The James C. Hormel Gay and Lesbian Center has joined with parents, families and friends of Lesbians and Gays, PFLAG, to sponsor a free lecture discussion series at San Francisco's Maine Library. To introduce tonight's speaker, Evan Wilson, Director of the Marriage Project of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, here's Jim Van Busker, Director of the Library's Gay and Lesbian Center. Good evening. I'd like to welcome you to this evening's lecture. This is the second in what will eventually be a six-part lecture series, cosponsored by the Bay Area Council of PFLAG and the James C. Hormel Gay and Lesbian Center. I'm very proud to be cosponsoring this event, working with such a great team of people at PFLAG. I'm sure many of you are aware of PFLAG, have been to meetings, but it's just an incredible group of people. And if you haven't been to a meeting, I urge you to go because no matter where you are in relationship to gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender issues, whether you're coming out as a friend or a parent or an offspring of one of these people, the amount of love and support is just palpable. It's just a terrific organization. And we're really lucky tonight to have Evan Wolfson, who will be speaking about the Lambda Marriage Project. And it's been a pleasure to work with Dodie Goldstein setting up this lecture series. She's the Chair of the Bay Area Council of PFLAG, and I'd like to introduce her now. Dodie? Nothing but thanks for the library, for Jim Van Bess and for Bill Hayes of the Library Foundation who made all this possible after PFLAG got an idea and wanted a place to carry it out. It's been great. And I also want to thank the committee that's been working on this lecture series and continues to do so. We're mostly down on the peninsula, and they are a hardworking group, and I thank them. After the lecture, there will be a reception and some light refreshments in a meeting room down the hall, which you will find with no trouble, and please stay for that. You can talk with the speaker and talk with each other. We're hoping that some of you at these lectures will talk with each other about things you have never talked about before, though I know some of you have. PFLAG is an organization that is large and growing very fast. It's international now. It has tens of thousands of members all over the country, and it started 15 or so years ago as a support group for parents who were distressed because it turned out they had a gay or lesbian child, very upsetting to many parents, as many of you know. And the support of PFLAG has been wonderful for these people and has carried them through, myself included, the early stages of grief and distress. That stage for parents, unlike what it is for children, really is a phase. They go through it. They come out stronger, much stronger and more educated from the support they get from PFLAG, and then they can start on the other two parts of PFLAG's mission, which are advocacy, trying in all ways to make the world safer and kinder to gay and lesbian children, and education, which this lecture series represents. All of us as parents have been aware of gay and lesbian issues for a much shorter time than our children have, and we need education and are eagerly learning whatever we can. We also think it's really important to help to spread some understanding of concerns of gays and lesbians to the general population, because that will surely decrease the extent of homophobia in the community. There are ten chapters now around the Bay, and their names and phone numbers are available on the table outside so you can pick them up if you want to get in touch with the PFLAG chapter. Our speaker tonight, as Jim mentioned, is Evan Wolfson. He is senior staff attorney for Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, and he is the director of their marriage project. He is also co-counsel for the trial that just ended in the lower court in Hawaii for the couples trying to get married there. He has stellar credentials from an academic point of view, which is my point of view. Yeah, Harvard, Columbia. At Harvard Law School, he surprised his professors by wanting to write and writing a paper on gay marriage way ahead of its time. He's still in that field and still feels passionately, as you will hear. He's just back from Hawaii where the trial just finished in the lower court. You will find him a forceful, authoritative, and most engaging speaker, Evan Wolfson. Thank you. Thanks. Boy, I always hate build-ups like that, because now I have to be funny and forceful and engaging and all that. But I really want to thank the library and the Hormel Center. Is this OK? The right? OK. For hosting this event in such a beautiful and accommodating place. And I especially want to thank PFLAG for inviting me to come and talk with you and also for offering a reception with refreshments to induce you to stay for the entire speech. Because PFLAG, as Jim said, is truly one of the most important organizations in this country, its parents, friends, and family of lesbians and gay men. And it is an organization that has just tremendous, a tremendous record, but also tremendous potential of doing exactly the work that all of us, and by us, I mean not just gay people, but non-gay people, all of us need to do in reaching out to the non-gay public who often have never really before been asked to think about the kinds of things that are of vital importance to our lives as lesbians and gay men. And beyond that, to the question of what kind of country and what kind of society do we want to have. And there really is no organization better equipped to do it than a group like PFLAG, which is national, which functions in chapters, and which reaches from families to communities, bringing together gay and non-gay people. So I really appreciate the opportunity to be here as the guest of PFLAG. We're here to talk about something extremely exciting, and I should begin by giving you the background on what Lambda is. Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, where I work, is the nation's oldest and largest lesbian and gay legal rights organization. Lambda's primary mission is to do precedent-setting litigation that is impact litigation on behalf of lesbians and gay men and people with HIV all across the country. And we really tackle the range of issues of concern to lesbians, gay men, and people with HIV. We also do public education work around the cases that we work on. One of our cases is the case in Hawaii, which I'll talk about in a moment, but before I talk about Hawaii, I want to talk about another case. In 1987, a case came before the United States Supreme Court, involving a group of Americans who were being denied the freedom to marry by the government. And this group of Americans came to the court to say, we want to get married, and the government is not letting us get married. Help us. And in order to decide this case, in order to decide whether the government should be allowed to discriminate against this group of Americans that was being denied the freedom to marry, the Supreme Court had to first answer the question, what is marriage in American society today? And of course, here we're talking about civil marriage, the legal institution of marriage, as opposed to religious marriage, which different faiths celebrate in their own way. The Supreme Court broke the question down and eventually concluded that there are four important attributes of marriage. The Supreme Court said that in the United States, in America, marriage is first an opportunity for people to make an important public commitment to one another. It is an opportunity for a couple to stand before society and in a fashion supported by society to take on a commitment to be together and to care for one another. Second, the Supreme Court said, the second important attribute of marriage is that for many people, it has enormously significant religious and spiritual meaning. The third important attribute of marriage, the Supreme Court said, is that it offers to people what they called the prospect and at least the hope of physical consummation, something that many of us call something else. And the fourth important attribute the Supreme Court said of marriage is that marriage brings with it uniquely and in an unparalleled way, a vast array of private and governmental, legal and economic, protections, benefits and responsibilities of vital significance to real life families. That's it. Those are the four important attributes that the Supreme Court identified as what marriage is about. And taking those attributes, taking those components of marriage, those elements, the Supreme Court said, does this group of Americans that the government is saying cannot get married share with other people an interest in those four elements? And looking at the elements, the Supreme Court concluded that yes, they did. And therefore the Court said, the government may not arbitrarily discriminate against that group of Americans seeking this vital, this powerful, this important, this basic human freedom to marry. The Court struck down the government's restriction on this group of Americans freedom to marry. That group of Americans coming before the Supreme Court in 1987 was prisoners. And the Court said that prisoners like other people share a compelling human interest in these elements of the fundamental freedom to marry. Today in the United States, in all 50 states, there is another group of Americans who are denied the freedom to marry. In all 50 states today, same-sex couples, lesbians and gay men, no matter how long they have been together, no matter how committed their relationship, no matter how much they need the protections and benefits and responsibilities and obligations that come with civil marriage for themselves and for their families, they are denied the freedom to marry. But the wonderful thing is, miraculous as it may seem, we today stand on the verge of ending that harsh discrimination. Lesbians and gay men today stand on the verge of winning the freedom to marry that all other Americans take for granted. And amazing as it may be to people who thought they would never live to see this, the real question before us today is not so much, will we be able to win the freedom to marry? Because as I will show you, we are going to win the freedom to marry. The real question is not so much can we win it, but can we keep it? Because even before we have won the freedom to marry in any state, there is an organized, concerted campaign of backlash being pushed by our opponents in state after state after state to take away, to harass, to discriminate against the freedom to marry that we have yet to win. The backlash has begun even before we have lashed. Even before we have won the freedom to marry