Gay marriage in Ireland

[Bronzeage]

How is a Constitution changed if the majority of the electorate do not want it changed? If a minority is allowed to determine which groups are allowed full rights of citizenship, that would be an autocracy, not a democracy.

It typically isn't changed; it's clarified through a bill or a court ruling. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms already guarantees the rights LGBT people are seeking in the majority of cases; it was just being unevenly applied when people thought being gay or transgender was some sort of disease or moral failing rather than an innate and/ or harmless condition. Canadians already agreed that equality in certain matters was important. Applying equality to LGBT people is now a matter of reason, not opinion. The process is still subject to human error, but for the most part minority rights can progress somewhat faster than the time it takes for the majority view of the [voting] populace to change.

That sounds good, but what it means is an elite judiciary determines the future of the nation, which takes us back to an autocracy.

 

[RavenSky]

If I am understanding the language of the vote, they did not vote to make gay marriage legal (i.e. popular vote on a right); but rather to clarify that their constitutional rights to marriage includes same-sex marriage. In other words, I think the popular vote was to clarify that all marriage is a right not subject to popular vote nor to legislation.

My post was made understanding that to be the case. To reiterate, I am not criticizing Ireland or the quirks of its legal system -- all systems have them --; I just wouldn't boast that being the first to cement a protection for LGBT rights through popular vote is a particularly good thing. More of a necessary evil, I suppose; one which the Irish handled well.

Although I suppose there is at least one major perk to the way this unfolded. Those who were opposed to same-sex marriage cannot pretend they were a slighted majority will when the people themselves voted to pass the referendum with a decisive majority.

Except they didn't pass gay marriage rights by popular vote. They clarified that a long-existing constitutional marriage protection does include gay marriage. A nuanced difference, but an important one, I think.

 

[laughing dog]

It typically isn't changed; it's clarified through a bill or a court ruling. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms already guarantees the rights LGBT people are seeking in the majority of cases; it was just being unevenly applied when people thought being gay or transgender was some sort of disease or moral failing rather than an innate and/ or harmless condition. Canadians already agreed that equality in certain matters was important. Applying equality to LGBT people is now a matter of reason, not opinion. The process is still subject to human error, but for the most part minority rights can progress somewhat faster than the time it takes for the majority view of the [voting] populace to change.

That sounds good, but what it means is an elite judiciary determines the future of the nation, which takes us back to an autocracy.

One of the proper roles of the judiciary is to insure that the laws of the land are carried out as written. Without such a protection, democracy can take us back to mob rule.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

My only point of confusion on the reporting of this issue is that there were claims of being proud to be the first nation to cement such rights through popular vote. I can see being proud of the result, and I can see being proud of how Irish people pulled through, but it's a sticky situation to have constitutional rights decided by majority rule. This is not a criticism of Ireland -- I don't know how their system is set in terms of amending their constitution --, but I'd think the tone would be that it was unfortunate the rights of a minority had to be decided upon by the majority, yet thrilling that majority stepped up and came through.

Ya, that is both good and bad. On the one hand, the majority of people in Ireland stepping up and saying that they deserve to be treated equally is impressive. On the other hand, setting the precedent that minority rights are the kind of thing which should be decided by popular vote instead of the kind of thing which should just be enshrined in law is potentially problematic.

The Constitution of Ireland can only be amended by referendum, after being approved by both houses, so it seems it was either a referendum or no constitutional right to same-sex marriage (unless there was already such right; but I don't know that there was).

Granted, they could have passed a law instead of a constitutional amendment, but aside from other problems, isn't it also problematic if the matter is not decided by a majority of the public but by a majority of lawmakers?
I mean, in some countries, the public might be more inclined to suppress the rights of some people, but in others, lawmakers may be more inclined to do so, and in others, it may be roughly the same. In general, I don't see why one method is particularly better or worse than the other, in terms of guaranteeing rights.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

That sounds good, but what it means is an elite judiciary determines the future of the nation, which takes us back to an autocracy.

No, except, perhaps, accidentally by human error. The judiciary doesn't propose legislation; it determines constitutional validity. While that task is not often black and white, neither is it whimsical.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Except they didn't pass gay marriage rights by popular vote. They clarified that a long-existing constitutional marriage protection does include gay marriage. A nuanced difference, but an important one, I think.

