Prop 8, The Play

[california boy]

Illuminating California’s Proposition 8 Trial, Onstage

For all of those that think supporting prop 8 had great legal arguments, this play will forcus on what occurred in the trial. It will be an opportunity for the public to hear first hand, the legal arguments put forward by the prop 8 defenders. Here is the article from the NY Times.

Here is the link.

By PATRICK HEALY

Published: July 17, 2011

RECOMMEND

TWITTER

SIGN IN TO E-MAIL

PRINT

REPRINTS

SHARE

A new play based on the Proposition 8 trial over same-sex marriage in California, written by the Academy Award winner Dustin Lance Black (“Milk”), will be performed in a staged reading on Broadway in September and then produced at Carnegie Mellon University, Northwestern, the University of Michigan, and elsewhere.

Enlarge This Image

Ann Johansson for The New York Times

Dustin Lance Black

Mr. Black and other supporters of gay marriage said they would try to recruit several other colleges and theaters to stage the play, which is titled “8,” and bring attention to the arguments in the trial last year. It culminated in August with a federal judge striking down California’s voter-approved ban on gay marriage, known as Proposition 8; the judge’s ruling is now being appealed.

The play consists mostly of verbatim dialogue and statements from the trial transcript, Mr. Black said, as well as his own observations from sitting in the courtroom most days and interviewing people on both sides of the case.

Roughly a dozen people from the trial are portrayed as characters, including Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, the lawyers for the two gay couples who sued California over the ban; Charles J. Cooper, the lead defense counsel; Kristin M. Perry and Sandra B. Stier, a lesbian couple who were among the plaintiffs; and the judge, Vaughn R. Walker of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California.

Mr. Black, who won an Oscar in 2009 for his original screenplay about the life and assassination of Harvey Milk, a gay man on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, said he became determined to write the play after the United States Supreme Court blocked the trial judge’s plan to broadcast the hearings over the Internet.

“One of my hopes about the trial was to get the opposition in court, hands raised swearing to tell the truth, and have the world see the opposition called to account for going on TV saying gay people harm children, harm families,” Mr. Black said. “Since the trial itself wasn’t heard or seen, I wanted to get that story out another way.”

Mr. Black declined to share a copy of the script, saying he was still refining it. The trial transcript was several thousand pages long, and Mr. Black said he spent six months distilling it into a 90-minute, intermission-free work.

“I mined the best arguments on both sides, trying to capture everything on their side that was a winning point and anything on our side that was a winning point,” he said.

The reading, on Sept. 19 at the Eugene O’Neill Theater, will have “a cast of top Hollywood names and Broadway’s finest,” a spokesman for the production said, and will be staged by the Tony Award-winning director Joe Mantello (“Assassins,” “Take Me Out”). Mr. Mantello recently completed his run starring in “The Normal Heart” on Broadway, which won the Tony for best play revival this year. The reading will double as a benefit for American Foundation for Equal Rights, which financed the federal court challenge to Proposition 8.

Alan Wasser Associates is producing the reading, and Jujamcyn Theaters, which owns the O’Neill, is providing use of the theater at no cost.

Broadway Impact, a group that champions same-sex marriage rights, is also helping organize the reading and subsequent productions on campuses. Two leaders of Broadway Impact, the actors Gavin Creel and Rory O’Malley, will return to their alma maters — the University of Michigan and Carnegie Mellon — to hold readings there. Cast members of the Broadway revival of “Hair,” which resumes a national tour in the fall, also plan to do readings in cities where “Hair” will run, and Williamstown Theater Festival in Massachusetts also plans to produce “8” next summer.

[bluebell]

Is the play 'based on' the trial, or is it about the trial? Those can be two very different things.

Anyone who's ever watched the Demi Moore movie based on the Scarlett Letter book knows that just because something's based on an event, doesn't mean it's actually the same.

For that reason, it would be beneficial to understand how much creative license the play was or wasn't going to be using, especially since it seems like they want the play to be a way to learn about the trial.

[Duncan]

Illuminating California’s Proposition 8 Trial, Onstage

For all of those that think supporting prop 8 had great legal arguments, this play will forcus on what occurred in the trial. It will be an opportunity for the public to hear first hand, the legal arguments put forward by the prop 8 defenders. Here is the article from the NY Times.