in any state, they are campaigning to try to take it away, to try to limit it, to try to discriminate against it, and above all else, to try to shut down the public discussion that has begun as non-gay people for the first time are given the opportunity to begin thinking about how the denial of civil marriage harms real life families. Our opponents don't want people to even have that chance to begin to talk about it. Now, I said that we are on the verge of winning the freedom to marry, and let me briefly prove that to you. I think you're all familiar with the case that Lambda has in Hawaii. The case began many years ago, about five or six years ago, when three couples, two lesbian couples, one gay male couple, did what non-gay people do all the time. Having met, having fallen in love, having listened to all the music, we all listened to all the time, they decided that they wanted to not only fall in love, but get married and make that commitment together. And they, just like non-gay people, went down to the clerk's office to apply for marriage licenses. And the clerk in the state marriage bureau did what clerks do to gay people all the time. He said, get out of here. And they left, denied the marriage license, and went to court. And they filed a suit saying that the denial of marriage rights was a violation of their constitutional freedoms, their right to be treated equally, their right to get married, the basic human right to get married. And the court, the judge in the lower court, did what judges often do to gay people. He said, get out. Denied them their day in court, said they have no case, get out. And they appealed. And they appealed to the state Supreme Court of Hawaii. And in May of 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples appears to violate the state constitutional guarantee of equal protection, the constitutional requirement that government treat people equally. But the Hawaii Supreme Court did not order the licenses. They did not change the law. Instead, they said, this is sex discrimination. How do we know it's sex discrimination? We know it's sex discrimination because if I, as a man, wish to marry this woman, I may. But if that woman wishes to marry that woman, she may not, simply because she is a woman. And the court said, if the government wants to discriminate on the basis of sex against American citizens, it's gotta show a reason. They didn't change the law, but they did what courts are supposed to do. They said to the government, if you wanna discriminate, you've gotta show us a reason. And the Hawaii Supreme Court sent the case back down to the lower court to give the state's attorneys an opportunity to either put up or shut up, either come in with a reason or stop discriminating. And in September of this year, just a month ago, we concluded the trial at which the state and we finally had our day in court. And my co-counsel, Dan Foley of Hawaii and I, went to the Honolulu courtroom to hear what is the state's reason for this harsh discrimination, and to see if they were able to justify it. And it turned out in day after day of testimony, witness after witness, piece of evidence mounting on evidence that now that the government has finally been forced, for once, finally forced to show a reason why committed couples should not be permitted to take on the responsibilities and rights and protections that come with marriage, now that they've been asked to show a reason, they don't have one. And when we get into it later, I'll be happy to tell you in question and answer, what were the arguments that they made and what was the reason they offered for this discrimination and you can judge for yourself whether they were able to justify it. The case went to trial. They had their chance to show a reason. In our view, certainly they failed to show one and it is now in the hands of the judge. And as we sit, my co-counsel and I are finishing the final legal papers. The legal arguments will be completed this Friday. It'll be in the hands of the judge. And the lower court judge, Judge Tang has promised a decision by the end of this year. So by the end of 1996, most likely in early December, we will see a decision from the lower court, a decision that we are very hopeful will be that because the state has failed to justify this discrimination, they must end the discrimination. But that will not be the end of the case because whichever side wins, whichever side loses, there will be an appeal to the state Supreme Court. And the case will go back up to the Hawaii Supreme Court where once again the lawyers will file their briefs and make their arguments and different groups from around the country will be able to file briefs in the case and have their voices heard. And the Hawaii Supreme Court will review the whole record and will once again make a decision. We expect that decision sometime by early 1998, a mere year and a half from now. And almost certainly I believe that decision is going to be that because the government doesn't have a reason because there is no compelling evidence or argument they've been able to offer as to why gay people of all Americans should not be permitted this opportunity to make this commitment. The discrimination will be ended. This case is a state constitutional case and therefore it cannot go to the US Supreme Court. The Hawaii Supreme Court will have the final word. And again, almost certainly that final word will be that this discrimination is not justified and must end. And at that point, lesbians and gay men will have won the freedom to marry. But there was something else that happened in September. Ironically, on the very day we began this trial, the trial that we believe showed conclusively that the government has no reason for this discrimination way on the other side of the country in Washington, Congress was busy at work. And Congress on literally the same day we began our trial was doing precisely what people do when they don't have a good reason to justify their action. They resorted to brute force. And on September 10th, the day we began the trial, the Senate in Washington shamed itself by following the House of Representatives in adopting the most sweeping, the most radical, the most harsh, anti-gay piece of legislation ever adopted in this country. And a few days later, President Clinton signed it into law and there now sits on the books, the so-called Federal Anti-Marriage Act, which they like to call the Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA, which I think of as the Discrimination in Marriage Act, which says that for the first time in United States history under this law, we will have a caste system of marriages. There are now in the United States two kinds of marriages. There are first-class marriages and second-class marriages. If the federal government likes who you married, you have a first-class marriage, and your marriage gets all the protections, all the benefits, all the recognition, all the federal goodies and respect that the federal government gives to civil marriages. If, however, the federal government does not like who you married, again, to the matchmaker has now become big brother, if they do not like who you have married, you have a second-class marriage, and your marriage gets no protections, no benefits, no recognition in any circumstance. And guess who the honorary first members of the second-class marriage category are?  Now, this is unprecedented in our country's history, and we at Lambda believe blatantly, deeply unconstitutional. We believe that the United States is a country where people have a right, where all people have a right to be both equal and different. We believe people should not have to give up their difference in order to be treated equally. We believe that this country, America is a nation where we don't have second-class citizens and where we shouldn't have second-class marriages, and we will fight this federal anti-marriage law as soon as we have won the freedom to marry. Now, we can't go in and fight it now because you can't go into court and say, my marriage is being discriminated against when you're not even able to get married yet. You have to have one first. But we will fight, and we will support the couples who will fight this bill because once they can get legally married, people will fight to protect their marriage, and there will be challenges to this law. But at the same time as we see that the federal anti-marriage law is a shameful and discriminatory bill, it is also important that we see the good news there. Disgusting, despicable, harsh, discriminatory as DOMA is. It actually represents a historic concession on the part of our opponents. A year ago, even eight months ago, they were on the airwaves in TV saying that the idea of gay people getting married was absurd, that the idea of the words gay and marriage in the same sentence was an oxymoron, that it would never happen, that this idea that gay people should be able, like any other couple, to get married was something out of Planet Nine, something, as they said, is the dopiest idea to come down the pike. That's what they were saying eight months ago. But with DOMA, they're actually saying something very different. What they're saying now is, gay people are going to win the freedom to marry, so we wanna discriminate against their marriages.  Now, discrimination is wrong, and we will fight it, but that is a sign of the enormous progress that we have made in engaging non-gay people and making the idea that we too should be able to take on this commitment a reality. Now, one of the things that they have tried to do in mounting this backlash is to attempt to shut down the public discussion that, as I mentioned, has erupted all around the country about our freedom to marry.  They don't want people learning that, in fact, when we, like other people, are unable to get into a hospital room, because our relationship is regarded as no more than roommates, and we are regarded as legal strangers to the person with whom we share our life. It hurts us. They don't want people to hear stories about how people literally have to pace in the hallway while their partner lies injured and in need of, if not consolation, medical decision-making and involvement. They don't want people to hear those stories. They don't want people to hear how binational gay couples are often forced to the cruel, the horrid choice of, do I stay in this country, or do I remain with my partner? Do I find, do I have to choose between my love and my country, and that there are couples who literally cannot find a place to live on the planet legally, because their relationship is not recognized. They don't want people to hear about that.  