Except I didn't say they passed 'gay marriage rights' by popular vote. I said "cement such rights through popular vote" and "This is not a criticism of Ireland -- I don't know how their system is set in terms of amending their constitution".

 

[bilby]

There really is no other way to define rights, either of minorities or majorities.

Of course there is. I can't comment on Ireland because I don't know the particulars of their system. I assume the call for a referendum was due to the fact that this dealt with their constitution (I didn't really look that far into it), but I'd wager they do not ordinarily hold a public vote for every gay rights issue. In Canada we sure as hell don't. We have legislative bills, or occasionally court rulings. We have a constitution which guarantees certain rights to residents, and as our understanding of people changes, our understanding of how our constitution needs to apply changes as well. Once we realized that sexual orientation is not a disease or a perversion or a crime, it was unconscionable to deny equality to gay, lesbian, and bisexual Canadians. It doesn't matter if the majority of Canadians see it that way; once you decide equality is a value, you cannot ethically and with the support of reason then decide who gets to be equal and who does not.

Given that the original Irish Constitution was written by a very small group of men, including such free-thinking advocates of human rights as John McQuaid, Archbishop of Dublin; and given that as a result, the Republic was established as a virtual vassal state of the Vatican, almost any means to amend it that doesn't involve a handful of priests and nobody else, has to be an improvement.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Granted, they could have passed a law instead of a constitutional amendment, but aside from other problems, isn't it also problematic if the matter is not decided by a majority of the public but by a majority of lawmakers?
I mean, in some countries, the public might be more inclined to suppress the rights of some people, but in others, lawmakers may be more inclined to do so, and in others, it may be roughly the same. In general, I don't see why one method is particularly better or worse than the other, in terms of guaranteeing rights.

Because the public isn't really accountable to anything more than each individual's will once given the option to vote. The referendum tells us what the people wanted, but it doesn't tell us why they wanted it or what line of reasoning they feel justifies their decision apart from the talking points of campaigners. While it may seem like semantics given elected representatives can be ignorant dickheads and not every member of a party needs to voice their opinion, there is a different degree of transparency and accountability to the process (though that probably varies from system to system somewhat).

 

[bilby]

Except they didn't pass gay marriage rights by popular vote. They clarified that a long-existing constitutional marriage protection does include gay marriage. A nuanced difference, but an important one, I think.

Except I didn't say they passed 'gay marriage rights' by popular vote. I said "cement such rights through popular vote" and "This is not a criticism of Ireland -- I don't know how their system is set in terms of amending their constitution".

Given how restrictive and awful the 1922 Irish constitution was, it is a true credit to the Irish people that they have taken less than a century to reach this point.

Ireland swapped oppression by the English for oppression by the Vatican in the long struggle for independence; and now they are having to climb out from under their new tyranny. Fortunately the Pope is unlikely to send in the troops.

The Irish strike me as being rather like the Australians in that regard - a mostly progressive people with surprisingly conservative leadership.

Australians are one of the least homophobic peoples on the planet. But our current Prime Minister is rabidly Catholic, and would stop at nothing to prevent any change to the Marriage Act, while he bends over backwards to help Archbishop George Pell from having to return to Australia to face the child abuse commission. (Pell was instrumental in the cover up, and has been rewarded with asylum at the Vatican).

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Given that the original Irish Constitution was written by a very small group of men, including such free-thinking advocates of human rights as John McQuaid, Archbishop of Dublin; and given that as a result, the Republic was established as a virtual vassal state of the Vatican, almost any means to amend it that doesn't involve a handful of priests and nobody else, has to be an improvement.

