Sharon Bishop-Baldwin and Mary Bishop-Baldwin

00:04 I am Mary Bishop. I'm 53 years old, and this is November, 4th 2014. And we are here in Tulsa, Oklahoma. I'm here with my wife, Sharon Baldwin.

00:20 Bishop Baldwin and I am Mary bishop-baldwin. I still can't get this straight. I'm Sharon bishop-baldwin. I am 46 years old. It's November 4th. 2014. We are here in Tulsa, Oklahoma with storycorps and I'm here with my wife, Mary bishop-baldwin.

00:40 We're here today to basically talked about our 10-year legal battle for the right to marry each other. In the state of Oklahoma and are somewhat unsuccessful battle to have marriage is same-sex marriages recognized Across the Nation.

00:58 And we did get married legally on October 6th 2014.

01:07 Can I get the date, right? Sharon? You got the date, right? And we're still so new at this, that that's why I had trouble remembering my name to change a name after so many years is kind of hard to get used to. We've been together for 18 years and he helped part of our identity has become plaintiffs and things like your name, you know, every everybody's attached to their name, but when you've been attached to your name as a plaintiff for so long, it's really hard to change. So even though my name is, Sharon bishop-baldwin. I've been telling people, it's Sharon bald Bishop Baldwin because that tends to be out. Comes out because she forgets and says Baldwin before she thinks of the hyphenated name.

01:52 But all of this started a long time ago, Mary and I met in the Tulsa World News Room in the summer of 1995. I had been working there for 2 years as a copy editor and Mary had been living in, Ada. I'll let her tell you about that. She joined the Tulsa World staff in June of 1995, and we hit it off real quick, and Sparks flew.

02:21 And we tried to ignore that for a while, but but it wasn't to be ignored. And so in November of 1996. I moved in with Mary and our relationship began sexually November 9th. So that anniversaries coming up here pretty soon 18 years together.

02:42 We live together happily, you know, just like most gay couples. We, we didn't really think that there was any sort of

02:51 Legal recognition of our relationship. We knew that we in the eyes of the law or strangers.

03:00 We didn't like it, but I won't say that it occurred to us early on that. We really had any choice in the matter.

03:07 In March of 2012, actually, late late 1999. We decided we wanted to have a commitment ceremony. So we started planning that and on March of March 26th of 2000. We had a commitment ceremony at Alligator Point, in Florida, about an hour, south of Tallahassee. It was a very small ceremony and it was attended by just about 11 people including us mostly family in our very closest friends.

03:37 We?

03:39 Rented, a couple of beach houses, and most of the wedding party. If you will stay down there for a week, Unitarian Minister, who's a friend of ours did officiated at the ceremony. It's a holy Union sanctioned by the Unitarian Universalist Church.

03:58 So, there was that, that was a great time and we felt like that gave us a a tie to each other.

04:05 Few years down the road, then a few years down the road.

04:13 Gavin Newsom. Who was the mayor of San Francisco had heard, President, George W. Bush's State of the Union Address in which President Bush called for a national marriage Amendment, which would ban same-sex marriages for the whole country, never written that into the Constitution of the United States. Exactly. And that didn't sit well with Gavin Newsom. Who decided? Well, I'm going to have my clerks start, issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Just as I do to opposite-sex couples, so he did, and the wedding started in San Francisco. And they open those up to everybody and Sharon and I decided we were going to go out there and get legally married.

05:04 There were so many people from all over the country, wanting to do that, that you actually had to make an appointment to get your marriage license. So, we did that and we chose our date as March 26th of of 2004 for because that was our anniversary of our commitment ceremony, but shortly before that date came around the courts in California, put a stop to those marriages. So we were not able to get legally married at that time. But that's all in about the same time frame. When marriage equality became the law in Massachusetts, Massachusetts law, at the time, did not allow out-of-state people to come in and get married there at least out-of-state same-sex couples so we couldn't go there and get married.

06:00 And,

06:02 We knew that we wanted to provide for each other as many protections as we possibly could that a marriage would automatically provide. So we went to a lawyer who drew up for us, a trust and estate documents. So that we had each other's power of attorney and medical proxy Health Care proxy. Just everything that we could do legally without being married because that wasn't an option for us. At the time. We spent about $1,300 to do that. Took two closely approximate illegal marriage, which in Oklahoma, you can get for $50.

