CPAC 2016 - A Conversation on Religious Liberty and Marriage in America

♪ These lights, they can't blind me. Nobody can drag me down. Nobody, nobody can drag me down. Hi everyone, thanks for joining us. I'm Alex Swoyer with Breitbart and I'm joined with Ilya, sorry, Ilya, yes, Shapiro from the Cato Institute, Ryan Anderson from Heritage Foundation, Guy Benson from Town Hall and Fox News who recently co-authored his book, so everyone will check that out after the panel. And then Molly Hemingway with The Federalist. And so our goal is to focus on religious liberty in light of the Supreme Court's ruling last year on same-sex marriage. And so I'm going to first start with Guy. And my first question to you is, there were two questions before the court. The first asked whether states could ban same-sex marriage. The second was whether states had to recognize lawful marriages performed out of state. In your opinion, should defining and recognizing marriage have been left to the state or was it up to the Supreme Court? Sure, well, great question and thank you, Alex. I want to start, though, very briefly by thanking and acknowledging CPAC and its leadership for having this discussion. For many years at this conference, issues related to gay marriage and these types of issues have been sort of shunted to the side and not discussed at all. And I think it shows courage and leadership and vision for the ACU to bring it into the fold this year. And I think it's exciting. And I think that if we are a movement that is intellectually rigorous, intellectually curious, and intellectually confident, we should be able to discuss issues where there are disparate views represented on this stage by people who respect and like each other. So I'm really looking forward to the conversation. And one other thing, if I can, and this is totally voluntary. You don't have to participate if you don't want to. But I want to make a point. I'm going to ask for a voluntary show of hands. If you support same-sex marriage, oppose same-sex marriage, or you're indifferent or ambivalent, just to get a sense of the crowd and the diversity of opinion. So you don't have to do it, but if you are for same-sex marriage, raise your hand. Okay? If you're opposed, raise your hand. And if you're sort of in the middle or not sure, raise your hand. Okay? I think there was ample representation across the spectrum there, which shows that we as conservatives can and should discuss these issues. Now, your question is about what the Supreme Court did. From my personal perspective, I remember I was in California when the judgment, when the ruling came down. And personally, I was very pleased by the outcome of the decision. I hope to find the right person and get married someday. And I read through the decision, and Justice Kennedy's concurring or his opinion for the court, when I read through it and got to his final nut, really the main core of his argument, I read it, and it was deeply moving. It almost read like poetry. And I almost wanted to get, like, embroidered on a pillow or something. It was so nice. And it struck me, though, as a really strong persuasive argument for why same-sex marriage should be legal. I was not entirely sure if it was sound legal reasoning. And so I find myself in an interesting position of agreeing with the decision or being personally gratified by the outcome, but having some concerns about how the court reached the decision. Ilya, that's what you wrote about, correct? And I know you're a lawyer. I will answer that question for you, guys. Thank you. Well, I would like to get your opinion, too. I know you said you agreed with the holding, but there was the way that it went about. You mentioned certain types of clauses. Would you want to expand on that? That's right. I wrote a piece called Justice Kennedy Was Right for the Wrong Reasons, and that's because, as Guy was saying, the opinion is not a legal opinion. I mean, it's poetic. It's interesting. There's sociology, some history, some whatever else. But as far as if you're a lawyer looking for the rule of decision in the case, as far as I can tell, you take a scoop of equal protection, a cup of due process, wrap it in some sort of equal dignity, and voila. That's not law. And I think Kennedy did a disservice to all of us, whichever side of the issue you're on, by writing it that way. Now, some people say that he did that purposely so that it really can't be used in the future for any particular thing. That is, it's a ruling based on marriage and marriage laws, but for other issues that we're going to be talking about, people on both sides will be citing it, but it really doesn't provide anything for future issues. So in my view, I mean, I filed a brief for the Cato Institute supporting the challenges for striking down the state laws, because to me it's a simple case of equal protection under the law, a licensing regime. I have no idea why states would want to be involved in marriage. This is one other area where they should not be involved. But if you're going to have this licensing regime, then just like with business licenses, there's no reason to delineate it the way that they've done. And that's it. There's no need to get into who decides what is marriage. I'll leave that philosophy and theology to Ryan. I'm a simple constitutional lawyer. And Ryan, I'm going to move to you. Do you think that legalizing same-sex marriage should have been left up to the voters in the election process, or what are your thoughts on that? Well, of course. There's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that speaks to the question of same-sex marriage. There's nothing in the Constitution that speaks to the question of is marriage a conjugal union of husband and wife, mother