I am not opposing the ability to amend a constitution; I simply think it is not something to boast about when you end up with a majority vote on an issue concerning minorities. It's an unfortunate set-up in this case. My remark stems from comments like the following:

“We’re the first country in the world to enshrine marriage equality in our constitution and do so by popular mandate. That makes us a beacon, a light to the rest of the world, of liberty and equality. So it’s a very proud day to be Irish,” said Leo Varadkar, a Cabinet minister who came out as gay at the start of a government-led effort to amend Ireland’s conservative Catholic constitution.

http://time.com/3895041/ireland-legalize-gay-marriage/?xid=IFT-Trending

I'm all for Leo being proud of the result and how it reflects on his countrymen; I just don't think that particular first is a beacon. Personally, I don't want my rights decided by public opinion. Legislators owe me just treatment as do do judiciaries. If they do not give it, it is their ethical failing to do their jobs. Does the public even have such an obligation when called on to vote or do they just do what suits them personally? Do I have to look at my neighbour and plead with them for me to be equal in the eyes of the law? I'd rather hate a politician for blowing it than my peers, if nothing else.

 

[Bronzeage]

That sounds good, but what it means is an elite judiciary determines the future of the nation, which takes us back to an autocracy.

No, except, perhaps, accidentally by human error. The judiciary doesn't propose legislation; it determines constitutional validity. While that task is not often black and white, neither is it whimsical.

There is some confusion in the way you describe the Canadian Constitutional System.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Because the public isn't really accountable to anything more than each individual's will once given the option to vote. The referendum tells us what the people wanted, but it doesn't tell us why they wanted it or what line of reasoning they feel justifies their decision apart from the talking points of campaigners. While it may seem like semantics given elected representatives can be ignorant dickheads and not every member of a party needs to voice their opinion, there is a different degree of transparency and accountability to the process (though that probably varies from system to system somewhat).

In which way would they be held accountable?
It's not judicial accountability: They can vote to ban or allow gay marriage, and they're not going to imprisoned, fined, fired from office (well. probably not; it's still a case-by-case matter), etc., for that.
As for the reasons for their vote, they don't need to state them, but if they want to, they may just state the reasons that resonate with the portion of the public that supports them - which may well be what they believe anyway.
So, if it's accountability to the public, that can go either way: in fact, a bigoted public will turn on them if they vote against the particular bigotry the public supports.

Granted, lawmakers may also suffer punishment from their own parties - they might lose the chance to run for office again, get fired from the party, etc. But the punishments in question may be imposed for voting to take away someone's rights, or for refraining from doing so.

In other words, that their votes are not secret puts pressure on them, but the pressure can go in one direction or the other.

So, I don't see any in-principle advantage of popular vote vs. lawmakers vote. One system may be better in some contexts, the other in other contexts, and there are contexts in which they might be equally good or bad, as far as I can tell.

By the way, in the past few years, Russia and some of its regions passed a number of anti-gay bills. Nigeria also passed an anti-gay law, that worsened their already anti-gay legislation. In Uganda there was an attempt to worsen things for gay people; it failed on procedural grounds, but some people seem determine to keep trying. Those were the actions of lawmakers and presidents, not the public via referendums. Would public votes have made the matter worse, better, or about just as bad?

It's hard to tell, but the matter has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

No, except, perhaps, accidentally by human error. The judiciary doesn't propose legislation; it determines constitutional validity. While that task is not often black and white, neither is it whimsical.

There is some confusion in the way you describe the Canadian Constitutional System.

You're making it into something it isn't. The Supreme Court cannot enact legislation, neither can it issue a ruling which contradicts the Constitution. While not every case has an obvious conclusion, the Supreme Court is bound by legal principles rather than personal motives. Unless they fuck up their decision, they can do nothing more but apply Canadian law to situations brought before them. They do not in any way fit the definition of autocracy. Unless they screw up and let bias interfere with their ruling, the Justices don't get to make personal decisions.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

In which way would they be held accountable?
It's not judicial accountability: They can vote to ban or allow gay marriage, and they're not going to imprisoned, fined, fired from office (well. probably not; it's still a case-by-case matter), etc., for that.
As for the reasons for their vote, they don't need to state them, but if they want to, they may just state the reasons that resonate with the portion of the public that supports them - which may well be what they believe anyway.
So, if it's accountability to the public, that can go either way: in fact, a bigoted public will turn on them if they vote against the particular bigotry the public supports.

Granted, lawmakers may also suffer punishment from their own parties - they might lose the chance to run for office again, get fired from the party, etc. But the punishments in question may be imposed for voting to take away someone's rights, or for refraining from doing so.

