strong dissent, and i wanted to mention that he did make this point that don't be fooled by what anyone tells you this is going to be about marriage, same-sex marriage, and to that extent justice scalia's prediction turned out to be largely correct in the years since then. >> guest: it's quite possible he was. certainly we will see what the court does with the marriage case if one comes before, which it has discretion to decide about. but he did say the court has taken out the constitutional substructure, the basic underlying principle that allowed the states to distinguish between heterosexual marriages and marriages for gay couples. so he said, you know, if we can't legislate on the basis of morality, that is the view of

homosexuality is wrong and heterosexual marriage is right, if we can't legislate on that basis then how can we distinguish among gay and straight couples? we can't do it because one set of couples can procreate because we cannot allow older in sterile couples to get married. he said there is no rational reason left to prefer one, and i would guess that when the case comes up as it is now moving up through the lower court, the gay rights litigants are going to be siding justice scalia's descent as correctly reading this decision as having undermined the exclusion of gay couples for marriage. ..

you did a lot of reporting on this and talk to john lawrence and both men have passed away in the last couple of years after that case was decided. tell us a little about that, lawrence and garner. >> guest: , while they were both people with a humble background, not much education. tom garner was one of the 10 of 10 children in a black baptist

family. he never had a permanent home, never had a permanent job, car, shifted from house to house. john lawrence did have a steady job as a medical technologist, but neither he nor tehran were ever involved in any kind of civil rights movement for civil rights causes until the case came along. tyrone garner died in 2006 the year after i interviewed him in john lawrence died last november in 2011 about six months after my second interview with him, in which he told me the full story of what happened from his days. >> host: so he wanted to set the record straight about what actually happened in the apartment? he never got to tell the story at the time the case is coming on? >> guest: i take it he also was proud of the case and what had accomplished.

>> guest: yes, both men were proud of the case. they thought they had done some good for other people. would be part of the room room i could see them thought it was important that the state never be able to come in and arrest two people, either for actually having sex with each other or just claiming that they had sex in making that enough of the basis for the rest be at those important for both of the men. posted thank you, dale carpenter. he did a very fine job. >> guest: thank you. nice talking to you.

>> up next, john shaw recounts the political career of richard lugar of indiana. mr. shaw focuses on senator lugar's foreign policy were an the chairmanship of the senate foreign relations committee deliberations on arms control. this is about 40 minutes. >> greetings and welcome to indianapolis. my name is brian howie and i publish how he politics can indiana. in this capacity i had the honor privilege of not only traveling with senator richard g lugar to europe, all the way to siberia, to a dataset, albania, but also

had the opportunity to travel with the author who will be speaking tonight. that is john t. shaw who has covered congress since 1991 for "market news international" and has written his first book he trained senator lugar. i have to tell you a story that isn't in the book here. john and i followed the senator for them moscow out to siberia to a chemical weapons destruction facility. we ended up in the renowned town and patron bert, russia and then i senator lugar and sam nunn where the nunn-lugar act has come, senator lugar and i came up with officials who are your

thoughts on what the senators were going to see. then we boarded a plane and headed to odessa. on the flight to odessa we had a briefing that senator lugar and sam nunn participate in. we landed in a test and were met at the airport with a motorcade. silly course through a dataset with sirens blaring and ended up at the london sky hotel. after a brief time they are, we traveled through an area of a very pretty part of the city, through the sherman area, down to the black sea, where the senator was shown monitoring a quick and that was placed on ships that would pull alongside the ships coming into the harbor, monitoring, looking for highly enriched uranium. and i'm not a come on we went back to the london sky hotel,

had dinner with the senator in which we talked about everything from what he had seen in my earlier in the day to the united methodist conference at the united methodist church in indiana. it was a wide-ranging discussion. and that night, john and i ended up in the london sky bar. and this wasn't quite something out of "star wars." but i think the motorcade in all the sirens that brought us into town peak the interest of the intelligence community that was centered in odessa. ukraine is only one of seven or eight nation that borders the black sea. and as we sat in the bar, every time i looked up at the smoky figure in the other side of the bar he seemed to be looking at me. and then there was a group of people at a table and he started

asking these questions. where you guys from? who are you with and where you going? he said were going to go to london. the guy said there's no flights from here to london. remember john sandwell, we're going to go to albania first. and then it became apparent that maybe these folks were looking for information and maybe we shouldn't be dispensing so much. but that was one of the finer moments that i shared with john shaw as he researched this book. i'm going to turn the show to him now so he can explain the book he has written. this one on senator lugar. so john. >> brian, thank you are the kind introduction of nature down memory lane. the one part of the story brain did mention his plan were going to albania next, brandt kicked me ferociously under the table and then realized it probably wasn't the smartest thing to be saying to some strangers.