06:47 And if you go through four hours of premarital counseling with a minister or other qualified person, you can get what's called a covenant marriage license for $5. So our $1,300 was with the lawyer who a gay lawyer who gave us a discount because we were a gay couple so it would have cost even more had. We not had that discount and it has just always kind of amazed us that you know, we had to spend that much money just to come close to the same sorts of protections that legally married. Heterosexual couples have and I said close because even then it wasn't the same. It was never never exactly equal.

07:35 So our lawyer, that the lawyer who did our estate planning was Tim Studebaker. And he just about the time, we were finishing up our documents. All of this was going on with marriage in San Francisco. And everybody was gearing up for marriage in Maine, which was supposed to start in. I'm sorry in Massachusetts, which was supposed to start in may, Tim went to some laud, a Volunteer Legal event, and he met a lawyer by the name of Cambridge, a Riley.

08:09 Who does a lot of constitutional work workers rights cases? Social justice works with issues and they got to talking and he said, well, have you ever thought about marriage same sex marriage case? And she said oh, I would love to do that. I don't know any clients any potential clients and Tim said well, I might have some what if I could could do that. She said, oh, please let me know. I'd be very interested. So Tim came and came back to us and said, would you all consider that? Would you be interested? We said, oh, absolutely. We would do Tim put us in touch with k?

08:46 And Tim also went to his church, which had a large percentage of gay members. And he asked if any of the couples there would be interested in joining us in that lawsuit and several couples initially were interested, and we all met with Kay Bridger Riley to talk to her and her staff at her Law Firm about this possibility As It All Shook out.

09:16 All of the couples except Sharon and me and our eventual, co-plaintiffs Sue Barton and Gaye Phillips decided that they were not able to follow through with that primarily because of work being afraid that they would be fired from their jobs. One for instance, worked for a state agency and knew that she better not be suing the state or you know, that might have repercussions for her.

09:48 Of course, our jobs were

09:51 An issue. Also for us we had to think long and hard about whether we could become plaintiffs in a lawsuit of this nature because we were both working journalists in the mainstream media and the rule for for journalists. You don't get involved in the news. You don't make the news, you cover the news and anytime journalists in the mainstream media are involved in something. Then obviously they have a personal bias and the readers would would know that. So we went to our executive editor and asked about how with the Tulsa World feel if we sued the state and the federal government for the right to marry.

10:37 And the answer was basically, well, we wouldn't be thrilled but we were left with assurances that we would not be fired. So we made an agreement that we would never personally edit or handle stories, it related to not only our case, but to, to gay marriage. So what that meant was that our co-workers were going to have to pick up the slack sometimes and do our jobs for us.

11:07 And we're both typically, the type of people who

11:12 Go over and above, we don't do less than we do more then. So having to ask our co-workers to do more than because we couldn't, it was it was tough on us. Now, our co-workers, never complained. We worked with the best people in the world. They were always so willing to to do what they could. And I think a lot of them learned a lot by my, having these stories in front of them. They would, they would turn to us and say, okay. I booked accuracy question about this and so, we would tell them what we had learned about the law. So, there are a lot there, a lot of journalists over there in that building. You are a lot smarter. Today about this one particular issue simply because it affected them in a in a more deep way maybe than other news issues too. But that was kind of a silver lining to what could have been a really bad scenario.

12:11 So we agreed to do this loss to file this lawsuit. And while we were working with our attorneys in our co-plaintiffs getting this ready, the state legislature, put an anti-gay marriage Amendment to the state constitution on the ballot for four people to vote on on November 2nd 2004. That was State question 797, right. And because of polling and basically the public attitude in 2004, we could see the handwriting on the wall that this constitutional amendment was going to pass with flying colors.

12:59 And that might assist all the more determined to file this lawsuit, which we had had in the works. Before this came about, we told our attorneys, get the lawsuit ready and have it ready to file on, November, 3rd the day. After that election. We're going to lose in the election, but we believe that the rights of any minority should never be left to the vote of the majority. And we just wanted to be able to turn around the next day. And say, you may have voted against our rights, but we're going to have the last the last say on this because we believe that the courts will protect our rights in the Constitution of the United States of America has an equal protection provision. And again don't believe that our rights should be left to vote of the majority. So they did our lawyers had it ready to go and the day after that election.

13:59 It was filed.

14:01 Some of our opponents are fond of saying. Still today. That's 76% of Oklahomans voted for the ban on same-sex marriage. And the rights of people shouldn't be overturned by activist judges.

14:17 What's 76% of Oklahomans have never even weighed in on the issue of same-sex marriage? I don't know what percentage of Oklahomans are registered to vote, but it's not 100% of those who are registered to vote on any given day.