and father, male and female, or is it simply the union of two, but only two, consenting adults? Anthony Kennedy's opinion didn't answer that question one way or the other. It might be nice poetry and philosophy of marriage. I personally find it to be a very poor philosophical reflection on what marriage is. And I don't think the court had any authority whatsoever to impose a new definition of marriage on all 50 states. So I published a book shortly after the decision titled Truth Overruled, The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom. And the argument there is that they overruled the truth about marriage simply based on a five-to-four vote where five unelected judges have no greater insight into the truth about marriage. Ilya says it's about equal protection. We're all in favor of equality. We want the law to treat all marriages equally. What we disagree about is what sort of a relationship is a marriage. So the people should have voted to answer that question, not unelected judges. And then, Molly, I want to turn to you. I know you've done a lot of writing for The Federalist on the small business aspect of this. But you also have a personal aspect that I found interesting, is that you were for gay marriage and then you now oppose, correct? Could you tell us a little bit about your position? Ryan's book is very persuasive. That's actually true. My position was actually that I didn't think that the federal government had any business in defining marriage, and so I thought that they should stay out of the business of regulating it. I came to realize that in the real world, that is just not something that can be accomplished, and particularly because of the entire reason why marriage has been treated so specially by governments across all time and space and through all culture, which is that when men and women get together sexually, there is a natural byproduct. That's a horrible way to put it. But there is a natural end toward that union, which is children. And children are the ones that have just not been a part of this conversation at all. And how it affects children is something that is very important to me. But speaking to the goodness of this panel, though, one of the things that I like is when I had a different position than people who were opposed to redefining marriage, they didn't say that I was this awful person. They didn't call me names. They just tried to reason with me. And eventually that made a difference for me. And if you are open-minded and if you can have these conversations, we can come to agreement or disagreement. We do it civilly, and I think that's a very important thing and something that is remarkable and more people should accomplish. And by the way, one other point, this conversation that we are having right now literally couldn't happen at a left-wing conference because we would all be hounded off the stage and booed because half of us are holding the position that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton held about four seconds ago. So I think that this speaks well of our movement and poorly of their movement that they have done a heel turn on the issue and they are hounding heretics ruthlessly from their midst to the point that if you're a Democrat, if you're a liberal, and you might hold traditional views on marriage, you probably don't want to talk about it very much for fear of the wrath and judgment of your fellow so-called open-minded leftists. And something that did divide the left and the right and took the media headlines was following the Supreme Court's holding, we had Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis, and that obviously took the news cycle for roughly two weeks. We had presidential candidates getting involved. And this started the debate about the intersection between the court legalizing same-sex marriage and religious liberty. So I kind of want to turn that way to Ilya. First question to you on that aspect is, should government employees have to comply with the law or should they have an exemption for their religious beliefs? Well, see, both conservatives and liberals often miss the distinction between public state action and private action. Government has to treat everyone equally because government gets its powers under political theory 101 from each of us individually, giving it some of our sovereignty. And so it really can't— the agents of the government can't impose their own personal views. The Kim Davis situation, actually, I think she had some bad legal advice because her claim under Kentucky's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the RFRA, there could have been someone else in her office that did that or something like this. In fact, the new governor of Kentucky who came in simply changed by executive order—there didn't need to be new legislation— changed who signs or how the signature appears on the marriage certificates to obviate the problems. But the larger point is this. If it's one clerk in that one particular office, then no. There is no way that that clerk can avoid having to issue that license. For that matter, in some states, there are freedom of conscience protections of all sorts. So if you're a pacifist or an animal lover and you don't want to issue hunting licenses and things like this, as long as someone else is there and doesn't delay the receipt of that license to that citizen who's asking for it, that's perfectly fine. But again, that's on the public action side. Liberals are completely wrong on the private action side because as an individual, whether it be a business owner or in my personal capacity, there is no reason why the force of the state should be used to compel me to act in any particular way. And just really quickly on that point, too. I