They don't want people to know about that. They don't want people to hear that there is a terrible injustice done when our government says one group of people can be treated as unequal and unworthy. They don't want people to be reminded of the history of marriage in our country. They don't want people to have a discussion that reminds people that there was a time in our country, not that long ago, when African-Americans were not allowed to marry at all, even each other. It was a way of saying that they are not fully human, a way of saying that African-Americans' relationships and commitments are not worthy of marriage. That was wrong and we changed it. But there was also a time in our country's history when Asian-Americans were not allowed to marry each other, including here in this state. And that was wrong and we changed it. And there was a time in our country then when we put in place a whole different set of rules saying that people could not marry someone of quote unquote, the wrong race. And that was wrong and we changed it, but not at the time of the Civil War, not from some ancient blast from the past, but less than 30 years ago. It was less than 30 years ago in our country that we abolished, ended the laws that prohibited interracial marriage. And it wasn't done by Congress. It wasn't done by the legislatures. It took the courts to say this is wrong, we must change it. And there was a time in our country's history when a woman who married a man became the legal property of her husband. She often lost legal rights by getting married. And that was wrong and we changed it. And there was a time in our country when marriage was mandatory for life, no matter how abusive your marriage, no matter how violent, no matter whether your marriage had failed or not, if you got married, you were married for life. And that was wrong and we changed it. But the history of that change actually tells us something about the battles that lie ahead of us now. Because when the proposal was made to allow people to end a failed or abusive marriage through civil divorce, it took some states to lead the way. And I'm sure people remember the phrase going to Reno. There were a few states that did indeed lead the way and Nevada was one of them. And people would literally have to leave their home state and go to another state in order to get divorced. And when they did get divorced and came back home, very often in the beginning, they came back home to states that said, oh well, we don't like divorce. Divorce is against God's law. Divorce is contrary to the definition of marriage. We will not recognize your divorce because it's against our public policy. And literally, this country was a country where many people did not know from state to state whether they were divorced or not, whether they were married or not. And this bubbled around and cases began and people began to deal with this uncertainty and the cases eventually percolated their way up to the United States Supreme Court. Which after this period of ferment and tension and uncertainty and bubbleings from Congress as to whether they were gonna get into the act, Supreme Court took a look at this and said, no, this is untenable. America is not a country where people should have to go through this harangue of not knowing whether they are married or not. And the Supreme Court said, the rule is, under our constitution in this country, your divorce, if validly performed, must be respected throughout the country. Now, wouldn't there be something a little anomalous, a little bizarre about living in a country that said your divorce has to be honored from coast to coast, but your marriage need not be? That we can actually have people in this country who don't know from day to day or state to state whether their marriage is going to be respected or not. And yet this is exactly what our opponents and now Congress have said is the reality confronting lesbians and gay men. Even once we win the freedom to marry, even once we get legally married following the same rules as any other couple, making the same commitment as any other couple, taking on the same responsibilities as any other couple, according to the Congress and according to our opponents, it should be okay to say to gay people with their second class marriages that their marriages will become unmarriages if they cross the wrong state border. Their vision of America is literally that for at least for gay people, at least for the beginners, for gay people, this is a country where when we load our kids in the family station wagon to take a cross country trip, we're married, then unmarried, married, then unmarried, married, then unmarried, depending on where we're parking that day.  This anti-marriage campaign mounted by our opponents to block and thwart and deny recognition to our marriages even before we have begun, did not just take place in Congress. In 37 state legislatures this year in 1996, these opponents in an organized campaign pushed anti-marriage bills, pressured state legislatures to spend time and money and energy debating these kinds of anti-marriage bills in Congress, I'm sorry, in the state legislatures. And in 37 battles this year, state legislatures considered this kind of anti-marriage bill, including here in California where your legislature actually was pushed to consider not just one, not two, but three versions of the same anti-marriage bill in legislative debate and committee hearings and wrangling that at your taxpayer expense went on for eight months, that's what your state government was doing this year. And in 37 state legislatures, including California, these bills were pushed and pressured and used as a way of trying to poison the dialogue about gay people, as a way of trying to erect legal barriers against the marriages we have yet to win. And above all else, from the radical rights point of view, as a way of trying to shut down public discussion, to make people think up, they voted on it, gay marriage loses, it's over. Rather than giving people a chance to talk about it, to learn about it, to begin thinking about how the denial of marriage harms us. But the exciting thing that happened this year is that it didn't exactly go as they planned. Because in the 37 anti-marriage bill battles this year in the state legislatures, we were able to beat them back in 21. On the supposedly unwinnable issue of gay people getting married, it turned out that the American people are actually far more fair-minded, far more open, far more reachable, and far more opposed to attacks than our opponents figured. And in 21 states, sometimes by luck, sometimes by drag-out battles, as in California, the legislatures refused to adopt these anti-marriage bills. In 16 states, however, the state legislatures were pressured into adopting these bills. And for now, at least 16 states have on their books a law that says that a legally married lesbian or gay couple, no matter how long they've been together, no matter how valid their marriage in another part of the country, no matter how much they need those protections and responsibilities that come with marriage, if that couple makes the mistake of driving through one of those states, let alone having the nerve to move to one of those states in their own country, their marriage becomes an unmarriage. Well, guess what? That's not the final word. There will be battles, because once people win the freedom to marry in any state, most likely Hawaii, they will, of course, fight to protect their marriage, much as interracial couples had to fight to protect their marriages, much as divorced people had to fight to assure that their families were treated as they had shaped their life plan. And once again, this country will grapple with the question, what kind of country are we? Are we 50 separate kingdoms where people's equality varies from place to place, depending on whether people like them or not?  But the truly extraordinary thing that has happened in 1996 is not just the trial where we had a chance to show that there is no reason for this discrimination. And it's not just that Congress adopted this most radical sweeping anti-gay law, and it's not just that 37 legislatures had to grapple and primarily reject anti-marriage attacks. The truly extraordinary thing that has happened in 1996, laying the foundation for the work and success to come, is that in week after week after week, month after month, state after state, community after community, there has been in this country and continues to be a rich and pervasive and sustained public dialogue about lesbian and gay lives and about our families and about our equality and about our freedom to marry. Non-gay people just this year for the first time have been asked to think about this and they are thinking about it. Non-gay people all across this country are talking about gay families and the freedom to marry and they are open to it. The polls clearly and consistently show that already in this early stage where people have just begun to think and talk and hear the stories and consider the injustice, already one third of the American public supports equal marriage rights for gay people. Now the same polls also show that one third of the public is against equal marriage rights for gay people. One third is not just against marriage for gay people, they are indeed against gay people. If we were fighting not for marriage, but for oxygen for gay people, they would be against it. And that third of the public is really not the third that we can hope to persuade in the foreseeable future of our work. But that poll, those polls show that there's another third, the middle third, the third that is not yet with us but is reachable and every poll that is more sophisticated, every poll that really looks at this in not just an overly categorical way shows that there are a group of Americans, about a third out there, who are not comfortable talking about gay people. They would rather not have to talk about it. They are not that familiar with gay people and our lives, although they're much more familiar than they were even a year ago, thanks to the work of groups like PFLAG. And they, however, are reachable. They are beginning to hear about it. They are against the attacks, not yet with us, but open to hearing the stories. And as more and more voices over the course of this year in particular speak up, they are reaching that middle third. This year, for the first time, not just in the history of lesbians and gay men, but in the history of monotheism on this planet, four religious denominations spoke out in favor of equal marriage rights for gay people. Reform Judaism, the largest denomination of Jews in this country, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the Reconstructionist Jews, the Presbyterian Church USA, the Unitarian Universalists, four denominations fully endorse equal civil marriage rights for gay people, joining hundreds of individual clergy members and congregations from every faith, from the Buddhists to the Catholics, to the Episcopalians, to the Methodists, to the Quakers, and on. All of them are beginning to speak out in support of this civil rights struggle. That's new, and that's happening, and that is reaching the unreached and yet to be reached third. That means that as this moves forward, as the case in Hawaii moves forward, we all have a job to do. And indeed, we actually have two jobs to do.     