In other words, that their votes are not secret puts pressure on them, but the pressure can go in one direction or the other.

So, I don't see any in-principle advantage of popular vote vs. lawmakers vote. One system may be better in some contexts, the other in other contexts, and there are contexts in which they might be equally good or bad, as far as I can tell.

By the way, in the past few years, Russia and some of its regions passed a number of anti-gay bills. Nigeria also passed an anti-gay law, that worsened their already anti-gay legislation. In Uganda there was an attempt to worsen things for gay people; it failed on procedural grounds, but some people seem determine to keep trying. Those were the actions of lawmakers and presidents, not the public via referendums. Would public votes have made the matter worse, better, or about just as bad?

It's hard to tell, but the matter has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

i) You are talking about things which I am not. At no point did I categorically dismiss referendums or direct and majority public vote. I didn't even say it was wrong that this particular referendum was held. I said it is not something to boast about when it ends up applied to minority rights. I also never stated that all elected systems are categorically better or satisfactory.

ii) I did not talk of being 'held accountable'. Accountability is inherent in the position, again, possibly depending on the specific system being addressed. MPs in Canada are expected to uphold our constitution, they are expected to attend parliamentary sessions, they are expected to read proposed legislation before voting, they are expected to vote, they are expected to present arguments for legislation when they propose it, and oppositional views are expected to be voiced and heard. Those are duties of the job which, while not required 100% of the time, are nevertheless expected most of the time. Any person presenting legislation for consideration is accountable to their own proposal, which means they must outline it in constitutionally valid terms or else it will face a greater chance of amendment, rejection, or being overturned by the courts down the line. And to a lesser extent, MPs are accountable to their legacy and to their future career as their votes are a matter of record. Might an MP pander to public opinion as would have been expressed in a popular vote? There is a chance they will, but left to a public vote it is not a chance; it's a certainty.

I know there is a lot of cynicism regarding politicians, but there is some reality that they have to be more practical for their career to stand the test of time than any individual citizen needs to be while voting in a referendum.

 

[Bronzeage]

There is some confusion in the way you describe the Canadian Constitutional System.

You're making it into something it isn't. The Supreme Court cannot enact legislation, neither can it issue a ruling which contradicts the Constitution. While not every case has an obvious conclusion, the Supreme Court is bound by legal principles rather than personal motives. Unless they fuck up their decision, they can do nothing more but apply Canadian law to situations brought before them. They do not in any way fit the definition of autocracy. Unless they screw up and let bias interfere with their ruling, the Justices don't get to make personal decisions.

I'm just going with the way you describe it. The majority sets the terms of the Constitution. Just as the US passed the 14th Amendment more than a century ago. This guaranteed equal protection under the law to all citizens. This amendment is the basis for all our Civil Rights laws of the 20th century. It was the majority which established the equal protection clause as the supreme law of the land. It is a slow process and rightfully so, but it is the majority which sets the standard.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I'm just going with the way you describe it.

No, not if you arrived at the conclusion of autocracy. I've never said anything about the Supreme Court which makes it autocratic.

The majority sets the terms of the Constitution.

There are two things I need to address here.

First, Canadian constitutional values have a very long history of development before the current version was enacted in the Constitution Act of 1982. The process was not a simple majority rules sort of situation. It involved the participation of the federal and provincial governments as well as the Parliament of the United Kingdom (as one of the aims of the process was the patriation of the Canadian constitution) and ultimately Queen Elizabeth the Second. The way it played out in Canada is somewhat convoluted and particular to our history, and I make no statement that this is how constitutions must or even should be formed. This is simply one alternative system where a referendum was not required on the issue of marriage, equality, and the constitutional rights of LGBT people.