so thank you so much, brandt for hosting -- cohosting this event tonight and i'd like to thank kathleen angelo who is cohosting and i very much appreciate that. i'd like to think marsh davis and his team at indiana landmarks for linus to use this incredible facility. it's really beautiful. i would like to thank rebecca toland and then the clerk and colleagues from indiana university press who have been wonderful to work with ms project. it's been a pleasure to work with them. what i'm here to talk about tonight which brain mentioned called richard lugar, statesman of the senate. when i talk to people now the first thing to ask me is how did you timed it so well? the book is coming out before one of the most eagerly anticipated primaries in indiana and many, many decades. i could pretend this is great

timing, but almost a total accident. i've been working on this for a number of years and i work full time covering congress for market news international. between working a full-time job in covering the senator with a full career, this has taken a long time to rate and it's coming out now at an interesting time of course. i got an idea of how church the atmosphere is. but i was waiting on me we started talking about indiana politics. i mention i'd written this on senator lugar. the first thing he said is it pro-lugar or anti-lugar? by response was i hope it is fair to lugar because that is what i try to do is present a book about an important senator and describing how he goes about his work. i began this book in 2006. i just finished another which brain reference, a book called the ambassador has been a couple

years following the work called ambassador to the united states, jan of ism. john was the rockstar of the diplomatic corps of washington. he was this incredible diplomat who found a way to get tiny little sweets on the map in washington. as i was finishing the book i wanted to find someone else who could give me a little insight into how washington diplomacy, how washington foreign-policy work. so i type of course senator lugar. i grew up in illinois at it midwesterner followed his career and cover in washington since 1991 as well. not a formal biography, but just a case study about how a senator can shape foreign policy. i interviewed him extensively and get an extent of how we approach the job to travel within both in indiana and

overseas and interview some of his colleagues to get a sense of what they thought. and as far as an vice president by, senator mcconnell, governor daniels, former senator bayh, former congressman lee hamilton. to ask about the senator. one thing that is really striking as i talk to them and said tell me about dick lugar, almost everyone used the word statesman. and that was interesting because the frequency by which people use that term, but also given how rarely it is used now in american politics. in the interview so it are up and get a sense of what they actually meant by the term. a lot of them didn't have real precise definitions, but as i thought about their comments and thought i may own, a sort of developed kind of a working definition of what a statesman is. it has four or five elements i want to briefly present in this maybe provides bit of a context

to talk about the senator's career. first one is the sense of looking in the national interest, the long-term national interest that goes beyond the next election. i think it also requires a willingness to take some political risk. as we all know, not a lot people are eager to do that. a third element is a willingness to work with the other party. perhaps that is even rarer now an american politics. another element is a willingness to break from your own party, to disagree with your own party when you feel they are in the wrong side of an issue. yet another element is a willingness to work on issues that do not have a short-term political payoff, to work on programs and policies, to do good work when no one is really watching an effect. again, that is sort of a rare thing in american politics. a final thing as an ability to actually delivering get them done. you can have obvious intentions

in the words come the beginning and you need to be up to deliver and produce and that is also a critical element of statesmanship. and this book i don't argue that lugar is the perfect statesman. there are parts of the book that are parsed the dave, parts that are negative. i'm sure there are things in the book he disagrees with strongly. what i want to do in terms of structuring the book with startup of the biographical chapter to put his life and career in some contexts. the first part of that was too just to scrape his eight years as mayor of indianapolis come a very consequential time. spent time trying to understand nuances of unicode, a major experiment in urban government that he undertook in the late 60s. so i tried to get the backdrop is just where he comes from politically. then i traced his senate career. he was elected as you may know in 1976 for the first time. and his early career was sort of