So those of us who care about any or all of these have two big tasks ahead of us in this struggle to win the freedom to marry for gay people, to win full equality. First, we must beat back the backlash. I said that there were 37 state battles. You know there was one here in California. You know that we were able to beat them back this year, but you also need to know they're coming back. Beginning in January 1997, when legislatures reconvene, when the new Congress comes, there are going to be attacks in many, if not most, of the states all over again.  And at the same time as we are fighting against those backlash bills, we have another task to do. And that is the task of affirmative outreach, of affirmative talking, engagement, political organizing, public education, and just plain asking for support from the non-gay people who are beginning to hear about this, beginning to talk about it. My new mantra in life is, there is no marriage without engagement. We have to engage non-gay people who are beginning to talk with us. They are listening, they are hearing, and they are largely fair-minded and reachable. But if we, gay and non-gay people who care, do not go out and talk to them, how can we expect them to get over their discomfort, to get their questions answered, to have a chance to really accept something that is unfamiliar to them, like the idea of gay people getting married, as unfamiliar and discomforting as the idea of interracial or interfaith marriage was to people, or divorce within our lifetime. These are not battles from the ancient past. These are not new burdens that gay people have to bear. These are battles and civil rights struggles that our country has wrestled with time and time again. We all have to be part of this chapter. But the wonderful part of it is, is that we are winning. With all the defeatism people can fall into, with all the bad news that we hear, with all the vicious attacks on us, with the unparalleled and unprecedented attack by Congress, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that in 1996, most people began to consider the idea of gay people getting married for the very first time. And as 1996 draws to a conclusion, most people are still reachable, many are supporting us. As our case moves forward, we have to get involved in the battle, the struggle that will take not just weeks, not just months, though there is specific work to be done in each week and each month, but years, a battle and struggle that will come in waves as we win not just one court case and not just in one state, but a series of court cases, a series of legislative battles in every state in this country. We are in a struggle for the map of this country. Our opponents want to make America into a house divided where people literally do not know from state to state or day to day whether they are married or not. Those of us who care must seize this powerful, resonant cause of civil marriage, of respect for families as an opportunity to shape the kind of country we want to live in, the kind of country we want for our children, for our friends and neighbors and fellow citizens. But the good news is we are winning and we will see it. And that's something that even a year ago most people didn't know. So please join in the work. Thanks. So I'm told that we can do questions and answers. So if people have questions or comments, be happy to take them. Yes. Okay, the first question was, how do I feel about the efforts to secure other forms or at least some preliminary forms of recognition for lesbian and gay relationships short of full equal marriage rights? For example, domestic partnership registries or other ways of acknowledging the relationships. I think that's great. I think that any recognition we can give to families to support people's families, including lesbian and gay couples is a good thing. I think any step we take toward ending discrimination against those couples and those families is a good thing. People should have respect and support and the benefits and protections and responsibilities that come with these things that they need. And therefore I welcome it. For example, in this country, we've yet to win the freedom to marry, but we have seen corporations by the hundreds, including most at this point or many of the largest and most profitable and leading corporations of this country, as well as universities, as well as cities like San Francisco and other jurisdictions across the country, recognizing that gay people are denied the freedom to marry and saying there's something unfair about this, there's something unprofitable about this and taking whatever steps they can take in the case of corporations totally voluntarily to create programs usually called domestic partnership or something like that to provide recognition and some limited benefits and protections to those families. I think that's great. I think it exposes the lie that somehow it will cost society or be contrary to the larger public interest because you have all these corporations doing it, that they're certainly not gonna do it if it was bad for business or would cost too much money. They're doing it because they recognize it's good. It brings people in. It supports what they wanna support their families and the coworkers and their productivity and their morale and their sense of equality and inclusion within that company or within that city. Those are all good things, but there are no substitute for civil marriage. One thing is totally different from the other. Marriage is the central, social and legal institution of our society. It is first and foremost the primary means we give to people who choose to exercise it and it is a choice. We're not fighting for mandatory marriage. We're fighting for the freedom to marry, but people who choose whether or not to get married are making their choice about what kind of statement they wanna make about their commitment and the commitment they wanna take on. They are choosing how they wanna exercise their equality and secondly, because it is the central, social and legal institution of our society, it brings with it this vast and significant range of protections and benefits and responsibilities, none of which are close to being approached by domestic partnership or registries or the other programs. So it is a good thing, but it is not a substitute. Now, I'm not even sure I quite understood your... Okay, okay, good. Okay, yes. Right, the question is about how, what is the future of binational couples who one of whom is an American citizen say and the other person with whom she or he is in love is somebody from another country who if they were of different sexes, could legally get married and would be able to remain together because the policy of our nation's law is contrary to some of the nibbling and attacks that we see going on around it, but the central policy is to preserve intact families. This is an opportunity that is totally denied to lesbians and gay men who no matter how long they live together constantly live under this threat of not being able to legalize and protect their relationship if one is of another country. That discrimination exists now and it is wrong and it ought to be changed even without regard to marriage. There ought to be a policy in federal law that implements the goal of preserving intact families that is not solely related to whether people are married or not, we ought to look at the family, not simply the legal criterion of marriage, but it is also true that under this new caste system of marriages in the federal anti-marriage law against gay people, even once we win the freedom to marry those couples who get legally married and are now as married as any other couple are gonna be discriminated against by their federal government who will at least under this law say we will not respect your relationship, your marriage for immigration purposes and they will have to fight. And Lambda and other groups will be there and I hope that all the other civil rights groups and others will be there fighting with those couples to challenge that discrimination as one more mountain on our march toward equality. The law now mandates discrimination. Federal law now says even when gay people are legally married, their marriages will be discriminated against. I believe that's unconstitutional. I believe it will be struck down. It is one more battle that we are fully preparing to fight. In the meantime, what people need to do is engage, tell those stories, tell those stories. Going to court is not the only way of fighting. People need to hear the stories first because most fair-minded people, whatever they think they think about the idea of gay people getting married in the abstract, when they see a real life couple who are being discriminated in that way, who are being torn apart in that oppressive cruel inhuman way, not to mention unequal and discriminatory way, I think most people will reject that and we need to get out there and make sure they know that that's what's happening. Who will marry you? Well, I actually think you raise a very important point rather than restate the question, let me just make this point, which I think is in your question, and that is that what we are talking here about when I talk about the struggle for the freedom to marry is legal or civil marriage. In all 50 states, this discrimination against same-sex couples is legal discrimination. We are denied the opportunity that all other Americans have, including convicted murderers, to get legally married. We are not talking about forcing any religion or any church to perform any marriage or recognize any marriage it doesn't want to. Government should not be telling any religion, you must perform or recognize any marriage that they don't want to. But at the same time, we also believe that to protect freedom of religion, no religion should impose its view of who can get married on who gets a civil marriage license. Civil marriage licenses belong to all of us and no religion should dictate who gets a civil marriage license. That's what we're fighting for in our case. You bring up the point that there are many religions today, as I mentioned earlier, that will marry lesbians and gay men. There are many clergy members, many congregations and some denominations that will perform religious marriage ceremonies for gay people. And there are many gay people who indeed have these very solemn commitment ceremonies celebrated by their family, friends and community. Those are religious marriages. They are religious marriages, but they have absolutely no legal significance. So the short answer to your question is, you can get married in terms of your commitment, your faith, if you find a faith that marries you, but your marriage is not illegal or civil marriage. It has none of the legal responsibilities or protections or benefits and that's what we're fighting for. Well, I mean, well, no. I mean, the question is, won't judges marry you? And the answer is no. Judges who perform civil marriage ceremonies. Yes, yes. But as of today, in all 56, they will not do that because under the law, we cannot get married. Yes. The first question is, what was the state's argument for why gay people of all Americans should not be able to get married?  