Here is the link.

By PATRICK HEALY

Published: July 17, 2011

RECOMMEND

TWITTER

SIGN IN TO E-MAIL

PRINT

REPRINTS

SHARE

A new play based on the Proposition 8 trial over same-sex marriage in California, written by the Academy Award winner Dustin Lance Black (“Milk”), will be performed in a staged reading on Broadway in September and then produced at Carnegie Mellon University, Northwestern, the University of Michigan, and elsewhere.

Enlarge This Image

Ann Johansson for The New York Times

Dustin Lance Black

Mr. Black and other supporters of gay marriage said they would try to recruit several other colleges and theaters to stage the play, which is titled “8,” and bring attention to the arguments in the trial last year. It culminated in August with a federal judge striking down California’s voter-approved ban on gay marriage, known as Proposition 8; the judge’s ruling is now being appealed.

The play consists mostly of verbatim dialogue and statements from the trial transcript, Mr. Black said, as well as his own observations from sitting in the courtroom most days and interviewing people on both sides of the case.

Roughly a dozen people from the trial are portrayed as characters, including Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, the lawyers for the two gay couples who sued California over the ban; Charles J. Cooper, the lead defense counsel; Kristin M. Perry and Sandra B. Stier, a lesbian couple who were among the plaintiffs; and the judge, Vaughn R. Walker of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California.

Mr. Black, who won an Oscar in 2009 for his original screenplay about the life and assassination of Harvey Milk, a gay man on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, said he became determined to write the play after the United States Supreme Court blocked the trial judge’s plan to broadcast the hearings over the Internet.

“One of my hopes about the trial was to get the opposition in court, hands raised swearing to tell the truth, and have the world see the opposition called to account for going on TV saying gay people harm children, harm families,” Mr. Black said. “Since the trial itself wasn’t heard or seen, I wanted to get that story out another way.”

Mr. Black declined to share a copy of the script, saying he was still refining it. The trial transcript was several thousand pages long, and Mr. Black said he spent six months distilling it into a 90-minute, intermission-free work.

“I mined the best arguments on both sides, trying to capture everything on their side that was a winning point and anything on our side that was a winning point,” he said.

The reading, on Sept. 19 at the Eugene O’Neill Theater, will have “a cast of top Hollywood names and Broadway’s finest,” a spokesman for the production said, and will be staged by the Tony Award-winning director Joe Mantello (“Assassins,” “Take Me Out”). Mr. Mantello recently completed his run starring in “The Normal Heart” on Broadway, which won the Tony for best play revival this year. The reading will double as a benefit for American Foundation for Equal Rights, which financed the federal court challenge to Proposition 8.

Alan Wasser Associates is producing the reading, and Jujamcyn Theaters, which owns the O’Neill, is providing use of the theater at no cost.

Broadway Impact, a group that champions same-sex marriage rights, is also helping organize the reading and subsequent productions on campuses. Two leaders of Broadway Impact, the actors Gavin Creel and Rory O’Malley, will return to their alma maters — the University of Michigan and Carnegie Mellon — to hold readings there. Cast members of the Broadway revival of “Hair,” which resumes a national tour in the fall, also plan to do readings in cities where “Hair” will run, and Williamstown Theater Festival in Massachusetts also plans to produce “8” next summer.

why don't they just let it die already? why keep bringing it back up? move on

[Daniel2]

why don't they just let it die already? why keep bringing it back up? move on

Because the recordings of the trial were not made public, so the information must be shared through alternate means; but most importantly, because our families do not yet have equal protection under the law. Once we do, we can "move on."

Until then, like Captain Moroni, we will continue to fight for our families "in memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children." Mr. Black is following in those same footsteps as he refuses to let the issue die... "And it came to pass also, that he caused the atitle of liberty to be hoisted upon every tower which was in all the land, which was possessed by the Nephites..." (I wonder if the Lamanites ever said, "Why don't they just let it die? Why keep bringing it back up? Move on"...).

As Carl Jung is attributed to have said, "What you resist persists." Our spouses and children are more than worth this fight.

Daniel2

[bluebell]

Because the recordings of the trial were not made public, so the information must be shared through alternate means; but most importantly, because our families do not yet have equal protection under the law. Once we do, we can "move on."