14:34 You're not going to have 100% of registered voters, show up at the polls.

14:39 Show of the of the voters who are registered.

14:44 And then of the ones who showed up at the polls on that day, 76% of them voted in favor of a ballot measure to put the ban on same-sex marriage into the State Constitution that still a minority of Oklahomans. So majority of Oklahomans has never even said what they think about same-sex marriage and in terms of a ballot, and I want to point out also that we not only through the state of Oklahoma challenging that constitutional amendment is unconstitutional under the United States Constitution, but we also sued, the federal government over the federal Defense of Marriage Act, claiming that that also was unconstitutional. And

15:31 Our lawsuit.

15:34 Really languished in the courts for a long time. There wasn't a lot of action on it in those early years, but eventually we got some initial rulings out of District, Federal District Court here in Tulsa, and those rulings, I had to do mainly with standing who has standing to sue. Who have you been harmed. I can you prove that those those initial rulings were appealed to the 10th us, Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, and that's where the case really slowed down. So, I think that those appeals were filed and

16:18 06 and we didn't get rulings out of the 10th circuit until 09.

16:26 At that point after those initial rulings from the 10th circuit, the case was left with Sharon and me to challenge the state law and our co-plaintiffs getting sued to challenge the federal law. The 10th circuit said that she because Sharon, and I did not have a legal marriage to not be recognized by the federal government.

16:53 We had no standing to sue, Sue and gay, had been married out of state legally. They had been married in Canada, and then we're able to be married in California. Later.

17:09 So they did have a legal marriage that the federal government was refusing to recognize. So the 10th circuit said, yes, you have the right to pursue that challenge against the federal government.

17:24 Just about the time that ruling was coming down from the 10th circuit figuring all of that out. Our lawyer Cambridge O'Reilly had some health issues and personal issues and she needed to get out of her cases. So we were finding ourselves in the position of needing a new lawyer.

17:44 And the national groups, the national gay-rights groups, like a Lambda legal, glad freedom to marry a lot of the groups that you would normally expect to step up to the plate and help us out. At that time did not support our lawsuit. They told us early on that. They didn't support challenging. The Defense of Marriage Act because they thought that would just anger Congress. And the Congress would pass a federal marriage Amendment and set the case and the cause back twenty years.

18:20 Well from our experience, with the Equal Rights Amendment, we know that you can't pass an amendment to the Constitution very easily that the era still have never been passed.

18:31 So we didn't really believe that Congress would get a federal marriage Amendment passed.

18:38 But so we found ourselves needing a lawyer. We approach some of these groups again. And again, they said, unless you're willing to drop your donut challenge. We're not interested.

18:50 About that time. The news of the, the rulings from the 10th circuit. We're making news and newspapers and stuff and a lawyer in Oklahoma City. By the name of Don holiday of Holiday Inn Chilton. Saw the story about that and he had always kind of wanted to do something with gay rights before he retired. He and his wife, Kay holiday, who is a regional director for pflag and one of the co-founders of pflag Norman in Norman, Oklahoma.

19:21 Navigate sun and he'd been married in Washington and they always wanted his marriage recognized in Oklahoma. They wanted their son to be able to come home and be equal to their other to heterosexual children.

19:36 So don holiday called Cambridge are Riley and said, hey, I see that you had this case. I was wondering if you would want any help with it. I would would love to help you with your case. And she said, help heck. Can you take it? Would you like to meet with my clients? Because I need to get out of. It needs to know that be great. So the four of us, Mary and ensuing, gay went to Norman met with Dawn and just fell in love with him. We thought he was really a sharp guy and had some really good ideas about the case and we agreed to sign him on. He brought on co-counsel associate from his firm James Warner the Third.

20:20 And the two of them, basically, started the case over. In fact, I've seen it referred to in legal circles, as Bishop one in Bishop to the case, the case started out as Bishop of the Oklahoma and Bishop V United States. So, Bishop to is basically what Don and James started, they re filed the case has an amended complaint.

20:44 And part of that change. We were following the direction of the 10th circuit ruling in our case. The 10th circuit had ruled that the Governor of Oklahoma and the Attorney General of Oklahoma where the wrong parties to have sued in our original lawsuit. They said, they do not have the power to Grant you a marriage license. The person who has the power to do that is the court County Court Clerk. You should have sued your County Court Clerk. So in the amended complaint, we sued Tulsa County Court. Clerk, Sally house, Smith.