The state has actually made four arguments, three of which are relatively legal and not particularly developed at trial. The trial itself concerned their central argument. The reason they have given for why gay people should not be able to get married goes as follows. The state argues, quote, all things being equal, which of course we all know means nothing. All things being equal, a child is best parented by its two biological parents or a male and female living in the same household. Period. Get it? That's the reason. That's what they say. And from this, of course, you're supposed to assume that means therefore that gay people should not be able to get married.  Hopefully you're sitting there and thinking either or both, says who or so what? And by says who, what we mean is who says that in this country, the government has the power to say there is only one best kind of family and it's okay to treat everyone else worse because there's the best kind of family according to the government. And indeed at trial, all the evidence, even from their witnesses on cross-examination and certainly by the second week when we put on our witnesses, the overwhelming mountain of evidence was what we all know. There are many good families. There are many wonderful parents be they single parents, adoptive parents, foster parents, step parents, same sex couples as parents, gay or lesbian parents who are loving, caring, nurturing parents who raise happy, healthy, well-adjusted children. There is not just one best kind of family defined by structure. The best family is a family where there is loving commitment between parent and child where the parents put the needs of their children ahead of their own and establish and maintain a giving, loving, firm, caring, parental relationship. So this idea that the government can designate a best family and punish everyone else is, in my view, truly offensive and certainly contrary to the evidence that we all know in all our lives day to day. Even if you didn't agree with that, hopefully you're going to the next point which is saying, well, wait a minute, let's suppose that the government is right. Let's suppose there is a best kind of parent to biological parents. Let's say they are the best. How, how does it help the children who are being raised by same sex couples, who are being raised by gay and lesbian parents, who are being raised by the not best parents to punish them because they don't have the right kind of parents? How does it help those children who are being raised by the not best parents to tell them that their families may not have the protections and benefits and support that come with civil marriage? I mean, aren't those therefore logically the kids who need more help? I mean, don't we all kind of know that indeed many people get married without having children, who don't intend to have children, who never can have children, who may be too old to have children, who are on their second marriage and do not wish to have more children? I mean, don't we allow those people to get married? Is there any state in the country that issues a marriage license with a sunset provision where people have two years to cough up a child or lose their license? Do we do that in this country? And I take it by your laughter, you see that we don't. And in fact, if people don't wanna take my word for it, there are plenty of other people they could ask. For example, Bob and Elizabeth Dole or Newt and Marianne Gingrich or Pat and Shelley Buchanan, all of whom are married, all of whom have childless marriages and all of whom are entitled to respect for their marriages. So it's pretty clear, I think, and I'll leave it to you to decide, does this indeed constitute a compelling reason for keeping lesbians and gay men from getting married whether or not they have children? I mean, if we do have children, isn't it all the more important that those of us who choose to raise our children with the protections and benefits that come with marriage be afforded the equal opportunity to do so? And if we don't have children, if we get married for all the other reasons that people get married apart from children, how does it help any child? How does it help any family to deny us the freedom to marry?  We're not gonna run out of marriage licenses. It's big enough for everyone to share and it takes nothing, it takes nothing away from non-gay people who get married to say that lesbians and gay men too are able to get married. And we all know that we have friends who get married and we think, oh my God, how could she be marrying him? Or how could he be marrying her? But none of us thinks that government should have the power to step in and say, sorry, wrong marriage. You may not have to go to my wedding, but don't try and stop me from getting married. The rest of the reasons are worse. Your other question was, what are the constitutional arguments with regard to the federal anti-marriage bill? Well, there are several and some of them are, there's sort of that way in which law is both at the same time interesting and boring that I don't wanna go through it all in detail, but you're certainly invited to contact Lambda Legal Defense and obtain the memos and the materials we have laying out the arguments. But the core of the argument against the federal anti-marriage bill, I think has two big areas. One is that Congress does not have the power to define marriage and to impose one view of marriages on all the states, no matter what the states wish, on all benefits, all programs, and on all couples. Congress does not have that authority under a constitution to do that. They do not have the authority to interfere with the respect that states owe to one another as people travel throughout our country. They do not have the power to burden people's fundamental freedom to marry, a freedom that the Supreme Court recognized as I began by telling you as recently as 1987. The second constellation of arguments against DOMA under the US Constitution is that what they have done is not just exceed their power, but they have done so in a flagrantly and abusively discriminatory fashion. They have created, as I said, a caste system of first and second class marriages. They have said that there are now Americans who, unlike any other American, can never have their marriage recognized. Well, the Constitution does not permit Congress or any other part of government to take any group of Americans, no matter how unpopular, no matter how small a minority, and push them as a stranger outside society, outside society's laws, and say that this whole infrastructure of government benefits and protections and recognition that we have created to help families and to support couples and to care for people and to recognize their freedom and their choice, this whole structure that we have built, you may not enter. Congress can't do that. Our government can't do that. And that's what we will argue. No? It should be. The question is, isn't the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution crystal clear? The full faith and credit clause is one of the clauses in our Constitution that was written by the Framers to bring 50 separate, well, at the time, 13 separate colonies and then 13 separate, weekly connected states into one nation, one union. It is one of the principles and one of the provisions of our Constitution intended to make of the independent sovereignty's one country in which people can travel and which people can live and which people can move, which respect one another rather than negotiating with each other. It is one of the provisions of our Constitution that says that our country is not a country where you have to get a marriage visa when you cross from one state to another. And what it specifically says is that each state must recognize, must give full faith and credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of the other states. Now, the reason I say it's not crystal clear in the context that you're asking about is that the United States Supreme Court has never ruled on the question of whether states are free to pick and choose which marriages they wish to honor. They have never addressed the question of whether a marriage is a public act record and or judicial proceedings. So in that sense, it is an open question. It won't be for too much longer. But even short of that answer to that specific question, it is very clear what the right answer, it is crystal clear what the right answer ought to be. The right answer ought to be that this is one country and if you're married, you're married. Now, we have all, lawyer or not, we have all been to weddings where friends or family members get married, not where they live, but where they grew up or where they went to college or where her parents live or where they found a beautiful lodge that they wanna hold the ceremony in. And those people, and we've all been at those weddings, those people go to that state, that other place, often Hawaii, coincidentally, and get married, they get married now and then they go on their honeymoon and we all wave goodbye and go back to the hors d'oeuvre table. And when they're finished with their honeymoon, they go home to their own state. Now they don't get married again, they're married. And whether it be married in Hawaii coming home to New Jersey, married in Utah coming home to California, married in California going to Utah, they're married. We do not marry over and over every time we cross a state border. And that's because of the respect and recognition that each of the 50 states gives to the acts, records, and judicial proceedings, including marriages in our country. Now, according to those 16 states with the anti-marriage laws, and in part according to the federal anti-marriage bill, and according to our opponents, if they have their way, that rule should be turned on its head. And then they have