Would federally recognized civil unions grant you and your families 'equal protection under the law'?

[Daniel2]

Would federally recognized civil unions grant you and your families 'equal protection under the law'?

Only if all relationships (opposite-sex and same-sex) are named as "civil unions" by the Federal government.

Same-sex families, marriages, and the beliefs of the many religious Faiths (of which there are many that practice and promote "marriage" in name and practice for both opposite-and-same-sex couples) are just as worthy of equal government recognition as those opposite-sex families, marriages, and religious Faiths who currently enjoy government recognition under the title of "marriage." Legally speaking, in America no one religious ideology, race, gender, or sexual orientation should be considered as anything less then equal.

We won't be satisfied with attempts to offer us "separate, but equal" treatment (which historically has shown is never really "equal," from the get-go).

The time is past when gays and lesbians allow social shame or political pressure to relegate our relationships to a second-class legal status.

Daniel2

[bluebell]

Only if all relationships (opposite-sex and same-sex) are named as "civil unions," by the Federal governemnt.

What rights would you gain if all relationships were named as civil unions that you wouldn't have if only homosexual relationships are named as such.

Same-sex families, marriages, and the beliefs of the many religious Faiths (of which there are many that practice and promote "marriage" in name and practice for both opposite-and-same-sex couples) are just as worthy of equal government recognition as those opposite-sex families, marriages, and religious Faiths who currently enjoy government recognition under the title of "marriage." Legally speaking in America, no one religious ideology, race, gender, or sexual orientation should be considered as anything less then equal.

So, it's not about equal rights but about equal recongition?

We won't be satisfied with attempts to offer us "separate, but equal" treatment (which historically has shown is never really "equal," from the get-go).

The time is past when gays and lesbians allow social or political pressure to relegate our lives and relationships to a second class status or legal considerations.

Daniel2

That's fine. I completely understand where you are coming from.

But when you say things like 'we won't rest until we have equal rights under the law' and then it comes out that it's not really about equal rights after all, but about equal recognition, i feel like it's all emotional manipulation.

The it seems to be that you would NOT rest even after gaining equal rights under the law-that it's about the term 'marriage', it's not about rights. Rhetoric has it's place in debate but at least keep it honest.

[Daniel2]

What rights would you gain if all relationships were named as civil unions that you wouldn't have if only homosexual relationships are named as such.

Equality under the law.

So, it's not about equal rights but about equal recongition?

I don't understand the distinction between "equal rights" vs. "equal recognition" so far as it relates to civil marriage. It seems you (and others) feel there's a difference, but it seems to be semantics, to me. Can you articulate what you feel is the distinction?

But when you say things like 'we won't rest until we have equal rights under the law' and then it comes out that it's not really about equal rights after all, but about equal recognition, i feel like it's all emotional manipulation.

See the query in my previous comment.

The it seems to be that you would NOT rest even after gaining equal rights under the law-that it's about the term 'marriage', it's not about rights. Rhetoric has it's place in debate but at least keep it honest.

I don't think I've been anything less than honest, which is why I'm genuinely asking you to define the difference, in your mind, between "equal protection" vs. "equal rights," when it comes to civil marriage.

"Legal equality/treatment/protection" has never equated to mean "symantically 'the same'," (despite Mordecais oft-repeated instance that such would be the case). For example, the government legally recognizes "celestial marriages" the same as "atheist Vega-style drive-thru marriages," but that does not mean there are no measurable or obvious differences between the two (or "same-race marriages" vs. "interacial marriages," etc).

When "civil marriage" for opposite-sex couples is allowed to be mentioned and even 'promoted' in school curriculum, but the mention of "civil unions" (or even "civil marriage" for gay couples, in states where it's legal) are balked at, I submit such are not really granted "equal rights." Can anyone honestly claim that when schools object to a single standard of marriage, that LGBT families have really gained "equal rights"?

Or when the "marriages" of some religions are legally recognized as "marriage" by our government, but the "marriages" or other religions are refused to be legally recognized or named (thereby relegating them to a "different"--and thereby unequal--classification).

To be blunt, I can't see how my honesty about the matter is in question, when I think I've consistently been fully candid on this point since abandoning my once-LDS view six years ago that same-sex couples should be denied the term "civil marriage."

