Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 10:12:14 -1000 From: lambda@aloha.net (Martin Rice) Subject: BM 028: Baehr v. Miike Appeal, AmCuBr 15: Gay and Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, et al. Aloha kakahiaka kakou. I had no idea that all of these wonderful and supportive organizations had banded together in our defense! No. 20371 IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF HAWAII NINIA BAEHR, GENORA DANCEL, TAMMY ) CIVIL NO. 91-1394-05 RODRIGUES, ANTOINETTE PREGIL, PAT ) (Injunctions) LAGON, JOSEPH MELILLO, ) ) APPEAL FROM THE Plaintiffs- ) FINDINGS OF FACT AND Appellees, ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ) vs. ) FIRST CIRCUIT COURT ) LAWRENCE H. MIIKE, in his official ) capacity as Director of the ) THE HONORABLE KEVIN S. Department of Health, State of ) CHANG Hawaii, ) ) Defendant-Appellant ) _____________________________________) BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE DAVIS LEVIN LIVINGSTON GRANDE MARY L. BONAUTO, ESQ. MICHAIL K. LIVINGSTON 4161-0 AMELIA A. CRAIG 10 Mann Street 294 Washington Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96817 Suite 740 Telephone No. (808) 524-7500 Boston, MA 02108-4608 (617) 426-1350 Attorneys for Gay and Lesbian Advocates & Defenders National Organization for Women, Inc. National Organization for Women Foundation, Inc. NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund National Center for Lesbian Rights Northwest Women's Law Center People For The American Way Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES TABLE OF CONTENTS TAbLE OF CONTENTS..............................................1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...........................................1 ISSUE PRESENTED................................................1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT............................................1 ARGUMENT.......................................................1 I. SPECULATIVE CONCERN ABOUT POTENTIAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HAWAII'S MARRIAGES OF SAME-SEX COUPLES BY JURISDICTIONS WITH DIFFERENT LAWS IS NOT A COMPELLING INTEREST THAT JUSTIFIES SEX DISCRIMINATION.............................1 A. Hawaii Should Not Become an Accomplice to Possible Discrimination by Other Jurisdictions or Allow the Possibility of Discrimination to Undermine Its Own Constitutional Protections...........................1 B. Choice of Law Principles and Federal Constitutional Mandates Generally Favor Recognition of Marriages Licensed and Certified in Hawaii.....................5 CONCLUSION....................................................10 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES A. CASES AMFAC, Inc. v. Waikiki Beachcomber Investment Co., 74 Haw. 85 (1992)..............................................2 Baehr v. Lewin, 784 Haw. 530 (1993).........................2, 3 Comm. ex rel. Alexander v. Alexander, 289 A.2d 83 (Pa. 1971).......................................10 Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941).....................9 Fersterwald v. Burk, 98 A. 358 (Md.), dism. 248 U.S. 592 (1916).........................................................8 Gallegos v. Wilkerson, 445 P.2d 970 (N.M. 1968)...............8 Hilliard v. Hilliard, 209 N.Y.S.2d 132 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1960)....9 In re May's Estate, 114 N.E.2d 4 (N.Y. 1953)...................8 Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).......................4, 6 Mangrum v. Mangrum, 220 S.W.2d 406 (Ky.Ct.App. 1949)...........9 i McDonald v. McDonald, 58 P.2d 163 (Cal. 1936)..................9 Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429 (1984).........................5 Parish v. Minvielle, 217 So.2d 684 (Ct.App.La. 1969)..........10 Perez v. Sharo, 32 Cal.2d 711, 198 P.2d 17 (1948)........3, 4, 8 Reifschneider v. Reifschneider, 89 N.E. 255 (I11. 