the nerve to say that we're the ones attacking the institution of marriage. There is no greater attack on the institution of marriage being proposed in this country today than this anti-marriage effort against gay people which would make this not one country where you're married throughout but a country where your marriage can become an unmarriage when you cross a state border. And you don't have to be a lawyer to understand that. No, no, behind you, sorry. Right, the question is, actually two questions. One is, how did Hawaii become the one where this is starting? And then secondly, are there other states where this will also likely happen? The answer to the first question is that it really was fortuitous that it began in Hawaii, although there are reasons why it succeeded. And I mean, these are real-life couples. They're all still together. They all still are deeply in love and they all still wanna get married and they're all from Hawaii. That's how it began. It was not some brilliant strategy on the part of a little cabal of gay geniuses who decided to make Hawaii the fulcrum for universal change. It began because these people were in love and even against the advice of many of the gay groups, they went ahead and began this case, ultimately then supported by the groups and lawyers and so on. That's the main answer. The reason, on the other hand, it is also important to remember that they are not the first couples who felt that there was wrong to deny them the freedom to marry and went to court. There have been litigation. There have been cases brought by same-sex couples for going back more than two decades now. All of them lost. Why did this case begin succeeding in Hawaii in a way that every other case before and even a few since have lost? A mix of reasons, but I think they're largely related to the fact that the Hawaii Constitution offers very specific foundation for the court to rest its ruling on. But those, the arguments and that foundation and that constitution are arguments and a foundation that could be found in other states and even under the United States Constitution. So that's not the whole answer, though it is a help. A second element is that Hawaii is not just a state that has a good legal basis, but also has the appropriate, a good, a rich political climate. Hawaii is a state, it's the only majority non-white state in the country. It is the most diverse, the most multicultural, and I think fair to say, certainly among, if not the most respectful state of diversity. A state that truly believes in inclusion, truly believes in respecting different cultures and allowing people who are different to be equal. It is a state that has tasted bitterly of the experience of discrimination and refused to be part of it.  It is the first state, it was the first state to permit abortion. It is the state that has the broadest universal healthcare program. So this is a state that has taken steps toward bringing people in and respecting people. And third, it is a state that has a very strong and enlightened Supreme Court. It is a state that has a young Supreme Court. It is a baby boomer court. And all these factors, I think, played a significant role in why it is Hawaii that is leading, although by no means, I think the only state. And that goes to the second part of your question. I fully believe that once we win the freedom to marry, there's going to be a wave or waves of litigation all across the country. Some of those waves of litigation are gonna be where people are forced to fight to protect their marriage against an anti-marriage law or against a discriminatory action by the government. And as I said, we're gonna see them in certainly 16 states, if not more. We're gonna see them perhaps in all 50 states against the federal government and against anybody who discriminates against a lawful marriage. That's inevitable now, we're gonna see that. I also think we're going to see, after we win in Hawaii, people saying, why should I have to go to Hawaii to get married? Why not here where I live? Isn't this one country? And I think at the right time, people will bring other cases. Right now, we actually recommend to people that people not file litigation right now. There is a promising lawsuit moving forward. We have a lawsuit. What we need more of is not so much litigation. There'll be a lot of litigation. What we need more of is the engagement, the other things other than litigation, political organizing, public education, outreach, working with non-gay people, whether you be gay or non-gay. That's what people need to focus their energies on now as we build a climate of receptivity in this country so that later, and by later, I mean relatively soon, but later, judges and legislators can be emboldened to do the right thing because they live in a country or live in a state or community where the work has led to more of a climate of receptivity. Okay, I'll take one more question. That's pressure. Well, I kind of gave you, so I'll take you. Okay, the question is, some people suggest that if we just change the name marriage to something else and said that what we want is domestic partnership or union or something other than the word marriage, it would disarm people and people wouldn't be against it and therefore it would be easier to pass. And do I agree with that? And even if I did and even if that were true, would I support it? Do I think it's a good thing? First of all, I actually don't agree with it. I think that most of the opposition comes from one of two sources. Everything tonight is two. One of two sources. It comes either from the concerted, organized, not just coincidental attack on us, mounted by groups like the Christian Coalition, the Traditional Values Coalition and the other groups who literally came together and launched an anti-gay, anti-marriage campaign this year in the state legislatures to attack us, but they attack us on everything. I mean, no matter what we were asking for, they're against it. They're against domestic partnership. They're against bereavement leave. They're against lesbian and gay protection against job discrimination.   But because what we're fighting for is the equal ability to serve our country, they're against it. So they're against everything. So you could call it, as I said, you could call it oxygen. They'd be against it. That's one source of the opposition. The other source of the resistance to equal marriage rights for gay people, I believe comes from reachable but not yet reached non-gay people who don't know what's at stake, who've never really been asked to think about it much before this year, who are uncomfortable with it, who have not heard the kinds of stories we heard tonight about couples in harm because they're not allowed to get married, who've never really been engaged. I don't expect people to just sort of know, let alone do, the right thing with regard to something they don't know that much about when they have not been engaged. So I don't think the problem is the word marriage. I think it's that it's a new thing. People have not been encouraged to think about it. Now they are talking about it. It's our job to help them think about it. When they begin to think about it, they need to learn certain things. We need to show certain things. A good example of that is one that came up tonight, which is the difference between civil and religious marriage. I mean, most Americans never have to think about the difference between civil or religious marriage. When they hear the word marriage, they picture being dressed in white, standing at the altar, having a priest say something or a rabbi say something, marching down the aisle, and those are all wonderful and important things. They are religious marriage. They have absolutely no legal meaning whatsoever. What counts is not marching down the aisle legally. What counts is what you do in the vestibule. When you sign that piece of paper, kind of in a zombie state, with the best man and the maid of honor standing there witnessing it, that's what counts legally. But most Americans never really have to think about that because they don't need to worry about the difference between civil and religious marriage. We have to begin that discussion. We have to help them to think about it. And I think as we do that, once they understand what their charge over the word marriage is, that it's not about forcing a religion to do anything it doesn't want to do, that it's not about taking anything away from non-gay people, that it's not about disrespect for the institution of marriage, that it's not about harming families. Most fair-minded people, I believe, will continue to move in our support. That's our job. Changing the words, not gonna do it. Doing the work is going to do it. And in part two of the answer to your question, even if there were a proposal on the table to have marriage for non-gay people and something else for gay people, would I support that? No. First of all, almost certainly under our legal structure, they would not be equal. Because marriage has this incredible range of legal and economic and practical, as well as religious and social meanings. There would be almost no way in our country and our system that one could create a separate and equal institution. But in this country also, we do not believe that separate but equal is equal. All people, no matter how different, are entitled to be treated equally.  It is not about forcing people to get married. It is not about taking anybody away from getting married or taking anything away from getting married. It is about the freedom to marry. And as the Supreme Court said in the case of convicted murderers, this freedom is a freedom that government should not discriminate against people in. Government should not be telling people based on their race or their religion or their sex or their sexual orientation that they cannot get married. The choice to get married is a choice that belongs to the couple, not the politicians, not the state, not the interest groups. It belongs to the couple. And couple means gay or non-gay. Thank you. I just, I wanna just say one last word and that is that please do not regard this as just something we came together tonight to talk about. This is a defining historic moment in our country. This is a civil rights struggle in which there are battles behind us and battles ahead as the court case moves forward, as the legislatures come back, as people continue to be hungry to talk about this. Please, it is your battle to please join us. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for joining us with attorney Evan Wilson. Watch for other PFLAG Talks shows, including Kevin Jennings, the executive director of GLSEN and a talk by historian, Jonathan Ned Katz. You can purchase a video cassette of this and others in the PFLAG Talks series by sending a check for $25 to Media Production, San Francisco Public Library, Civic Center, San Francisco, California, 94102.