As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." (incidently, check out the other MLK quotes on the page I just posted--many of them are as applicable to same-sex equality as they are towards religious and racial equality).

Daniel2

[bluebell]

I don't understand the distinction between "equal rights" vs. "equal recognition" so far as it relates to civil marriage. It seems you (and others) feel there's a difference, but it seems to be semantics, to me. Can you articulate what you feel is the distinction?

As i understand it, nothing short of SSM is acceptable for those who feel same sex marriage should be allowed. Civil unions, with every right that a married man and woman have is not acceptable because they are not called marriages. (If i'm understanding this wrong, then i apologize).

To me, this means that many people, yourself included, recognize that there is a difference between equal rights for unions regardless of sex and equal names for unions regardless of sex. Having the rights alone isn't enough for those who support SSM. What they want in addition to equal rights is to have the government recogize their union as a marriage.

That's what i see the difference is between wanting equal rights and equal recognition. Equal rights are all the protections and benefits that hetero. couples have being given under the law also given to homo. couples. Equal recognition is the ability to call a SS union a 'marriage' like a hetero. sexual union is called.

To be blunt, I can't see how my honesty about the matter is in question, when I think I've consistently been fully candid on this point since abandoning my once-LDS view six years ago that same-sex couples should be denied the term "civil marriage."

I can see your point and why you believed you were being honest.

From my point of view, it's not accurate to say that SSM supports will 'move on' when they get equal rights under the law because, as i already said, it's not just about equal rights, it's specifically about the use of the label 'marriage'. I do apologize if my words made it seem like i was calling you a liar, because that wasn't my intention. 'Not accurate' would have been more appropriate than 'not honest' and i should have paid more attention to the words i was using.

[frankenstein]

When I saw the title I thought "Prop 8 the Musical" featuring Jack Black and many others has been out for a long time.

[Zeta-Flux]

Because the recordings of the trial were not made public, so the information must be shared through alternate means; but most importantly, because our families do not yet have equal protection under the law. Once we do, we can "move on."

Until then, like Captain Moroni, we will continue to fight for our families "in memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children."

Because the recordings of the trial were not made public? That is a blatant lie. The trial was recorded, and the transcript was released.

Or are you talking about the illegal video made by Walker which he claimed was made only for his private use and which was released to the plaintiffs and leaked by Walker?

"Our wives"? That's why gay marriage isn't a marriage. It is a pairrage. It is a pairing of two people, with marriage between a husband and wife not in the picture. If a man wants a wife, he can choose to marry, but these people don't want anything to do with that. They want a civilly recognized union, but they also want to call it a marriage when it isn't. And when that doesn't work they twist the record, as this play certainly will, and as Jack Black's previous play did. The whole rigamarole with the video is explicit evidence of this subterfuge, in the form of scaring witnesses and fear tactics.

[california boy]

As i understand it, nothing short of SSM is acceptable for those who feel same sex marriage should be allowed. Civil unions, with every right that a married man and woman have is not acceptable because they are not called marriages. (If i'm understanding this wrong, then i apologize).

To me, this means that many people, yourself included, recognize that there is a difference between equal rights for unions regardless of sex and equal names for unions regardless of sex. Having the rights alone isn't enough for those who support SSM. What they want in addition to equal rights is to have the government recogize their union as a marriage.

That's what i see the difference is between wanting equal rights and equal recognition. Equal rights are all the protections and benefits that hetero. couples have being given under the law also given to homo. couples. Equal recognition is the ability to call a SS union a 'marriage' like a hetero. sexual union is called.

I can see your point and why you believed you were being honest.

From my point of view, it's not accurate to say that SSM supports will 'move on' when they get equal rights under the law because, as i already said, it's not just about equal rights, it's specifically about the use of the label 'marriage'. I do apologize if my words made it seem like i was calling you a liar, because that wasn't my intention. 'Not accurate' would have been more appropriate than 'not honest' and i should have paid more attention to the words i was using.

We also want to sit at the front of the bus. How bizarre.

[Mordecai]

I think I'm unequal under the law, because when I speed, I get a ticket. Equal treatment for different behaviors for all!

[bluebell]

We also want to sit at the front of the bus. How bizarre.

It's a good thing no one's trying to stop you from doing so then.