Second, even with a majority vote, if the vote is on a law which offers protection and benefit to "all", it doesn't constitute a majority voting on minority rights. For instance, had there been a vote on section fifteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the decision would have applied to anyone and everyone in theory:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

You cannot separate out LGBT people from "every individual" any more than you can separate out Catholics or men. Anyone voting against such a provision is voting against their own equal protection as well.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

i) You are talking about things which I am not. At no point did I categorically dismiss referendums or direct and majority public vote. I didn't even say it was wrong that this particular referendum was held. I said it is not something to boast about when it ends up applied to minority rights. I also never stated that all elected systems are categorically better or satisfactory.

ii) I did not talk of being 'held accountable'. Accountability is inherent in the position, again, possibly depending on the specific system being addressed. MPs in Canada are expected to uphold our constitution, they are expected to attend parliamentary sessions, they are expected to read proposed legislation before voting, they are expected to vote, they are expected to present arguments for legislation when they propose it, and oppositional views are expected to be voiced and heard. Those are duties of the job which, while not required 100% of the time, are nevertheless expected most of the time. Any person presenting legislation for consideration is accountable to their own proposal, which means they must outline it in constitutionally valid terms or else it will face a greater chance of amendment, rejection, or being overturned by the courts down the line. And to a lesser extent, MPs are accountable to their legacy and to their future career as their votes are a matter of record. Might an MP pander to public opinion as would have been expressed in a popular vote? There is a chance they will, but left to a public vote it is not a chance; it's a certainty.

I know there is a lot of cynicism regarding politicians, but there is some reality that they have to be more practical for their career to stand the test of time than any individual citizen needs to be while voting in a referendum.

No, my reply addresses yours.

More precisely, in this post, you quoted a previous reply of mine, and said:

Granted, they could have passed a law instead of a constitutional amendment, but aside from other problems, isn't it also problematic if the matter is not decided by a majority of the public but by a majority of lawmakers?
I mean, in some countries, the public might be more inclined to suppress the rights of some people, but in others, lawmakers may be more inclined to do so, and in others, it may be roughly the same. In general, I don't see why one method is particularly better or worse than the other, in terms of guaranteeing rights.

Because the public isn't really accountable to anything more than each individual's will once given the option to vote. The referendum tells us what the people wanted, but it doesn't tell us why they wanted it or what line of reasoning they feel justifies their decision apart from the talking points of campaigners. While it may seem like semantics given elected representatives can be ignorant dickheads and not every member of a party needs to voice their opinion, there is a different degree of transparency and accountability to the process (though that probably varies from system to system somewhat).

The "Because" in your reply is a claim that one system is better than the other, given the post of mine it's a reply to.

My reply in this post addresses precisely that reply of yours.

While you didn't use the expression "held accountable", but you did say there was a different degree of accountability.
If you prefer, I can just use another expression: "How is there more accountability?", and the rest of my reply is the same.

As for your new points:

Accountability is inherent in the position, again, possibly depending on the specific system being addressed. MPs in Canada are expected to uphold our constitution, they are expected to attend parliamentary sessions, they are expected to read proposed legislation before voting, they are expected to vote, they are expected to present arguments for legislation when they propose it, and oppositional views are expected to be voiced and heard. Those are duties of the job which, while not required 100% of the time, are nevertheless expected most of the time. Any person presenting legislation for consideration is accountable to their own proposal, which means they must outline it in constitutionally valid terms or else it will face a greater chance of amendment, rejection, or being overturned by the courts down the line. And to a lesser extent, MPs are accountable to their legacy and to their future career as their votes are a matter of record. Might an MP pander to public opinion as would have been expressed in a popular vote? There is a chance they will, but left to a public vote it is not a chance; it's a certainty.

A few points:
1. When a referendum is proposed, whoever has the authority to call a referendum proposing it usually also have to meet conditions like the conditions required to pass a law.
2. Yes, an MP might pander to public opinion, or she might not. But an MP might also pander to her bosses - who may be bigoted -, while a popular vote will not. And an MP might also vote on conviction, and be bigoted - more so than the public, or less so, or equally so. Who knows? It depends on the case. So, suppose she does not pander to public opinion. Why would her vote be better than that of the public?
3. Yes, she probably cares about her legacy. But then again, if she is against gay rights, that’s what she will probably want as her legacy. Or maybe she does not care but wants to be elected again, to get a bigger legacy, and for that she needs to pander either to the public, or to her bosses.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

The "Because" in your reply is a claim that one system is better than the other, given the post of mine it's a reply to.

