prez is not a fool, and knows that he can't get that done at the present, same way he couldn't close Gitmo.

Also military service entails an abbreviation of certain rights we have as citizens, I kid you not. They mainly center around political actions and public speaking, etc, but there are restrictions placed on us while we are in the service.

Women are barred from combat arms positions by public law. That law can be changed by congress, but i don't see it happenning unless the combined chinese, indian, pakistani & russian nations declare war on us. I've worked for female colonels in the past - believe me they are not treated as 2nd class citizens. Maybe 25 years ago, not any more.

As far as someone coming out, i've read about colonels & even female 1 stars coming out - or getting outed, and poof - they're gone. some with close to 2o yrs active service - and wa-la no retirement benefits - that's plain wrong.

But that calif court decision was the wrong way any way you look at it. And the justice dept had a duty to defend duly passed laws, otherwise we'll have anarchy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paladin

But that calif court decision was the wrong way any way you look at it. And the justice dept had a duty to defend duly passed laws, otherwise we'll have anarchy.

---

The justice department isn't totally controlled by the president. Like most agencies the DOJ is full of career bureaucrats. They'll be there long after Obama has done his four years and retired AND they know it. So Obama can say he wants this or he wants that all he wants, that's only going to go so far with some of the pencil pushers.

Which is precisely why the Bush admin went around illegally stacking the DOJ by using things like gay rights as a litmus test in deciding who got hired, who got promotions, and things like that. They knew the people they put in the right places would be there for many years to come.