The South China Sea is an area of particular interest internationally and regionally at the moment, I'm sure you're all very aware, but it is currently disputed between six different governments directly over the islands within the sea and by extension the waters around those islands and indirectly there is an overlap between a Chinese claim to maritime sovereignty or maritime territorial waters and Indonesia's EZ near Natuna Island. So this is a very complex multilateral dispute that we have in the South China Sea that's recently become much more intense, owing to a variety of different factors. You'll also be aware that we've seen a growing intensity in other maritime disputes in Asia, particularly around the East China Sea recently between China and Japan, but also in the Dr Takashima Islands between South Korea and Japan, the northern limit line between the two Koreas, even Ayodo Island between South Korea and China. I think there are reasons why all of the Asian maritime disputes are now much more intense than they have been in the past. The first is obviously the economic growth of the region has increased the importance of overseas trade and maritime interest generally. Countries such as China where previously they may have been self-sustaining and self-sufficient in various areas of food and energy now have to rely on overseas trade to supply those demands. An increase in need resources from these energy hungry countries means they're constantly seeking other and secure supplies of hydrocarbons and also food supplies from overseas. And if they can find them those in waters to which they have exclusive sovereign rights, then all the better for them for security. Equally, since the Second World War, various countries in East Asia have suffered from instabilities domestically. If we look at Vietnam, for instance, which went through a cycle of three very intense wars within 30 years, China has had periods of instability through the Cultural Revolution, through the Great Leap Forward, through the Gang of Four as well. Those situations are to some extent resolving themselves, and so the countries are turning their attention away from the domestic instabilities towards their peripheries, which is where we find these maritime interests. More esoterically, there's something of a return to the sea from these countries. Asia has always been a very maritime region. But countries such as China have always had this difficult decision to make between its continentalism, its land-based interests and its maritime focus. And over the last 60 to 70 years, certainly, and also during the Qing Dynasty, it was very land-focused in the Qing Dynasty. It was in fact overtly focused on the land and banned many forms of naval or maritime expeditions. But now these countries are returning to the sea and seeing their interest in the sea through a different light. And finally, one factor certainly affecting all of these disputes is the rise of China, which is shaking up the regional order and has a variety of effects on how countries are dealing with each other and their perceptions of threat. With all these factors affecting international relations in East Asia, the South China Sea is something of a crucible for these international relations and is really reflective of how the regional order is changing. It's important for a variety of different reasons. It's a major thoroughfare for maritime trade. Over half of the world's merchant fleet tonnage every year will go through the South China Sea. And that's not important only for the East Asian countries, but about 20% of the more than $5 trillion in trade that goes through the South China Sea is the US commerce as well. There's obviously extra-regional interests in the South China Sea. It's very important for resources. We all know about oil and gas and China claims somewhat unbelievably, but it still claims there may be more than 200 billion miles of oil in the sea. Other estimates are much more conservative. Nonetheless, there are some hydrocarbons in there that could be useful for the littoral countries. Fisheries is also very important and often overlooked. There are perhaps several million people who are directly employed in the fisheries industry around the South China Sea and it's an important source of nutrients for large populations in Southeast Asia. Finally, there's a military strategic aspect, which while the very small islands in the South China Sea are not necessarily of any military utility themselves because they're so small, the South China Sea is very important for countries such as China, which currently is hemmed in to its east by Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and those chains of islands there. So Caesar's South China Sea is probably the main route it has to the open ocean through the Luzon Strait. It's for this reason that it's building a major base on the south coast of Hainan Island on the South China Sea, and within that base will likely be its future nuclear ballistic missile submarine fleet, which will then be able to easily transition towards the open ocean in the Pacific through the South China Sea. So the South China Sea is certainly of strategic utility and importance, not just for the countries in the region but elsewhere. The question is why has it become more intense and contested over recent years? Most countries and most academics would argue it's because of Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea. And this is a phrase that gets used quite a lot to the assertiveness of China ever since 2008 or 2009. A variety of different incidents seem to suggest this assertiveness was to blame. The USNS Impeccable, which is a US civilian manned naval ship, surveillance ship was harassed by Chinese vessels in 2009, which immediately alerted the US to the possibilities of difficulties in freedom of navigation in the area. It wasn't the first such instance, but it was certainly the most direct challenge to that principle. Vietnam and the Philippines have both complained that Chinese civilian and maritime paramilitary vessels have tried to cut survey cables towed behind their exploration ships that are hired by their national oil companies. And earlier this year we saw a stand-off lasting several weeks between the Philippines and China over Scarborough Reef, which is an almost entirely submerged reef with only a few rocks jutting out from above the sea at low tide. So that particular stand-off involved maritime paramilitaries in the beginning of Philippine warship hovering close to each other in a relatively tense stand-off and the coercive economic diplomacy of the banning of bananas, which is probably the first time we've ever seen coercive banana diplomacy as a phrase in international relations. Now China would suggest that it's not being assertive, it is in fact being reactive. And there is something to that argument. Vietnam and the Philippines have been much more forthright in their exploration of hydrocarbons in the South China Sea in recent years. And China sees this as a challenge to its position. It doesn't like to see a change in the status quo in these disputes because it suggests that reactions are necessary. This reactiveness or reactive assertiveness is a very debatable point, but I think we can certainly say that China is a lot more confident in its diplomacy in the South China Sea whether or not you state is assertiveness. This in turn has led to reactions from other states as well, Southeast Asia as well as the US. And those reactions are often in response to the perceived military rise of China and it's the rapid development of China's military, particularly its navy, and the opacity of its military that is a concern to various states both in the region and beyond. If we see this year, for instance, China has developed a new relatively advanced destroyer, the Type 52D, which will for the first time probably be deployed with navalised land attack cruise missiles. Land attack cruise missiles are necessarily an offensive weapon. You don't need cruise missiles to attack someone else's land unless you are attacking them. Obviously, China had only really had navalised anti-ship missiles rather than land attack cruise missiles. Various other aspects, the aircraft carrier being commissioned this year, which is seen as a very emotional and significant development in China's navy, although the aircraft carrier itself is not a very significant asset given its age and its relatively limited capability, but it is the start of an aircraft carrier fleet that China will be developing over recent years. In response to this military development, and those are just two examples of a much broader full spectrum development of China's military, Southeast Asian countries have been also engaging in relatively rapid military procurement. This has, in turn, incited fears of an arms race in the region. I would argue that we're not seeing an arms race per se, but we are certainly seeing military competition. One of the aspects that people often refer to is the procurement of submarines in the region. Vietnam has signed a contract for six kilo-class submarines, which will be its first conventional, non-coastal submarines ever deployed. The Philippines has received two cutters from the US, one of which is now its flagship, which is really a sign of the paucity of Philippine capabilities rather than anything else. Malaysia and Singapore have recently bought new submarines as well. Indonesia has launched a contract and signed a deal with South Korea to buy three Type 209s. There is a strange rash of submarine purchases throughout the region. The fact that these submarines are being purchased is largely a reflection of the fact that Southeast Asian countries can no longer compete with China on the surface of the water. They are turning to that ultimate sea-denial weapon, the submarine. Submarines are, ton for ton, the most expensive naval vessel you can buy, but they are also a great force multiplier. Just one submarine in the water can deny large areas of the sea to an opponent, and given their necessary clandestine nature, they sow seeds of doubt into a rival relatively easily. The reasons for the purchase of submarines are varied. Vietnam, I think, is clearly purchasing submarines to compete with China's growing naval hegemony within the region, but Malaysia's purchase of submarines are less clear-cut. Arguably, and I would argue this, Malaysia has purchased submarines because of its traditional rivalry with Singapore rather than any concern of the Chinese capabilities. Also, it is potentially arguable that these navies are simply developing full-spectrum of capabilities