21:27 Not because she was our enemy personally, by any means. It's just that she occupied the office that the 10th circuit had told us is the office. We had to sue so we had absolutely no animosity toward her whatsoever. She's never said a cross word to us. In fact, when we had, we had actually gone to the court clerk's office to apply for a marriage license. Prior to that. And she had been very gracious and sweet to us and explained. I can't give you a marriage license because of the law of this state. She showed us copies of the law. Gave them gave us printouts and said, here's why I can't do it.

22:11 But we never had a bit of animosity toward her.

22:16 So the lawsuit really had a Mary likes to say that they they lit a fire under the lawsuit because things really started progressing after having languished for so many years for 5 years, except they're almost doing nothing at the point of the 10th circuit. Ruling. Our case was all that dead. It really was. I owe Don and James really lit a fire under it and brought it back to life and it really took off from there in 2009. So rulings, rulings, legal stuff. That's kind of boring to talk about. We get to the point where everybody can tell that the Windsor case out of Massachusetts is is headed for the Supreme Court.

22:59 So, federal judges all across the country, basically, put the brakes on all of the other same-sex marriage cases. They had because they were looking for some direction from the Supreme Court and they got, here's our opportunity to see what the high court thinks we should do. With these cases, that are totally new to us. So the scheduling order in our case was suspended which basically put it on hold.

23:26 Then when the Windsor ruling came down in June 2013, the Supreme Court overturned Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which said that the federal federal government cannot fail to recognize same-sex marriage, the federal government must do. So what it did not do is touch section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which says that states, do not have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. So, by that point, I don't even remember how many states had same-sex marriage. But for example, a couple who is legally married in. Massachusetts still doesn't have to be recognized by the state of Oklahoma. The state of Oklahoma can say, when you come down at home and right at that point, the state of Oklahoma could still say, you are strangers under the law in our state.

24:23 But with the, The Windsor ruling.

24:26 I would say the probably everybody involved in same-sex marriage cases, around the country, got excited because we thought, okay, now now we're going to get a ruling.

24:37 Well, we were elated when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of 80 Windsor.

24:45 We knew based on the ruling, the way the ruling was written for the from the Supreme Court that while they, they said states have the right to regulate marriage within their borders. At the same time as Supreme Court said, however, those States cannot violate the constitutional rights of individuals. So we thought with that logic right there and absolutely we've one we have one and we just have to get judge Kern just Terrance Kern in our district court here to issue a ruling because I know it has to be in line with this precedent set by the Supreme Court and we will have wine and that we spent the second half of 2013. Just any day just begging, you know, we would wake up in the morning and I do please let today be the day. We get a ruling that kind of thing. We just knew it had to be coming at any time and then eventually December I was saying, all I want for Christmas is a ruling. And, you know, if

25:45 First, we weren't able to talk to judge current inside. Please give us a room that you know to ourselves and our friends were saying, oh, please judge current, given the president rides do this and then late December a case out of Utah. The kitchen case. It's it's coming down, got a ruling.

26:09 And, of course, we were excited for them. We were kind of our disappointment was, really exacerbated for ourselves, because we thought what can he be waiting on, you know, here, here. We are. Another cases, jumped ahead of us, and it's obvious how he has to rule. And that case was filed after the Windsor ruling was issued, our case at that point, was nine years old and here's another case. It was not even 9 months old.

26:38 So again, I mean, did the year turn the calendar turned? And here we are at the first few days in January. I'm having cataract surgery. We're getting on with life, and then on January 14th. We were on our way to work that day. We are pulling into parking place outside the Tulsa World and we were running a few minutes late and there's a meeting every day at 4 a.m. Budget meeting that we have to be at and my cell phone started by then. I looked down and it was called, from Toby the Toby Jenkins, executive director of Oklahomans for equality, which is a local gay rights organization. Been very, very supportive of us for several years and Toby's a good friend and they're, they're just great backers for us, but

27:22 All that said phone calls with Toby. Don't usually go quickly. So I saw that was told me I said out, it's Toby. I don't have time to talk to Shelby will almost let go to voicemail.

27:33 And it did but then immediately started buzzing again. He was calling back my gosh, it's Toby again. I don't have time to talk to him. So I ignored him. I ignored a third call from him and we went in the building sat down. We started logging under our computers and the city editor. Paul Terrell came over to me and said you need to check Pacer now Pacer. What is a court Network website? Where Federal Court decisions are recorded and published.