dogged disciplined coming out with a major breakthroughs. but i think the tipping point of his political career occurred in 1984. to be influential in the senator's two tracks you can take. the first is a leadership track to try to become a republican or democratic leader, but a second trick is to develop a policy expertise and becoming chairman or high-ranking member of the committee. interestingly, lugar began trying to pursue leadership track. he ran in 1984, howard baker was stepping down as republican leader and there is the five person scramble to succeed him. senator lugar did not make that, due to twists and turns he became the chairman of the foreign relations committee starting in 1885. then an kind of a strange way redirected his entire career and became it has become one of the leading spokesman on american foreign policy. he is also the agriculture

committee works pretty hard and agriculture issues, but i think his real love is foreign policy. the book itself focuses on some areas that the senator has worked on. i didn't go -- i describe some of the things he did in his early career, but the focus on the book is a project he was working on when i was interviewing him, 2006 until 2011. and the books i describe his work on energy issues, global food issues, arms control, at first overall the american foreign policy apparatus. a very technical, complicated nuclear agreement with india in an international treaty, thought of the seas treaty. i woke with relatives of course, but the take away is almost in all these areas, the senator has worked in a pretty practical disciplined, dogged way to get results. he's a conservative republican, but has not been particularly

partisan and he's tried to work with people from both parties to actually solve problems. probably the signature issue of luke or his political career, which brian alluded to is the nunn-lugar act created in 1991 that the soviet union was imploding and is a program to locate, secure and dismantle weapons of mass distraction from the former soviet union. its sense has been broadened to include biological and chemical weapons and has also expanded to other parts of the world. just a year or so goes the senator went to africa and viewed how the nunn-lugar program is working in countries they are. the seti program is like one of these government programs which probably has over performed. people sometimes refer to as a mini marshall plan in terms of the program was good, solid intentions of the well-managed, accomplishing things. will they spend about a billion

dollars a year on the nunn-lugar plan and a lot of people think we should spend more for it. the senator has been nominated a couple times for the nobel peace prize. so i think that will be remembered as the core of his legacy. if nunn-lugar is one of the great accomplishments i think his involvement in the debate on the iraq and afghanistan were if nunn-lugar is one of the great accomplishments i think his involvement in the debate on the iraq and afghanistan were in a more complicated of the great accomplishments i think his involvement in the debate on the iraq and afghanistan were and a more complicated way. my own view as we've had very intelligent for the cute things to say about the iraq war by he didn't have a lot of influence and there's two reasons for that. the push of fenestration is not interested in and if you read some of the memoirs coming from the bush administration is very clear that the congressional reaction to the impending war

was not a particularly great concern to the administration. but i think the second factor is the senator opted to voice his concerns and reservations in a private, quiet way, what event to force a public confrontation. and this gets to one of the great dilemmas as a lawmaker. because recent history is complete with examples of lawmakers trying to struggle to find the best way to shape the administration's view on a controversial issue. in the mid-60s, william fulbright chairman at the school admissions committee disagreed with the johnson administration's conduct of the war in vietnam could fulbright try to persuade the administration to change course privately. didn't work. held public hearings in 1866, which really galvanized the public debate on vietnam. but in the meantime, completely marginalized 10 within the

johnson administration. didn't want to touch them anymore because you can't public and broke in the administration. at the same time, makes men feel the senate majority leader at the same stored of reservations and opted to keep his concerns quiet. he was very supportive publicly and yet he also didn't have a whole lot of impact on the debate. so i think the senator faced kind of an acute dilemma about what to do, whether he should stay quiet or make his concerns known in quiet talks or whether he should go public. i've talked to them in the course of this book many times about his views and he felt that he would've more impact by taking a quiet approach. it's certainly a legitimate point of view, but there are people who disagree and think that he could have gone it should've gone in a different direction. one of the best interviews i had in the book project was with chuck hagel, former senator from nebraska who was a huge lugar