think it's important to remember not just the Obergefell decision, but also the four dissents. Each of the four dissents talked about the problems with the intersection with religious liberty. You had the—who's the main— Roberts is the main dissent. Roberts was pointing out that this is no way— of all the people that you have vote on this issue, this is the last room of people that should be voting on the issue, and that they didn't even mention anything other than one tiny little paragraph on the First Amendment. You had Thomas talking about just all the problems that were going to come down the pike for different people who expressed their religion in different ways, public, private, schools, individuals, this type of thing. Of course, Scalia talked about just how lawless the decision was. And even Alito said they're going to crush dissent. He was even more concerned about just what it does to our culture when you're not allowed to dissent from an opinion. What happens? How do we treat those who dissent in our midst? Do we crush them? Do we try and destroy them? This is, again, one of the problems with Kennedy's opinion, because if you extend the logic of Kennedy's, again, non-legal writing, then you can't achieve full dignity as a human without being married. Maybe that's true on some theological level, but those of you who are single out here, especially you young people, get going. You will not be fully actualized in Justice Kennedy's eyes unless you get married. And also, apparently, if a state were to get out of the marriage business, as would be my preference, then someone could sue them to get back in because marriage is some sort of fundamental... that piece of paper is a fundamental right. It makes no sense of the theory of natural rights or equality under law. Although I think that there would be a lot of people who would say, whether you agree with the court's decision and their reasoning or not, there is some intrinsic right to marry the person that you love and build a family. Now, whether that is reflected in the Constitution or something that people inherently feel, we can debate that. And I think the legal argument would be, if that is the case, and if many people do believe that, and one state has legalized it, why should gay people in another state have to wait for their citizens to catch up to this right? That's the argument they would put forward. I think it's a legitimate one and a thorny one, obviously, legally. It all hinges on what you think the right to marry entails. If you think the right to marry entails government recognition of whatever consenting adult romantic relationship you care most about in life, it ultimately becomes an incoherent right. Because that means there's a right to polygamous marriage, a right to polyamorous marriage, a right to group marriage, temporary marriage, open marriage, closed marriage, where the consenting adult simply gets to set the terms and the shape of it. If there is a right to marriage, then it needs to be a right to the truth about marriage. And that's not something that's spelled out in our Constitution. Therefore, we, the people, have to vote about this. We have to have these discussions. We then have to take a vote about it. We can't have it imposed upon us by five of our betters, five people in robes called Supreme Court justices. And I wanted to ask you, again, if you agreed with Ilya's analysis between the public and private sector aspect of obtaining a job. For example, if you're an individual who takes a job in the public sector for the government, does that automatically mean that you shouldn't then be exempt, in your opinion? Right, so I don't think that's what Ilya said. Ilya was saying that for public employees, it's going to involve the balancing test. So there's a variety of both federal and state law that says public employees have religious liberty protections. They have rights of conscience as well. And what it requires is that they can't put a burden on whatever state benefit it is that they're supposed to provide. But if someone else in the office can provide that benefit, they are, under law, supposed to be granted a, quote, reasonable accommodation. Well, if that state has a RFRA. No, no, so Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, federal law applies to all employers, including government employers. It exempted elected officials. That's why Kim Davis wasn't covered by Title VII. But every other government employee is covered by Title VII, which requires the employer to grant reasonable accommodations. So all Kim Davis was saying in her suit was that you accommodated county clerks who can't issue hunting licenses. If you have animal rights clerks in Kentucky, they accommodated them. The deputy clerk can do it. She asked for the same thing. When the new governor came into office, as Ilya mentioned, he accommodated her. He changed that marriage license. What we need to do now is work together to say the court has redefined marriage. What can we do to protect the rights of conscience for people, whether they're charities and schools or small businesses or government employees? And it's going to be a variety of measures. Ilya thinks the private sector should have absolute protection. I agree with him on that. We think that in the public sector, it needs to be a balancing test. And one of the reasons that I don't view Kim Davis as a hero at all is because there were accommodations presented to her which she declined. They said, oh, other people in your office can issue these licenses. And she said, no, I'm going to ban them from doing it as well. No, that's not quite right. She said, I will have them do it if they don't use my name, which is what the final outcome was. That eventually became