as their economies also develop. These sub-regional dynamics between countries such as Malaysia and Singapore, on the one hand, or Singapore or Indonesia, suggests that while we may not be seeing a regional arms race, what we are seeing is a very complex multilateral interwoven series of military competitions that is changing the tenor of military procurement in the region. We've also seen some diplomatic reactions from Southeast Asia, in particular countries such as Vietnam and the Philippines, attempting a unified diplomacy from Southeast Asia through ASEAN towards China in these disputes. More recently, we've seen some failures in that attempt at a unified diplomacy, particularly with the failure of ASEAN to issue a communique at the end of its foreign ministers meeting in July for the first time in its more than four decades history. At the recent meeting in November in Cambodia, there was an open spat between the Cambodian Prime Minister and the Philippine President over the involvement of the US in the South China Sea dispute. While ASEAN is an organisation that thrives on the rhetoric of consensus and community, in reality there are many tensions behind the scenes between the ASEAN states. South East Asian countries, in particular Vietnam and the Philippines, have tried to internationalise the issue by encouraging greater US engagement in the region, but also engagement from countries such as Russia, India and Japan. They've done it through a variety of different ways. Vietnam has started to build closer defence links with the US, which is a relatively startling development, given how antagonistic they were towards each other in the latter part of the 20th century. Vietnam has also opened up Cameron Bay, which is a former Soviet and US naval base in the east of the country, to international ship repairs. So the US has now sent several ships to be repaired there for the first time since the Vietnam War. This engagement to the US has borne fruit, as we've seen with the US pivot, which although some would argue has been going on for several years, is the most clearly elucidated in late 2011 by Hillary Clinton in an article in a foreign policy magazine, and then very specifically elucidated by President Obama and Defence Secretary Panetta in January when they launched a new strategy, which suggested the US would have necessity pivot towards Asia. They've since dropped the word pivot, it's not really amenable to their demands. The US diplomats often have a tendency to use sporting metaphor whenever they talk about international relations, and sometimes it's lost on international audiences because they're American sports, which as we see in their World Series don't really include other countries. But also the idea of a pivot is necessary temporary, and that's why they stopped talking about a pivot and now talk about a rebalance. There are three real arms to this rebalance. There's a diplomatic arm where the US is aiming to show up a lot more at regional conferences, and we'll note that the first overseas visit by President Obama after his re-election was to Southeast Asia. There's an economic rebalance, particularly through the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is a regional economic cooperation agreement that the US is trying to develop. But what's called most people's eye is the so-called military rebalance or pivot, which has thus far included the deployment of up to 2,500 marines to Darwin in Australia on a rotational six-month basis, and also in the future, up to four littoral combat ships being deployed to but not based in Singapore. In reality, the military rebalance is very modest in the amount of capabilities that it will send to Asia, and it's partially simply rebalancing after drawing those capabilities away from Asia to the Middle East to fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Beyond the littoral combat ship and Darwin, there isn't really much of note in terms of an increase in offensive military capabilities. There is, however, a rebalance within the region, if not so much a rebalance to the region. 9,000 marines are being moved from Okinawa in Japan to Guam, Hawaii and Australia. And this is being done in conjunction with two new operational concepts, one of which nests within the other, the joint operational access concept and the ASC battle concept. The joint operational access concept is unclassified, the ASPC is still classified, but in reality what they aim to do is disperse US forces throughout the region, hence increasing their presence in Australia, Guam and Hawaii, which has the primary benefit of moving many US forces out of missile range of some of the Chinese missiles, but also the secondary benefit and perhaps most importantly for the US of complicating the Chinese ability to track and therefore intercept any US lines of communication from these bases towards Chinese waters or the near abroad. These are designed to complicate China's, what's known as anti-access area denial capabilities, which are those military capabilities that are designed to prevent arrival entering or operating freely within a certain theatre of operation, so submarines, anti-ship missiles, fast attack craft, even anti-satellite weapons. In reality, the pivot in combination with Joe Acony ASPC is not necessarily a major military development in terms of capabilities deployed, but is a major diplomatic one, because it's aimed at building closer ties to countries in the region, sending Marines to Australia for instance, demonstrates a commitment to Australia that wasn't there before, so it's reassuring allies in the region that the US is still there to play a pivotal role in the region. But it's also sending a discreet message to China that it's actually moving US forces away from the front line with China, and therefore this is meant to be perceived as a defensive rather than an offensive move. The US is not eager to be involved in any conflict with China currently. It would be expensive in both blood and treasure, and not really in anyone's interests. Whether that is clearly perceived within Beijing is another matter, but certainly the US does not want its allies being emboldened by its engagement, and therefore drawn into a reckless conflict. It's notable for instance that during the Scarborough Reef stand-off in April to May this year, the stand-off really started because the Philippines sent its flagship to the region before any maritime paramilitary vessels. That flagship is a US donated cutter, which therefore implicitly ties the US into a stand-off it didn't really want to be in. And that's one of the reasons the Philippines lacked regional support over the Scarborough Reef stand-off at the time. So what we're seeing certainly is a shift in the regional order already. The US pivot is for the first time really adding a note of bilateral and direct military competition between the US and China, which didn't previously exist. Even if the pivot is limited in its deployments, it's not limited in its rhetoric. The ASBC, by its very nature, would require the US to launch offensive operations deep in Chinese territory to deal with the anti-access area denial capabilities on land, which is an extremely escalatory response and is attempted to deter China rather than actually go to war with China. So while it might be premature to call it an arms race, there are military competitions between various states within the region. But I would also argue there's no current desire for conflict, as we've just discussed with the US and its pivot, but also the fact that countries that are disputing these areas in the South China Sea are usually using maritime paramilitary vessels to do so. This is done because it's seen as less escalatory and less offensive. Often it's very difficult to control ships out at sea when communications can be quite difficult. So not having large guns and missiles on board makes it much more difficult to start a war you didn't want. But also maritime paramilitaries allow a state to affect day factor sovereignty over a particular area, even if there is no day jury sovereignty. It allows China to say, for instance, we must own or at least have exclusive economic rights over these waters because we're policing them. Why would we bother policing them if they weren't ours? It's not really a very strong legal argument, but it's quite a useful rhetorical one. Even though there's not going to be any conflict, the South China Sea disputes still matter very much, not just because of the strategic significance of the sea itself, but because, and not because they are a game changer in themselves, because they reflect the changing game in Asia currently and the future of the game in Asia for the 21st century. I will very briefly, if I may, just sketch out three possible future scenarios in the South China Sea. I've given them relatively pithy titles to make them easier to remember and probably easier to say. The first one is what I would call Nobody's Sea, which involves both China and the US to some extent withdrawing from the South China Sea because the US has withdrawn some of its forces further away from the Chinese coastline and is unwilling to engage fully to the extent the Southeast Asian countries do owing to budgetary or sterotry, but at the same time, China does not have the military or diplomatic forces in this scenario to fully affect a regional hegemony. The upshot of this scenario would be a relatively tense situation, but one in which there would be less likelihood of conflict than might otherwise be the case. The second scenario might be called Somebody's Sea, whereby either the US or China are able to affect full hegemony over the sea itself and therefore over the littoral states in Southeast Asia. This could be owing to a military defeat or it could be owing to domestic crises that lead to a withdrawal or a downgrading of military capability. This would probably be in the most stable scenario, even though it would be the least desired from a Southeast Asian perspective because it would be the one in which we have the least agency. Finally, there's a possibility of it being everybody's sea. That is to say, it's a continuation of the status quo. There's a level of management's trust. The Southeast Asians encourage greater US engagement, which the US follows up with to a certain extent, but China continues to challenge that engagement and challenge US principles of freedom of navigation as perceived from Washington. This scenario, which is probably the most likely, is also arguably the least stable because it is the one that has the greatest possibility for unnecessary or undesired clashes that lead into some form of escalation afterwards. I don't want to end on a pessimistic note, but it's probably the likelihood that we are currently seeing.