fan. he believed the senator made a huge and important mistake in not forcing the issue. he said it is very clear the administration was not going to respond to private treaties and the only way to get action was to go public. bucher disagreed, but one should note several years into the war, in june 2007 he went to the senate floor and gave a very memorable speech in which he basically said the administration's policy in iraq is not working. we need to change gears. and they took it past admission of his strategy to try to work with the administration privately and field. if the experience in iraq is not -- will be remembered as a disappointing chapter in the senator's career. one of the really good chapters will be work on the arms control treaty with russia, the new

s.t.a.r.t. treaty approved in 2010. and here's classic lugar, a complex difficult treaty. he viewed it as part of the arms control agreements that the reagan administration had initiated. he did a deep dive and understood the nuances of the issue and decided he was going to work with the obama administration because the american national interest to do so. candidly he was not treated well by the senate republican leadership by senator mitch mcconnell. said luker was the lead person but then also brought in jon kyl his deputy. so you had a very ungainly arrangement in which both luker and kyl were involved. it seemed like republicans were turning to pile on this even though luke or by most people's admission had a much greater understanding of the treaty to come much more balanced approach to the treaty. it is classic lugar and a sense if he worked, he was completely

a gentleman, didn't react to mcconnell and ending at first way. worked very hard on the issue. he put together a number of gr colleague letters on this treaty maleness served as a model of what the senator can do. a remarkable series of letters, which is laid out what the treaty was, what proponents believed, what critics believed in his view. and it was the extremely fair-minded, this sort of work we hoped lawmakers would provide, but happens too rarely. would like to in my remarks by talking about this current campaign because obviously this a campaign that has grabbed both a national attention and international as well as indiana, where dissenting that is being viewed with great

interest. this something that i had to wrestle with because as i was finishing up in the book in 2011, the big question i had to ask myself and try to be fair, which is how can it eat a successful senator, very popular at home, respected throughout the world is fighting for political rate. i won't presume to tell people in india know what the basis there have been arrests going on here, has faced some headway that are easy to understand and to recognize. first it's a sense that we all know is deeply, deeply unpopular. opinion polls and high single digits. it's a guilt by association that a lot of incumbents have to work through. secondly i think the senator's brand of republicanism, which i would define as fiscally

conservative, but internationalist foreign policy. the brand is no longer an ascendant be. it is temporarily pushed aside for a different type of conservatism is more focused on social issues. these are the issues the senator really hasn't talked about a lot over his career. i think that the fact are weighing the senator down or causing his reelection some difficulty is that his whole tone is that of a mantra, civil, gentle person. i think it is a tone that works wonderfully in washington. it's the way to solve problems, but i think it is in some sense out of sync with more of the confrontational angry, if you go, demand for some of the republican base. so i think his whole temperament is a little bit out of step and i think also it is a simple fact

that the senators cast some votes that put them in the mainstream of congress and even republicans of congress that have been identified by some in the republican party. the control treaty i just spoke of a few minutes ago luger's view is in the judicial before the senate said that to me as the backdrop and it's interesting because i think the senator has known and brain are talking about this briefly. since 2010 he was going to face a tough reelection this year. and he's done a lot of the things you expect him to do. he's raised a lot of money. he spent a lot of time.

he spends a lot of time in indiana under all circumstances. he spent even more time here. and i think he's also shifted if not policies, at least rhetoric. i think he's become far more partisan, former confrontational, barely a week passes where i don't get it -- on the precipice and get e-mails in which he signing the president on health care or keystone or something. so i think he's moved to the right to sort of be more in step with the tea party mood. my own view is on the little surprised that the senator has not run more aggressively on his rhetoric. i think he's one of the most significant senators of the last quarter-century kurds certainly without foreign policy. he has his considerable, impressive history and the background i think the people of

indiana had to be really proud of. it seems embracing this record and just explaining it passionately and unabashedly has been pulling back and seems like the campaign has become more tactical, more negative. and as i conclude, i actually like to recommend that people read a wonderful essay by brian wrote last week about the campaign, in which he basically said it was time for both candidates, both senator lugar and richard murdoch from the state treasurer to serve up their game and dispense with the tactical skirmishing and brick careened over resident issues and taxes and murdoch's attendance at meetings and just lay out their agenda for fiscal policy, foreign policy and health care. will be interesting to see if the coming and final weeks of the campaign, the senators does run fully and aggressively by