the outcome. That is the outcome that the judge eventually ordered. So when Kim Davis was released from jail before the new governor took office, for several months, licenses were going out of her clerk's office without her name or her title. That was all she asked for. This could have been easily solved because she had been asking for this accommodation before the Supreme Court even ruled. She says, if the court rules against the state of Kentucky, can we craft a solution now? And the political authorities weren't going to work together. Yeah, the other thing that I think is really important about this is when people leading up to the Obergefell decision were thinking about the problems with religious liberty, you frequently have people say, well, no one's going to be forced to marry a same-sex couple. That was actually the least of the concerns about religious freedom. And even churches or big schools, they have the means to at least try to fight some of these battles. What we're seeing is more crushing of dissent at a very tiny local level. People who run flower shops, people who run bakeries, and they're being targeted not even just by the law but by a media environment that is just on a rampage. And that concerns me just because there are all sorts of ways that we can work together. And gratuitously. It's not like the gay couple that wants flowers or photography has no recourse if this particular vendor does not service them. The New Mexico photographer case, there are more than 100 photographers that do weddings in the Albuquerque area. Why does this particular one need to be forced to bend to the will of the state? There's not even, beyond even religious issues, there's a free speech First Amendment issue there that I've filed briefs on as well. And so let me praise Ilya and Guy on this. Because Ilya and I have debated the marriage issue at several law schools. We were at Yale Law School last spring. He and I disagree about marriage. The only time in this whole debate I've ever been given pause about my position was when the majority at Yale supported me. It was reaffirming to me that I was right. But what's interesting here is that Ilya is willing to engage in that debate. He doesn't think it's a debate between his side and bigots and idiots. And so as a result, Ilya is also willing to protect my freedom now to live in accordance with my beliefs. Same thing with Guy and Mary Catherine and their book, which you should buy. They have a segment in there where they say, we agree with actually one of Ryan's critics about marriage, but we vehemently disagree with how the critic was criticizing it. So they go after, it's a New York Times reporter, and they say, look, he is behaving in a terribly uncivil way, incivil way. We need more people like that. And so I want to praise Guy and Ilya here to say, we are in favor of gay marriage. We're not in favor of crushing people who continue to believe marriage is the union of husband and wife. And here's the thing. You guys have seen these bumper stickers, the coexist bumper stickers that they love on the left. It's like a little morality billboard on your fender to demonstrate what a wonderfully good person you are for fellow motorists. What does coexistence authentically look like in modern America? And this is what we talk about in End of Discussion. What coexistence really looks like in America today is disagreeing with someone on marriage and not trying to sue their business out of existence because they disagree. I think one of the most potent and powerful and effective and successful arguments that people who support same-sex marriage have advanced for many years is, look, this is our love. This is our marriage. It will not affect you in any way. And then once the political high ground was achieved, that argument of winning hearts and minds seems to have gone out the window in some quarters, certainly not all, to saying, aha, agree with us or else. Mandatory celebration or we're coming after you. And that is where I say, no thank you. I am not aboard this train anymore. I think it speaks to what it means to be in a tolerant society in general. I think people forget toleration assumes disagreement. You don't tolerate people you agree with. You agree with them. You tolerate people you disagree with. So it's okay to disagree. How we manage that disagreement is extremely important for who we are as people and how virtuous, what we're trying to aim for in terms of our virtues. You wrote something in the Wall Street Journal. I saw a piece about the effect on small business. And I think this was actually as things were heating up before the ruling might have came out. And I wanted to know, have you been hearing anything recently about people, we see things in the news, but how has that ruling from, I guess, six, seven months ago affected the outcome now in various states? What are you finding? Yeah, well, there are many cases that are coming down the pike. I mean, I think that piece, even though I wrote about it several years ago, was about Farinelle Stutzman, who is a florist in Washington State. She had a customer who she was really close to, a gay man who had come to her shop for flowers for weeks, every week for years, and they got along great. He asked her to do the flowers for his wedding or commitment ceremony. She declined out of her religious conviction, and now she's being sued, not just by the state. She's got ATLU coming after her. And, you know, this is not a bigoted woman. She has religious objections that should be respected. To the event she serves a gay clientele. She's had for like ten years, I think, or something like that. So clearly this is not an issue of, it's not how a lot of times the media are presenting these types