This is getting convoluted. My post is the top of this tangent (after the OP, of course). It is quoted in Tom's post which you subsequently quoted. My post states that a public vote on minority rights is not something to boast about. From there, Tom replies adding a point about voting on minority rights rather than having them just enshrined in law isn't so great. You respond that in this case, the referendum was required for constitutional protection of the right to same-sex marriage; however, as a weaker option, legislators could have passed a law which didn't have that same constitutional protection. You asked "isn't it also problematic if the matter is not decided by a majority of the public but by a majority of lawmakers?" While my paraphrasing may be a bit shitty or inaccurate, the point is, at this point in the conversation, we're all pretty much in the same realm.

This is where the divergence seems to happen:
You mention how in some countries the lawmakers may be more inclined to suppress rights, in others the people, and in others they may be equal. You then stated "In general, I don't see why one method is particularly better or worse than the other, in terms of guaranteeing rights."

When I replied, I was still in the same general realm in which I started which is why I stated 'the referendum' and not 'referendums'. You were, by that point apparently, entertaining Russia and Uganda. Perhaps it would have been fairer to say 'we are not talking about the all of same things anymore' rather than make you alone the subject of the sentence, but the statement I made remains true.

While you didn't use the expression "held accountable", but you did say there was a different degree of accountability.

Yes, that I did say.

A few points:
1. When a referendum is proposed, whoever has the authority to call a referendum proposing it usually also have to meet conditions like the conditions required to pass a law.

"Like the conditions..." is vague. A shitty bill proposal and a shitty referendum are both possible. What I stated of the former is that there are professional expectations which apply to elected representatives with regard to voting which do not apply (or at least apply to a lesser degree) to the general public. Both elected representatives and citizens should read proposals before voting, they should listen to oppositional views, they should vote on the merits of the proposal with regard for the responsibility of voting and how their vote fits with their constitutional values. Both groups can get away with not doing those things, but both the opportunity and expectation of an elected representative to do so are higher.

2. Yes, an MP might pander to public opinion, or she might not. But an MP might also pander to her bosses - who may be bigoted -, while a popular vote will not. And an MP might also vote on conviction, and be bigoted - more so than the public, or less so, or equally so. Who knows? It depends on the case. So, suppose she does not pander to public opinion. Why would her vote be better than that of the public?

An MP's 'bosses' in practice are subject to the same considerations as the MP themselves, generally. This was a consideration when I posted already. I don't know how it works in Ireland exactly, but in Canada a Party Whip exists to maintain discipline within parties which can affect how an MP votes. This does not alter the fact the expectations placed upon an MP are higher when they deal with proposed legislation as an elected representative than those placed on ordinary civilians in a referendum.

3. Yes, she probably cares about her legacy. But then again, if she is against gay rights, that’s what she will probably want as her legacy. Or maybe she does not care but wants to be elected again, to get a bigger legacy, and for that she needs to pander either to the public, or to her bosses.

This was never about results of 'for' or 'against' votes. This was about minority rights issues ideally not being subjected to the largely unchained will of public opinion. Even if a politician is against gay rights, it still isn't usually in their best interest to propose or back minority rights legislation which will be defeated or later overturned by a court ruling, especially if they want to climb higher. What do you really gain from that when the majority of the voting populace is not sympathetic to your views? The sympathy of people who were probably already voting for you? This was a fairly unimportant point in my eyes though.

 

[Hickdive]

Ok, that giant tsunami that just drowned Ireland under the ocean is going to be really awkward for us atheists to explain away. Let's fake some more global warming data and say it's what caused it.

More awkward to explain still will be the fact that the tsunami stopped exactly on the border with Northern Ireland, the only part of the British Isles to not have legalised same-sex marriage.

 

[bilby]

Ok, that giant tsunami that just drowned Ireland under the ocean is going to be really awkward for us atheists to explain away. Let's fake some more global warming data and say it's what caused it.

More awkward to explain still will be the fact that the tsunami stopped exactly on the border with Northern Ireland, the only part of the British Isles to not have legalised same-sex marriage.

Given the precision targeting God displays with his tornadoes in the US, I would say that the inhabitants of Belfast have more to worry about than the Dubliners.

After all, it is the Bible Belt that gets the wrath aimed at the Californians.

ETA - looks like his aim is even worse than I thought. Perhaps the Texans should stop trying to attract his attention.