1909)........9 Romer v. Evans, 116 S.Ct. 1620 (1996).......................5, 9 Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 (1975).............................9 Stilley v. Stilley, 244 S.W.2d 958 (Ark. 1952).................8 Thomas v. Sullivan, 922 F.2d 132 (2d Cir. 1990)...............10 Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287 (1942)................6 Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978).......................9 B. STATUTES AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS Defense of Marriage Act, P.L. 1-4-199 (1996)...................2 H.R.S. sec. 572-1..............................................1 Unified Marriage and Divorce Act, 9A U.L.A. 176 (1987).........7 U.S. Constitution, art. IV, sec. 1.............................9 28 U.S.C. sec. 1738C (1996)....................................3 C. TREATISES AND LAW REVIEWS Barbara J. Cox, Same-Sex Marriage and Choice-of-Law: If We Marry in Hawaii, Are We Still Married When We Return Home?, 1994 Wis. L.Rev. 1033..............................................6, 7, 8 Deborah M. Henson, Will Same-Sex Marriages Be Recognized in Sister States?: Full Faith and Credit and Due Process Limitations on States' Choice of Law Regarding the Status and Incidents of Homosexual Marriages Following Hawaii's Baehr v. Lewin, 32 U. Louisville J. Fam. L. 551 (1993-1994).......................8, 9 Joseph W. Hovermill, A Conflict of Laws and Morals: The Choice of Law Implications of Hawaii's Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages, 53 Md. L. Rev. 450 (1994)......................................8 Note, Conflict of Laws Rules and the Interstate Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages, 1995 U. Ill. L. Rev. 911...................9 Note, In Sickness and In Health, in Hawaii and Where Else? ii Conflict of Laws and Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages, 109 Harv. L. Rev. 2038 (1996)...........................................7 Willis Reese, Marriage in American Conflict of Laws, 26 Intl & Comp. L.Q. 952 (1977)..........................................7 Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws (1971)................6, 8 Glenda Riley, Divorce: An American Tradition (1991)............6 William M. Richman & William L. Reynolds, Understanding Conflict of Laws (2d ed. 1993)..........................................6 Eugene Scoles & Peter Hay, Conflict of Laws (2d ed. 1992)...6, 7 Robert J. Sickels, Race, Marriage and the Law (1972)...........6 Russell J. Weintraub, Commentary on the Conflict of Laws, (3d ed. 1986).......................................................7, 8 iii ISSUE PRESENTED Whether speculation about possible discrimination by other jurisdictions against marriages of same-sex couples licensed and certified in Hawaii is a compelling state interest that justifies sex discrimination in Hawaii's issuance of marriage licenses pursuant to H.R.S. sec. 572-1 (1995). SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Concern about potential discrimination by other jurisdictions against some Hawaiian marriages is not a compelling state interest that justifies ongoing sex discrimination by the State. ARGUMENT I. SPECULATIVE CONCERN ABOUT POTENTIAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HAWAII'S MARRIAGES OF SAME-SEX COUPLES BY JURISDICTIONS WITH DIFFERENT LAWS IS NOT A COMPELLING INTEREST THAT JUSTIFIES SEX DISCRIMINATION. A. Hawaii Should Not Become an Accomplice to Possible Discrimination by Other Jurisdictions or Allow the Possibility of Discrimination to Undermine Its Own Constitutional Protections. In this Court, Defendant State of Hawaii ("State") argues that the marriage statute, H.R.S. sec. 572-1, furthers the compelling interest of "ensuring that its marriages are fully recognized throughout the United States." Defendant-Appellant's Opening Brief at 33-34. But discrimination by the State in marriage in contravention of the State's own Constitution cannot be justified by the possibility that other states may discriminate against lawful marriages of same-sex couples 1 licensed and certified in Hawaii.[fn1] Otherwise, Hawaii could not guarantee rights ensured by its own Constitution unless other states consented to its doing so. Accepting this proposition would eviscerate this State's sovereignty and the independent significance of the Hawaii Constitution. The Hawaii Supreme Court has determined repeatedly that the State Constitution may and often does accord greater protections than are recognized under the United States Constitution. See Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530, 577 & n.32 (1993) (citing cases). The State now seeks to reverse this "long-standing principle," id., and allow another forum's objection to a right guaranteed by the Hawaii Constitution both to nullify that right and