of cases. That is still proceeding through courts. There are all sorts of cases that are proceeding through the courts, and we'll have to kind of see how they go. But the important thing to remember here is these are individuals. These are not powerful, you know, this isn't your pastor being told he has to perform a same-sex ceremony or a wedding service. These are people who don't have that kind of protection, even the type of protection that a church relationship provides. And I think people didn't realize that how we live out our faith and how we manage those decisions, that happens throughout every aspect of our life. And it's not about how each of us would handle a given situation. Even, you know, people have all sorts of different views. It's not about your own religious views. It's about respecting the religious views of others, which are going to differ. I want to ask you, you kind of chimed in there, Ilya, about you wrote something I saw about the aspect of the difference between participating or performing the religious or the ceremony, for example, the marriage ceremony, versus actually performing a service. Can you talk about that? And how does the court differentiate? Well, there are different ways that you can slice these sorts of protections. So at first I mentioned the free speech aspect. So if you're a vendor or any other kind of business that's involved in expression of some kind, be that photography or wedding singers or Baronelle Stutzman, the florist. Floristry is actually an art which has all this. I just filed a brief in the Washington Supreme Court about this. So it's fascinating how your creative expression is put through your floral displays and whatnot. So that's just the speech thing. Then there's performing services for someone or working an event versus just having an establishment that's open to everyone. So contractors versus kind of a general place of public accommodation. Then there's kind of the historic definition of a public accommodation. All these anti-discrimination laws, for example, if you read the words public accommodation in the way that they've been defined for centuries under the English common law, for example, that means like a hotel or a restaurant, an inn. So that served travelers. Otherwise, you wouldn't have any place to stay. Like in the civil rights era under the Jim Crow laws. The problems with those, why they were ultimately struck down and why Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is constitutional with respect to hotels and restaurants is because otherwise black travelers in the South would have there would be hundreds and hundreds of miles where they could not get service. So that's, again, very different from the situation where there's over 100 wedding vendors, photographers, whatnot. And then there's the purest position altogether, the most freedom of association that says you should be able to associate or not associate for any reason, good reason, bad reason, no reason at all, based on whatever you want to decide. That's kind of the purest libertarian, purest freedom of association position. I'm almost there. I would say that if there is a monopoly or something, like literally there's only one establishment for hundreds of miles around, maybe there's a difference. But then I have a hard time there having this sort of, in the real world, this sort of gay marriage situation happening there. I don't know. The Westboro Baptist Church enclave, I can't believe that you would force the gay bakers to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church revival. I want to pull Ryan in because I know you wrote a piece about North Carolina. I think that they did some legislation that you thought was smart. It was ahead of the ruling. Can you talk to us a little bit about that? So North Carolina passed a bill the month before the decision that explicitly protected clerks and magistrates. So they took care of the Kim Davis situation before it even arose. Michigan passed a bill the month before that took care of adoption agencies. They said if marriage is redefined, we won't force Catholic charity adoption agencies to shut down like Boston did. What's interesting here is that there's a hypocrisy going on, and this goes to what Molly was saying about the small businesses. When Indiana last year pushed its Religious Freedom Restoration Act, all of the big businesses started threatening to boycott the state. They wanted to be free to run their businesses in accordance with their values, and because Indiana was now passing a law that would allow small businesses to run their businesses in accordance with their values, they were threatening to boycott the state. This is a form of cronyism. You can think of crony capitalism. There's also a cultural cronyism. Right now, Georgia is trying to pass a law that would protect the baker, the florist, the photographer, and every major hotel chain. It's Marriott, it's Hilton, it's Intercontinental have said, we're against this law. It'll be bad for tourism. It'll be bad for our business. So if all of the major hotel chains are in favor of same-sex marriage, they have no problem renting out the honeymoon suite to a same-sex couple, why are they protesting a law that would protect the bed-and-breakfast owners or the Knights of Columbus wedding hall? The hypocrisy here is simply astounding, and the left almost never gets called out on it. There was one example that, to me, bothered me more than others. This was from upstate New York, where a couple lives on a farm, they own this farm, and they occasionally rented out for events. And there was a same-sex couple that wanted to get married there, and they said, you know, we're Christians, we're just not comfortable hosting a gay wedding