28:05 And lots of reporters know this and use it all the time, but I'm a copy editor. I don't have anything to do with Pacer. I have no account. I have no log on. There's no reason in the world. I would even know what Pacer is except for a lawsuit.

28:21 First to do. We have a ruling and Paul just kind of smiled at me and start walking away. I see Paul do we have a ruling and he said just check Pacer. So because I don't have a log on, I jumped up and I ran over Mary's desk and said, Paul says, we need to check Pacer and she says I know, I think we have a ruling. So we headed to the desk of David Harper who is a Tulsa, world's federal court reporter at the time. And he had the ruling up on his screen and is really funny because David is is very meticulous guy. He's a great reporter because his accuracy is impeccable, but he goes at his own pace. He's very meticulous and slow, and determined, and deliberate, and this is a 68-page ruling. And he's like, well, we're going to have to read the ruling here and wobble ball and Mary is about to hyperventilate. She's standing behind him with her hands over her nose and mouth. I'm trying not to lose Consciousness. And and here's David being very deliberate.

29:20 I finally you realize it. He wasn't going to be able to read 68 pages with us standing over his shoulder. So he skips to the page where it said that we won.

29:31 And we just, we embraced and we're kind of crying a little bit and people in The Newsroom watch and they want to know what happened. So, I said we won. And so there is a smattering of applause.

29:46 Panda. People were taking pictures and coming up to heiges. I'm all of that. And then a reporter named Gerald Wade, took a picture of us with his camera, his iPhone and posted it on Facebook and it's where I had my hands over my face looking shocked and and that kind of went viral and it was really a moment that got captured there.

30:14 So it's just a crazy day. We immediately realized that we needed to leave work because there was going to be a rally at the Equality Center that night and besides that, we were going to be having way too many media interviews to try to be putting our newspaper. So we did what we could to secure people to handle our jobs for the night and left. And that started, what is really been a whirlwind ear with that ruling? As we expected Stanley Smith, the court clerk, who was at that point being defended by a Christian, right group called The Alliance defending freedom.

30:58 Appeal, the ruling to the 10th circuit. They appealed judge Kearns ruling.

31:03 So are we started preparing for a trial at the 10th circuit, in Denver, and that came on April 17th. We had oral arguments before three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit Court.

31:16 And so we we and our lawyers went to Denver and took a Sharon sister and a good friend Cheryl Judkins with us. History can Baldwin write and

31:32 We in our co-plaintiffs, in our lawyers and our little Entourage, went to the 10th circuit there in downtown Denver had this this hearing, which is the only one we really ever sat through. I mean, in all these years there have been one other time that we went to court in Tulsa, but it was just for a scheduling hearing and really nothing was done but attend your lawsuit we sat in the courtroom and hurt our case, one time. So that was an amazing experience. And then it's oh my gosh, I was kind of on sparring but it was interesting cuz it was a three-judge panel of the

32:12 Of the 10th circuit court and when I walked into the courtroom and sat down, I felt like they didn't really make eye contact with us very much at all. And I thought I guess that's part of their remaining impartial and they're focusing on the attorneys who are talking to them in that world arguments and not on the people involved. So it was interesting to see their reactions and as a journalist, I think I wanted to be asking questions and leading the conversation to a certain point but I have felt that way when I've been on a jury in the past when the lawyers weren't asking the the person on the stand, the things I wanted to know, I wanted the interject and ask questions. This is kind of my nature. But when we got out of that hearing, we were in the lobby area of that beautiful court court building.

33:10 And we looked out a window and saw a mass of media outside, the bank of reporters and cameras. It was it was like, oh my gosh, I think while I was in the courtroom, I told myself take a moment and realize

33:27 The history of this moment.

33:30 And yeah, it was, it was amazing. I think to be there and then

33:37 That ruling came down on July 18th. I was going to ask you what that date. But yeah, they affirmed basically everything that carnett said, they agreed that Mary and I did have a case that we had that right. They did not agree, gay and Sue had a right that their marriage recognized by the state of Oklahoma. And the rationale for that was that the court clerk. Who is who the 10th circuit had told us to sue.

34:14 Did not have any power to recognize an out-of-state marriage. She had the power to Grant marriage licenses, but not to recognize existing marriages from other jurisdictions. So

34:28 Guidance is part of the case was pretty much over. At that point. We always considered them to be as big a part of this case. As we were though. And we said if and when we go to the Supreme Court. I'll be right there. Beside us. We should add for the 10th circuit appellate part of the case, Don and James are lawyers brought on another lawyer. OU law, professor Joseph died. He has court. He has clerked for two supreme court justices, and I've been a clerk at the 10th circuit, so he had great experience.