to reduce Hawaii's constitutional guarantees to the lowest common denominator of acceptability among states. This Court should not permit the chimera of discriminatory practices by some other states to eviscerate Hawaii's constitutional protections of its own citizens. And in the same vein, this Court should not let the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") (regardless of its [fn1] To date, the State has not offered any evidence or articulation of any real problems with marriage recognition posed by ending sex discrimination within marriage. Judge Chang concluded what was obvious, that is, the State's concerns were entirely speculative: [E]xcept for asking the court to take judicial notice of the Defense of Marriage Act, P.L. 1-4-199 ("DOMA"), Defendant introduced little or no evidence with regard to this significant issue of comity and same-sex marriage, conflict of laws, and/or the effects, if any, of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Conclusion of Law No. 20. Judge Chang's determination that the State offered no evidence to support its asserted concerns cannot be overturned by even more surmise in this Court. AMFAC, Inc. v. Waikiki Beachcomber Investment Co., 74 Haw. 85, 119 (1992). 2 constitutionality) interfere with this Court's elucidation of the State Constitution particularly since DOMA anticipates "a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe . . . ." 28 U.S.C. sec. 1738C. In a nearly identical context, Hawaii refused to allow potential discrimination by other states prevent it from recognizing interracial marriages. As this Court pointed out in Baehr v. Lewin, thirty states still prohibited interracial marriage in 1948 when California became the first state to invalidate its anti-miscegenation statute on equal protection grounds. 784 Haw. at 567 n.24. See Perez v. Sharo, 32 Cal.2d 7lQ, 198 P.2d 17 (1948). Such overwhelming discrimination by other states persuaded neither the Territory of Hawaii (from 1900 forward) nor the State of Hawaii (from 1959 forward) to prohibit interracial marriage. Nor did such discrimination or the possibility of scrutiny of interracial marriages licensed and certified in Hawaii constitute a compelling state interest justifying banning interracial marriages in Hawaii. This Court should interpret the Hawaii Constitution to provide rights consonant with the Constitution's conception of justice, whether that conception is yet shared by others or not.[fn2] [fn2] Eleven states are supporting the State's position that the Hawaii Constitution may not accord rights to its citizens that may be objectionable to some other states. See Brief of Amici Curiae States of Nebraska, Alabama, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina and South Dakota in Support of Defendant-Appellant. A significant irony is that with the exception of Michigan, a mere fifty years ago each of these states could have made these same arguments about interracial marriage. By the time of the U.S. [continued next page] 3 While Hawaii may be the first state to prohibit sex discrim- ination in marriage1 some state has to be first, and it is unlikely Hawaii will be alone for long.[fn3] When California became the first state to invalidate an anti-miscegenation law, it heroically refused to bow to the pervasiveness of discrimination as a reason for continuing to discriminate. As the Perez dissent urged (in arguments resonant of those put forth by the State and some amici): Twenty nine states in addition to California have similar laws. . . . Six of these states have regarded the matter to be of such importance that they have by constitutional enactments prohibited their legislatures from passing any law legalizing marriage between white persons and Negroes or mulattoes. Several states refuse to recognize such marriages even if performed where valid . . . . particularly if an attempt has been made by residents of a state to evade the law. Perez, 32 Cal.2d at 747, 198 P.2d at 38 (Shenk, J., dissenting) (internal citations omitted). Just as the California Supreme Court rejected the arguments of Justice Shenk[fn4], this State need [continued from previous page] Supreme Court's decision in Loving V. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 6 n.5 (1967), amici curiae states of Alabama, Georgia, Missouri, Mississippi, and South Carolina still outlawed interracial marriage. [fn3] Although the State and Amici States suggest widespread disapproval of equality in marriage, the statutes they cite differ enormously. Some restrict marriage to a man and a woman while others purport to make void any same-sex couple's marriage. In fact, the vast majority of states have either rejected recent attempts at sex discrimination in marriage (e.g. Alabama, California) or have not taken up the issue at all (e.g. Massachusetts). And of course, the constitutionality of such anti-marriage laws remains to be seen. [fn4] By the time of the Loving decision establishing the fundamental right to marry, an additional fourteen states had followed the lead of the California Supreme Court and repealed their interracial marriage prohibitions. Loving, 388 U.S. at 6 n.5. 4 not be an accomplice to the prejudice of others by giving it effect and by denying its own residents rights guaranteed them under their Constitution. Romer v. Evans, 116 SeCt. 1620, 1623, 162Q-29 (1996) (anti-gay prejudice not a legitimate states inteQ rest for equal protection purposes). Cf. Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 433 (1984) ("Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect."). B. Choice of Law Principles and Federal Constitutional Mandates Generally Favor Recognition of Marriages Licensed and Certified in Hawaii. To the extent the State and Amici Curiae States urge this Court to jettison state constitutional protections against sex discrimination in order to secure interstate recognition of Hawaii's marriages, this Court should reject the invitation. It is not necessary to the disposition of this case to determine detinitively whether or not some states or the federal government will recognize marriages of same-sex couples from Hawaii or elsewhere. There are a number of legal principles that bear on the recognition of a marriage performed in another state. The existence of these principles demonstrate that the State's claim that such marriages will not be recognized outside Hawaii is purely speculative and provides no compelling reason to justify the State's discrimination. Choice of law principles and constitutional mandates as well as our country's increasing intolerance of sex and anti-gay discrimination generally favor interstate marriage recognition. The fact that some entities may initially "scrutinize" marriages 5 of same-sex couples licensed in Hawaii[fn5] is no bar to recognition at a later point. This same phenomenon initially occurred concerning recognition of out-of-state divorces[fn6] and interracial marriages,[fn6] both of which are now recognized by all states. Recently enacted statutes purporting to refuse recognition of out-of-state marriages between same-sex couples do not foreclose recognition of marriages validly performed in Hawaii or elsewhere. Application of choice of law rules could easily point to the state of celebration, particularly when the forum has had little contact with the couple, as when a long-married Hawaii couple relocates to another state.[fn8] Moreover, our judicial system overwhelmingly prefers validation of marriages, to the point where this rule has become entrenched in the substantive law of all of the states.[fn9] The reasons for the presumption apply [fn5] The State does not allege, nor could it show, that discrimination by other states would have any bearing on opposite-sex marriages performed in Hawaii. [fn6] Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287 (1942); see Generally Glenda Riley. Divorce: An American Tradition (1991) (history of divorce in the United States). [fn7] Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); see generally Robert J. Sickels, Race1 Marriage and the Law (1972). [fn8] E.g., Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws (1971) which provides "the validity of marriage will be determined by the local law of the state which, with respect to the particular issue, has the most significant relationship to the spouses and the marriage . . ." Id., sec. 283 (1). See generally Barbara J. Cox, Same-Sex Marriage and Choice-of-Law: If We Marrv in Hawaii, Are We Still Married When We Return Home?, 1994 Wis. L. Rev. lOo3, 1062-1065 ("Cox, Same-Sex Marriage"). [fn9] See e.g. William Me Richman & William L. Reynolds, Understanding Conflict of Laws, sec. 116 at 362-63 (2d ed. 1993) ("The overwhelming tendency in American conflicts cases is to validate the marriage."); Eugene F. Scoles & Peter Hay, Conflict of Laws ch. 13 at sec. 13.2 (West 2d ed. 1992)("Scoles & [continued next page] 6 as powerfully to same-sex couples as opposite-sex ones: promoting stability and predictability (particularly important concerning children and property); respecting the expectations of the parties; and encouraging comity and contractual freedom.