at our home. They were sued, and a human rights commission in New York found for the plaintiffs and fined this couple $13,000 for declining to do this, $1,500 each for each member of the couple for mental anguish, and then $10,000 for deterrence, which is basically the court saying, we let this be a lesson to everyone, if you don't want to host a same-sex wedding at your place of residence, you could be slapped with a $10,000 fine. To me, that was chilling, and again, not, I think, there's a distinction between supporting same-sex marriage and having that debate, and then imposing it in this very, very aggressive way on everyone. The imposition, don't impose your beliefs on me, except when we're going to do it. That's how the left often thinks. And I want to turn to Molly, I know you wanted to follow up, so go ahead. We have about three minutes left, so I wanted to go down the line and kind of get everyone to respond to this one question and see what you think. So, maybe like a 15, 30 seconds. Is the conservative stance on this issue changing, in your opinion? Okay, well, I think what's interesting is how many people think that Obergefell settled everything. I remember reading the New York Times, they said, once this decision comes down, we'll have it settled for once and for all. And it reminded me of how the New York Times wrote the day after Roe v. Wade came down, they said, well, finally, the abortion issue is settled for once and for all. And we know that nobody has ever disagreed on abortion since 1973. In fact, what happened is people started thinking a little more deeply about the issue of abortion, of state laws, of federal laws, which is why it's so tragic when you can't actually have those discussions without a really bad decision. So what I think is happening is people are starting to think deeply, starting to wake up to the reality of how you make a decision is very important. I mean, all of these things that we talked about with public accommodation, those had the best of intentions that are now being used to crush people. It might not even be that you care that much about the marriage issue, but a state that's powerful enough to tell this woman who she has to have in her home is powerful enough to tell you who you have to have in your home, or will crush your opinion in future years. So I think that we have just begun a very long discussion. And Guy, what are your thoughts? Well, the new central front in the cultural war is on the religious liberty issue. When it comes to the marriage issue itself, I think that there is a shift among conservatives, and it's generational. When we had our raising of hands earlier, my sense was there were a lot more younger people in the conservative movement who were in favor of gay marriage. I'm one of them, and I think that's terrific, and I think we should continue to try to persuade each other. And so there is a shift. What I would say is, from a conservative perspective, I am alarmed by the deterioration of marriage among young people. And I don't think they say, like, oh gosh, gay people are not ruining marriage. Straight people have ruined marriage in a lot of ways, through rampant infidelity and no-fault divorce. It's not the gays that are ruining it. And I think spending so much time fixating on whether or not 3 to 5 percent of the population should be excluded from this is a mistake. I think we should be encouraging the family unit and monogamy and commitment as conservatives. One of the reasons that I support same-sex marriage, and I think there's a lot of people who would agree with me. And you, Ryan? Yeah, so I agree with Guy. The problem here is that the redefinition of marriage makes it harder to actually defend marriage in the public square. It makes it harder for people in the future to live out the truth about marriage. If I thought redefining marriage was going to strengthen marriage, I'd be in favor of redefining it. I think it's going to damage the institution of marriage further. Heterosexuals made a mess of marriage. Legally redefining marriage will further exacerbate that mess. That's the main thesis of my new book, Truth Overruled. The second part, though, where we agree, is that we have to protect religious liberty and the rights of conscience. Even while we disagree about marriage, or we're going to continue disagreeing about marriage, we have to respect the place, the space, to have that disagreement. And, Ilya, I'll let you close out. Marriage is different from abortion because there is no third party being harmed in a same-sex marriage. And so, this issue is going to play out politically different than the abortion debate. I think, really, as you see that demographically, the views on this have shifted more radically than on any issue ever. That will continue to be the case. The real battleground is not going to be about marriage. That pretty much is done, and you can be personally against it. That's fine, but it's what the government has to do. But the real battleground is these other religious liberty and freedom of conscience issues more generally. And the Constitution is silent about a whole lot of things. I have the Cato Constitution, which has all the rights and the structural provisions that we like to enforce. This is a special Shapiro wedding Cato Constitution. But, anyhow, the Constitution is supposed to protect a whole host of unenumerated rights, business licenses, marriage licenses, the whole gamut. But that is where the real battleground is going to be, as the illiberal left tries to impose their views on all of us. Well, I just want to say thank you to everyone for listening to our discussion, and thank you to the panelists and CPAC for hosting this educational forum. Thank you. Good job. Thanks.