Trying to compare this to sitting in the front of the bus is silly. A better analogy (though no analogy is perfect) would be a man, who's clearly a man, wanting to use the women's restroom and getting upset when he's not allowed.

Separate restrooms for men and women don't equate to unequality under the law. They just acknowledge the obvious differences between men and women.

Separate labels for gay unions and heterosexual unions don't equate to unequality under the law either. They just acknowledge the obvious differences between them.

[Jaybear]

Separate labels for gay unions and heterosexual unions don't equate to unequality under the law either. They just acknowledge the obvious differences between them.

If the difference is so obvious, what purpose is served by requiring separate labels? Appeasing bigotry is the only purpose that I can come up with.

Along those line, how would you feel if, to appease the bigotry of evangelicals, the Government required the LDS Church to remove "Jesus Christ" from its official name, instead permitting only those Churches who follow "traditional Christianity" to call themselves Christians.

Its just a label, right? And seperate labels don't equate to unequality under the law.

[Zeta-Flux]

If the difference is so obvious, what purpose is served by requiring separate labels? Appeasing bigotry is the only purpose that I can come up with.

Wow, admitting to being unimaginative?

If you truly are interested in the purpose of separate labels, try the following: (1) study why we keep separate labels for men and women, even though they are equal under the law, (2) study the writings of those who support this separation in the case of marriages and pairrages, such as the initial paper and responses by Sherif Gergis and others.

[bluebell]

If the difference is so obvious, what purpose is served by requiring separate labels? Appeasing bigotry is the only purpose that I can come up with.

I sincerely doubt that bigotry is the only answer you can come up with. I would guess instead that it's the only answer that serves your purposes and supports your arguments.

My answer to your question is the obvious one-Accuracy. The two unions are not the same so why should they be called the same thing?

Think of it again in terms of male and female. Men and women require separate labels, though both are human, because despite their similarities they are different. The different labels exist not because of bigotry, but for the sake of accuracy for the facts.

Along those line, how would you feel if, to appease the bigotry of evangelicals, the Government required the LDS Church to remove "Jesus Christ" from its official name, instead permitting only those Churches who follow "traditional Christianity" to call themselves Christians.

This analogy doesn't work because it doesn't acknowledge the realities of the issues invovled.

First, the differences between LDS and Evangelicals are subjective-they are based on belief which cannot be qualified.

The differences between a homosexual union and a heterosexual union are not subjective. They aren't based on anyone's beliefs. The realities of the differences are not subject to opinion.

It also does not work because the LDS church has never asked the government to validate their use of the term 'Christian'. The LDS church, like all churches that i'm aware of, does not care what the government thinks about the labels they apply to themselves. Because the LDS church has never asked any other entity to legally agree with it's use of it's name, it has not given any other entity the right or power to legally challenge it.

Just like the government right now doesn't care one bit if two men want to claim they are married or if two women want to do the same and why no one has the power to remove any label that the homosexual community wants to put on itself either.

It's only when someone or something is attempting to legally force another to accept it's label that the government get's invovled.

[Jaybear]

Wow, admitting to being unimaginative?

If you truly are interested in the purpose of separate labels, try ....

I take it that by refusing to answer a simple question, you can't provide a reason, other than promoting or appeasing bigotry.

[Jaybear]

My answer to your question is the obvious one-Accuracy. The two unions are not the same so why should they be called the same thing?

Accuracy for what purpose? "why should they be called the same" is not a purpose, its a question. To those who think the difference is material, the difference is obvious.

Would you be okay, if to appease bigots, interracial couples were only allowed to enter into civil unions?

[Skylla]

I take it that by refusing to answer a simple question, you can't provide a reason, other than promoting or appeasing bigotry.

Jaybear: If you can't behave in this thread, you will be removed from it. Zetaflux answered the question and you altered the quote to make it appear as if he didn't. Don't do it again.

Skylla

[Jaybear]

Jaybear: If you can't behave in this thread, you will be removed from it. Zetaflux answered the question and you altered the quote to make it appear as if he didn't. Don't do it again.

Skylla

'

Read Zeta's response again. He didn't answer the question. He told me to where I should look to come up with the answer ... "Study why", "Study the writings".

He didn't answer the question, he gave me a homework assignment.