state senator senate. i'd be glad to take any questions i'd be glad to take any questions i'd be glad to take any questions are a match. questions from anyone? it think if you would go to the microphone or pass the microphone down it would be great. thank you. >> when did you actually started this project specifically about five years ago was it quite >> i start in the fall 2006. my first trip was in the fall of 2006 in which he was running unopposed. so that was -- you just show you how the political world shifted at this time he was running unopposed and was chairman of the senate foreign relations

committee. there is a republican president. so one of the challenges of this book, the real challenges even though you're someone like senator lugar who has a pretty steady career, the political landscape around him has been shifting constantly and it's been trying to hit a moving target because while the senator's career has been pretty steady, the political circumstances surrounding them have changed strictly a think. >> it probably doesn't begin with your statesman approach, but you mentioned briefly the agriculture committee back in the 80s i know he was -- he did kind of snuck her job and jesse helme said he could get foreign relations from the ad committee. but he's been very active there and had that freedom to farm act, you know, corn and beans went down in another senators got skittish and they repealed

it. it's another significant contribution. >> that's a good point. i mentioned in the book he was chairman of the agriculture of commission in the 90s and as you mentioned come to pass the freedom to farm. i took a bit agriculture, but the focus of the focus more on foreign policy. i will say i also spent some time writing about the senators relationship with jesse helme, which has been a difficult one. luker was the chairman of the foreign relations committee from 85 to 87 when republicans won control, holmes used his seniority to take control of the chairmanship and affect to flee forced lugar into the second ranking position and it was that point he went back to agriculture. so the battle between lugar and holmes is an interesting one and it's been something that is shaped lugar's career and a pretty profound way.

>> john, talk a little bit about the political vulnerability foreign relations chairman. you mentioned other than jesse helme, a number of them have gone down. but it should go in a little detail on that. >> it is a committee that has been politically difficult to be on. in fact, senator lugar when i first interviewed him, no one has a fuller grasp of the political vulnerabilities of chairman of the senate foreign relations committee and dick lugar. he knows the history. from william fulbright who i mentioned earlier, frank church, there is just a whole slew of people in the foreign relations committee. charles percy who lost the position. so something the senator has been aware of. one of the chapters is called tending to the home front in which i try to describe how the senator has tried to keep his political strength at home to

allow him to work on foreign policy issues than he does a lot of things to try to connect the world of foreign policy to the life of indiana, specifically speaks a lot and works a lot on trade issues, which is the way he believes he started connects on foreign policy and needs of people in indiana. so he is well aware of that history and up to now has been able to survive it, but we will see what happens come march date in the primary year. >> john, i just want to begin by saying what an excellent speaker you are and that is evident that you know your subject really well. my question is then maybe you just touched on that, but how does a farm boy from indiana get so passionate about foreign policy? >> it's a wonderful question and there's two kind of simple

answers, prosaic answers that will sort of pointed that. i think the senator would say that this time as a rhodes scholar was a real eye-opening experience where he traveled extensively to the u.k. and elsewhere and really saw the world through the eyes of others. he cites his work as a rhodes scholar has been hugely important. he also speaks a lot about as a young naval officer working for a gentleman by the name of arlie burka was a great sort of grand strategists in foreign policy. so as a young naval officer, lugar was shaped by him. also in a small way he tells me he wants his mother kept stands and that sort of small, tangible evocation of what a different place in different world cap evaded him and actually brought the world outside of the united states to live for him.

>> another answer to that question might well be those of us who are old enough to remember world war ii, when you live with foreign policy news from 1949 to 1945, it just becomes a daily habit. >> is not an abstraction. it becomes real because that war was so all-encompassing and american life. so yeah, that is an import comments as well. another point and i just mentioned briefly in one of the things i've struggled with in writing the book and i think it's come up a little in the campaign is the senator's relationship with president obama has become a source of some contention and controversy. in my own feeling is that -- i've actually talked to the senator about this. he first heard of barack obama in 2004 when he was a young state senator running for the u.s. senate in illinois and was

struck with the fact by someone who is interested in foreign policy, talked about it. mr. obama referred to mr. lugar positively. he liked the nunn program. so when obama jumped into the stratosphere after his austin speech in 2004, i think senator lugar kept to a much closer eye on him and when he was selected barack obama he wrote them a letter in city was then the chairman of the foreign relations committee said you'd be a good asset for this committee. i think luker like the fact he was interested in foreign policy. he brought energy and star quality to the committee. so obama join the committee in 2005 and worked together and took a trip together. during the 2008 campaign, senator lugar endorsed john mccain as you might expect, but he also was careful not to disparage obama.