[fn10] A number of states have even codified the presumption into a statutory directive on choice of 1aw[fn11], while others over- whelmingly validate out-of-state marriages regardless of the choice of law theory they utilize.[fn12] Putting aside constitutional constraints, there are two exceptions to the validation rule: evasion statutes and public policy. Evasion statutes (not applicable to Hawaii domicil- iaries) deny recognition of marriages if the partners went elsewhere solely to evade the restrictions imposed by their domicile.[fn13] While some states apply these laws strictly, many construe them narrowly and uphold most marriages even when [continued from previous page] Hay, Conflict of Laws"); Willis Reese, Marriage in American Conflict of Laws, 26 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 952, 954 (1977) ("Reese, Marriage"); Cox, Same-Sex Marriages at 1064-1065. [fn10] Reese, Marriage at 954; quote, In Sickness and In Health. in Hawaii and Where Else? Conflict of Laws and Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages, 109 Harv. L.Rev. 2038 (1996) (Note, "In Sickness"); Cox, Same-Sex Marriages at 1065. [fn11] E.g., the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, adopted by many states, provides that marriages celebrated outside of a state are valid if valid where performed even if the parties would not have been permitted to marry in their domicile. Unif. Marriage and Divorce Act, sec. 210, 9 U.L.A. 176 (1987). See Cox, Same-Sex Marriage at 1066-1069. [fn12] See generally Cox, Same-Sex Marriage addressing marriage recognition under major choice of law theories. [fn13] See Scoles & Hay, Conflict of Laws, sec. 13.2 at 432, sec. 13, 14 at 452; Russell J. Weintraub, Commentary on the Conflict of Laws, sec. 5.lC at 234 (3d ed. 1986)("Weintraub, Commentary"). 7 challenged pursuant to such a statute.[fn14] The forum's own strong public policy is the other often- mentioned basis for exceptions from the validation rule.[fn15] Public policy, however, is not violated every time the forum's law differs from that of the place of celebration, or the exception would swallow the general rule of recognition. In application, "public policy" has seldom been used to invalidate marriages, except in the now-discarded example of interracial marriages.[fn16] Courts have commonly recognized marriages that violated the forum's own statutes, including cases where the marriage was common 1aw[fn17], incestuous[fn18], under-age[fn19], or polygamous [fn14] Generally, the states require the marriage to be proscribed positively in order to trigger the evasion statute. Even then, marriages are often validated because of other interests in validating marriages generally. See Joseph W. Hovermill, A Conflict of Laws and Morals: The Choice of Law Implications of Hawaii's Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages, 53 Md. L.Rev. 450, 462-463 (1994) ("Hovermill, A Conflict"); Cox, Same-Sex Marriage at 1074-1082. [fn15] Weintraub, Commentary, sec. 5.IA at 230-31; Restatement (Second) of Conflicts, sec. 283, comment k; Cox, Same-Sex Marriage at 1098; Deborah M. Henson, Will Same-Sex Marriages Be Recognized in Sister States?: Full Faith and Credit and Due Process Limitations on States' Choice of Law Regarding the Status and Incidents of Homosexual Marriages Following Hawaii's Baehr v. Lewin, 32 U. Louisville J. Fam. L 551, 562-76 (1993- 1994)("'Henson, Will Be Recognized"); Hovermill, A Conflict at 455-66. [fn16] Cox, Same-Sex Marriage at 1111 ("Most of the Southern states refused to recognize these marriages although other states did recognize them."). See Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711, 198 P.2d 17, 28 (acknowledging that California recognizes miscegenous marriages valid where contracted). [fn17] E.g., Stilley v. Stilley, 244 S.W.2d 958 (Ark. 1952); Gailegos v. Wilkerson, 445 P.2d 970 (N.M. 1968). [fn18] E.g., In re May's Estate, 114 N.E.2d 4 (N.Y. 1953) (validating uncle-niece marriage); Fensterwald v. Burk, 98 A. 358 (Md.), dism. 248 U.S. 592 (1916). Contrary cases are in [continued on next page] 8 (second marriage before divorce finalized).