[california boy]

I sincerely doubt that bigotry is the only answer you can come up with. I would guess instead that it's the only answer that serves your purposes and supports your arguments.

My answer to your question is the obvious one-Accuracy. The two unions are not the same so why should they be called the same thing?

Think of it again in terms of male and female. Men and women require separate labels, though both are human, because despite their similarities they are different. The different labels exist not because of bigotry, but for the sake of accuracy for the facts.

This analogy doesn't work because it doesn't acknowledge the realities of the issues invovled.

First, the differences between LDS and Evangelicals are subjective-they are based on belief which cannot be qualified.

The differences between a homosexual union and a heterosexual union are not subjective. They aren't based on anyone's beliefs. The realities of the differences are not subject to opinion.

It also does not work because the LDS church has never asked the government to validate their use of the term 'Christian'. The LDS church, like all churches that i'm aware of, does not care what the government thinks about the labels they apply to themselves. Because the LDS church has never asked any other entity to legally agree with it's use of it's name, it has not given any other entity the right or power to legally challenge it.

Just like the government right now doesn't care one bit if two men want to claim they are married or if two women want to do the same and why no one has the power to remove any label that the homosexual community wants to put on itself either.

It's only when someone or something is attempting to legally force another to accept it's label that the government get's invovled.

I think this kind of reasoning is exactly why doing a stage play based on the Prop 8 charge will be so interesting. When does an analogy become a basis for law. Or when is it just a way of presenting an idea that has no basis in law. There is a huge difference coming up with prejudicial ideas on wanting a different name for the same thing because the union is different. But will it hold up in court? Does it have any justification for requiring a separate definition. I mentioned sitting at the front of the bus because it demonstrated the legal concept of the unacceptability of separate but equal. Perhaps if you feel this does not apply to this particular case, you could cite a similar legal case where separate but equal did become law that was used in the prop 8 trial. And if it was not used in the prop 8 trial, one has to ask the pointed question Why was it not used. After all, legal cases are won and lost by legal precedence.

Court cases don't rely much on analogies since one can come up with an anology to justify just about any point. Doing a play production of prop 8 will expose the public to the legal arguments presented in the trial. Hopefull this will give better understanding why certain views have no legal standing in a court of law and others do.

[bluebell]

Court cases don't rely much on analogies since one can come up with an anology to justify just about any point. Doing a play production of prop 8 will expose the public to the legal arguments presented in the trial. Hopefull this will give better understanding why certain views have no legal standing in a court of law and others do.

I think you're right. It will all come down to the legal arguments, which of course don't prove something is moral or that it's factually accurate, or even beneficial. But they do prove whether or not something is legal in our country at a given moment and that's where the issue lies.

[bluebell]

Accuracy for what purpose? "why should they be called the same" is not a purpose, its a question. To those who think the difference is material, the difference is obvious.

Would you be okay, if to appease bigots, interracial couples were only allowed to enter into civil unions?

Marriage has never been defined by the race of the people invovled. It has always been defined by the sex of the people invovled.

Interracial marriage is still between a man and a woman, regardless of the color of their skin. The union is made up of the same parts as the union between two white people, or two black people-so it should have the same name.

Homosexual marriage is fundamentally and historically different than heterosexual marriage because the union is made up of different parts. Oxygen and Carbon dioxide joined is called water. Oxygen and oxygen joined is not water-it's something different-and therefore, it's logical to call it something different

My point is that it would be 'o.k.' for a union's name to reflect accurately what it is. It would not be 'o.k.' for a union's name to reflect what it's not.

I know that other's disagree, and i'm fine with that. It's not about which opinion is best, it's just about acknowledging that there are other opinions out there and that just because they disagree with your's, it doesn't mean they aren't reasonable or logical, or that they are based on bigotry (which is just a fancy way of saying 'because you disagree with me you're obviously horrible person').

[Zeta-Flux]

'

Read Zeta's response again. He didn't answer the question. He told me to where I should look to come up with the answer ... "Study why", "Study the writings".

He didn't answer the question, he gave me a homework assignment.

Which fact you hid. And then you accused me of refusing to answer your question, and also accused me of promoting or appeasing bigotry.

I'm sorry if you don't like homework. I'm sorry if you don't like serious answers like "Go read this article on that very question." But, frankly, your conduct is unbecoming.