in fact just weeks before the 2008 presidential election, he gave a very interesting foreign policy speech in which he talked about the obama and mccain approaches to foreign policy. it was a very even minded speech in which he was praising both for certain things and critical of both. again, it's sort of thing you hope your public officials do. look at something and call it straight. but even then there was criticism from republicans who felt he was not sufficiently critical of obama. since barack obama was a let to and came to office in 2009, i think luker has tried to work with the president when he could. i think despite the campaign rhetoric that we hear in indiana, i think senator lugar is neither barack obama is best friend or his worst critic.

he's a conservative republican who disagrees most of the time that has been willing to work within what he thought it was in the national interest and i know that has become a subject of some discussion, whether he's barack obama's best friend in the senate. my own view is the relationship is a complicated one and i make this point. it didn't surprise the obama administration has not drawn on lugar more often for insight or for counseling really surprised the bush administration bush 43 did not support because he was summoned to one of the president to succeed with the royal republican, has seen all there is to see about the world. joe biden likes to say senator lugar has forgotten more about foreign policy than moore ever learn. so he had this incredible resource fair. why they did not draw on him more frequently and more often is astonishing.

senator hagel is very passionate on the subject, too. he said he had lugar who is eye and tell the president bonilla called off it and it was frustrating at the. >> john cummings had about the lugar biden relationship and how that has progressed since senator biden has become vice president? >> yet, their colleagues for 35 years on the foreign relations committee. they get along well. the opposite temperaments as you probably know. senator lugar is quiet and soft-spoken indefinitely to draw a lot of attention to himself. vice president biden is a more flamboyant, talkative person. but they have a respect for each other that's very interesting. again, they have the ability to decide which issues they could agree on a focus on those.

they knew when there were things they did not agree on what they wouldn't harp on it. one of the most interesting moments in that connection occurred during the nomination or john and u.n. ambassador. where they are nomination in late in the game there was a republican defection. so it was clear that bolton was about to go down and i basically turned and i'm not sure senator lugar at that moment for whatever reason quite caught what was going on. the heightened basically said you don't want to call the roll call. you cannot lose. again short-term thing would've been for biden to let it pass and have the nomination collapse. the biden had a sense they were colleagues for the long-term and thought it was important not to help the senator out on issues that could have been embarrassing to them.

thank you very much everyone for being here. it's been a pleasure to chat with you and i will be very, very interesting for everyone to see how the next couple weeks turn out and what the world looks like after they made a primary here in indiana. thank you are very much. appreciate it. [applause] >> so as you can see this a very short introduction to a very big subject, the u.s. supreme court.

is not the kind of book an author is going to do a greeting from. it's not a dramatic novel, but it's a pretty trim attic story when you step back and think about the supreme court over the centuries. and i know many of you are probably here because the supreme court today, this very date for next week, three days of the health care case being argued, the court is more visible in american life than it has been for quite some time and i'll be happy to chat about that and answer to your questions. but i want to talk a little bit and just kind of frame the story of the supreme court. in writing this book, which tried to do was put myself in that position of i am assuming many of you by myself before i had a chance to attend yellow law school and spend the next 30 years spreading about the

esteemed court for "the new york times" and that is to say someone interested in public affairs, said the quake of the country that just doesn't happen to be an expert on this particular topic. so what would a person like that, a person as i was and maybe some of you need to know to really get a personally satisfying handle on the court. so what that is a kind of framework, what i propose to do was really make a series of observations that i will elaborate on them and turn it over for what i expect will be a fruitful and fun conversation among us. so when you step back and think about the court, one thing that jumped out at me as i was organizing the material to write this book is the extent to which the supreme court is really the author of a