[fn20] So strong is the presumption favoring marriages that it is rare for a court to refuse to recognize a marriage even on public policy grounds. In addition, although this Court need not resolve the question, there are powerful federal constitutional provisions that bear on the question of marriage recognition. Chief among these are the unifying federalist provisions of the Constitution such as the Full Faith and Credit Clause, U.S. Const., art. IV, sec. 1, as well as the substantive provisions of the right to travel, equal protection, and the right to marry.[fn21] It is safe to predict that recognition issues will be sorted out like other issues where states have different laws: by reference to choice of law principles with appropriate interstate connections provided by the Full Faith and Credit Clause. In addition, courts may conclude that marriage is entitled [continued from previous page] the minority. Note, Conflict of Laws Rules and the Interstate Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages, 1995 U. Ill. L.Rev. 911, 919. [fn19] E.q., Reifschneider v. Reifschneider, 89 N.E. 255 (Ill. 1909); McDonald v. McDonald, 58 P.2d 163 (Cal. 1936); Mangrum v. Mangrum, 220 S.W.2d 406 (Ky. Ct. App. 1949); Hilliard v. Hilliard, 209 N.Y.S.2d 132 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1960). [fn20] Henson, Will Be Recognized at 562-565 (discussing cases). [fn21] The right to travel suggests married couples should be able to move freely without their marital status depending on which state they are visiting. E.g. Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, 176 (1941) (recognizing right through Commerce Clause); Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 (1975) (state cannot foreclose rights to travelers). Refusing to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on public policy grounds where other marriages apparently violative of local law are not invalidated raises equal protection concerns. Romer v. Evans, 116 S.Ct. 1620 (1996). It may be only a matter of time before the Supreme Court recognizes that the fundamental right to marry also extends to same-gender couples. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978) (freedom to marry is fundamental liberty protected by Due Process Clause). 9 to full faith and credit recognition.[fn22] The Clause provides: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings of every other State." Marriage qualifies under each prong of the clause: a public "act" because it is performed by a public official or agent and occurs pursuant to a statutory scheme; a "record" because marriage certificates are public records; and a "judicial proceeding", particularly in states where marriages are performed by judicial officials or agents, and because marriages are a great deal like other legal judgments. These constitutional and legal issues are not before the Court today; they put to rest the State's claim that possible discrimination against some marriages constitutes a compelling reason for Hawaii to discriminate. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, this Court should affirm the ruling that concerns about out-of-state scrutiny of Hawaii marriages are not a compelling state interest that justifies sex discrimination in the State's marriage laws. Dated May 19, 1997. /s/ Michael Livingston, Esq. /s/ Mary L. Bonauto, Esq. Davis, Levin, Livingston Amelia A. Craig, Esq. & Grande Gay & Lesbian Advocates & 10 Marin Street Defenders Honolulu, HI 96917 294 Washington Street, Suite 740 (808) 524-7500 Boston, MA 02109-4609 (617) 426-1350 [fn22] Some have so concluded. E.g., Parish v. Minvielle, 217 So.24 694, 698 (Ct.App.La. 1969); Commonwealth ex rel. Alexander v. Alexander, 299 A.2d 93, 86 (pa. 1971) (Jones, J., concurring); Thomas v. Sullivan, 922 F.2d 132, 134 (2d Cir. 1990). 10 ~~pau~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "If it's don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue, then why did they paint Tripler Army Medical Center that shade of pink?" --buddy Ken Jopling (upon seeing it for the first time) ~~~~~ Fred and Martin 24 years, yet strangers before the law (still) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~