Can I just have a wrap-up statement, then?
We accept your ruling, and whether we like it or not, I think the writing's on the wall.
The point I wanted to make is that for a committee--and I'm speaking now of Candice--those types of actions are very difficult. They're very difficult to take. It's one thing to have that type of attack from somebody who isn't on the same team--and I think of us as a team here--but this particular case was different. It came from members who are also from this committee.
I'm asking that when we do things like that in the future, we consider those on the other side. I appeal to the sense of good values that I know is among us all here. I really believe that. At the last meeting, when I think Rick Norlock was with us, I wanted to bring it up and point out that on this side too we have the same concerns and the same ideals as you have. I asked Rick, “How long have you been married, Rick?” He said, “Thirty-five years.”
I don't want to zero in on just this one member; all of us also have strong values that we want to bring out. We may not agree on everything we do, but in the future I ask that you please consider those on the opposite side when you make strong statements like that.
I absolutely agree that we have to stand firm--we have to--when we feel strongly about something, but we must not make that a personal attack on an individual's characteristics unless something can actually be proven. I don't think that's the case in Candice's case; Candice has demonstrated her desire for good things for the women in our society.