35:04 And then, okay. So after the 10th circuit ruling, the other side appealed to the US Supreme Court, and we also appealed, right? We joined in that request that the Supreme Court, take our case, even though we had one at the lower court because from the very beginning, we've always felt like it was so important that we not only not just win the right to marry in Oklahoma, but that we win the right for people across this country to have the right to marry the one they love and that's important for us personally to because when we cross the state line, we can be in a neighboring state that does not recognize our marriage.

35:47 At the same time there were there were seven cases basically out of five states and three jurisdictions. That landed on the Supreme Court's doorstep. At the same time, three cases out of Virginia one out of Wisconsin, one out of Indiana, the one out of Utah and then the Oklahoma case.

36:06 So we brought on an additional lawyer for this stage of the, the case Jeffrey Fisher from the Stanford University as Supreme Court litigation Clinic.

36:18 And he's a supreme court, specialist specialist. We didn't know that there was such a thing, but apparently you don't go to the Supreme Court with just the lawyer that you started dancing with initially. So we brought Jeff on and we, we really, really felt like they turned a somewhat dubious case into a really solid case. It had a good chance. We were very hopeful that this was going to go all the way so it was quite a surprise on October 6th. When the Supreme Court denied cert to all seven of those cases. Clearly, they didn't want to take the marriage issue at this time. And so, you know, the immediate effect was holy crap, we're getting married today. So yeah, so that's what happened within 8 hours with the help of really great friends, Oklahomans for equality. Angela sivad on Toby. Jankin.

37:19 We got married on the steps of the Tulsa County Courthouse in Howe Oklahoma court of Civil Appeals. Judge, Jane, Wiseman married us. Even though she faced the retention ballot today, which is less than one month after that day. And there has been indeed a concerted effort to get her outfit from the court of Civil Appeals, just because she married lesbian couple. So her bravery and courage, you know, we, we will forever be indebted at lunch. I'm thinking, we, we don't agree with what the Supreme Court did. Sure. We're thrilled to be married. It's worked out great for us. Marriage. Equality has come to Oklahoma. Thousands of people are getting married and they're Thanking us and everybody's happy and it's B. Roses.

38:10 But we still can't go to the State of Texas and be recognized as a legally married couple. All of those documents that we've been hauling around in our luggage for 10 years, or 10 years, to signify our legal tie to one another. We still have to carry if we're going to go to one of the what is it? 19 States now like so they still don't have marriage equality. So the fight isn't over and that frustrates us, but we won.

38:47 And a lot of people are really happy about that including us on some level, and every day at work. I I edit the marriage licenses and divorces that go into the paper as well as other transitions in life. And I'm seeing so many same-sex couples getting married and it just really makes me feel something special inside to know that we did that. We're so happy for all these couples. I think a big takeaway from this for us is just you have to have the courage to fight for, what's right? And we, all know what's right and wrong in our heart and people call us Heroes after this. And, you know, I'm not real comfortable with that word. Heroes are people who put their lives on the line for something. And we've been extremely fortunate.

39:46 Never to have felt like our lives were in Jeopardy because of this fight. So well I resist that word a little bit. I do understand though that

39:59 What has happened is historic and life-changing for a lot of people and I'm just absolutely thrilled that we had a part in making that happen me to.

40:11 I have one last question. That's okay. What are you both love about the other person?

40:17 I love Sharon's intelligence, her ability to speak so forcefully and no herself and what she believes. And I love her compassion for animals, and we're Wildlife rehabilitator rehabilitators together. And we have a house full of cats and raccoons sometime. And I love her hair and I think she's beautiful. She's my soul mate. You know, that crazy line about you complete me. It's just really true. I mean, I don't think that before I met you. I felt like there was a half of me missing, but now that I have you

41:07 I feel whole.

41:09 That's wonderful.

41:11 I liked we like to talk about how we have built on the show, 24 standing on the shoulders of those who have come before us in the fight for equality. And there's a song by Meg Christian that I think she wrote with Holly Near and the chorus is so special to me is how can we be like drops of water falling on the stone splashing breaking dispersing and are weaker than the stone by far? But be aware that is Time. Goes By The Rock will wear away.

41:49 And I feel like, that's what we are, is, is just a continuing Splash in time, wearing away that rock of inequality and I hope the others will come along after us. And, and stand on our shoulders for what we've done just as we stood on the shoulders of those who came before us in this fight.