這兩天“臉書”上一片紅。許多Facebook上的朋友都將自己的題頭圖像改成一個紅底的等於符號，象徵對同性戀人士爭取婚姻平權的訴求的支持。(Facebook Profile Pictures Go Red In Support Of Gay Marriage Rights.) 兩天之內臉書上有六萬五千用戶轉發了這個消息，有兩萬三千用戶點擊表示贊同。美國百姓，尤其是年青一代，大多數（67%）表示對婚姻平權支持。支持同性戀這個少數群組爭取正當權益，爭取平等對待，爭取與相愛的人結婚並受法律保護這是當代的人權運動，是大勢所趨，是浩浩蕩蕩難以阻擋的世界潮流。 之所以臉書泛紅，是因為美國最高法院正在聽取加州8號提議案（禁止同性戀婚姻的全州公民投票表決案）是否違反美國憲法。 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 關注最高法院如何詮釋婚姻平等 最高法院就加州禁止同性婚姻的“第8號議案”所作的聆聽辯論 辯論冗長枯燥，但不時有亮點，爆出全場歡笑。亮點一：婚姻的目的是什麼？是生兒育女？那麼過了生育期的比如55歲以上的夫婦是否沒有資格結婚？亮點二：結婚是公民權利，即使犯了法的罪人都有權結婚，那麼同性戀呢？ （點擊下面鏈接閱讀高法辯論全文.) Transcript: Supreme Court Arguments On California Gay Marriage Ban （3/26/2013） 錄音： 最高法院3/26/2013辯論 JUSTICE BREYER: Am I not clear? Look, you said that the problem is marriage; that it is an institution that furthers procreation.
MR. COOPER: Yes, Your Honor.
JUSTICE BREYER: And the reason there was adoption, but that doesn't apply to California. So imagine I wall off California and I'm looking just there, where you say that doesn't apply. Now, what happens to your argument about the institution of marriage as a tool towards procreation? Given the fact that, in California, too, couples that aren't gay but can't have children get married all the time.
MR. COOPER: Yes, Your Honor. The concern is that redefining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its historic traditional procreative purposes, and it will refocus, refocus the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults, of adult couples. Suppose, in turn -
JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, suppose a State said, Mr. Cooper, suppose a State said that, Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55. Would that be constitutional? MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, it would not be constitutional.
JUSTICE KAGAN: Because that's the same State interest, I would think, you know. If you are over the age of 55, you don't help us serve the Government's interest in regulating procreation through marriage. So why is that different?
MR. COOPER: Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples both parties to the couple are infertile, and the traditional -
(Laughter.)
JUSTICE KAGAN: No, really, because if the couple I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.
(Laughter.) MR. COOPER: Your Honor, society's - society's interest in responsible procreation isn't just with respect to the procreative capacities of the couple itself. The marital norm, which imposes the obligations of fidelity and monogamy, Your Honor, advances the interests in responsible procreation by making it more likely that neither party, including the fertile party to that -
JUSTICE KAGAN: Actually, I'm not even -
JUSTICE SCALIA: I suppose we could have a questionnaire at the marriage desk when people come in to get the marriage you know, Are you fertile or are
you not fertile?
(Laughter.)
JUSTICE SCALIA: I suspect this Court would hold that to be an unconstitutional invasion of privacy, don't you think?
JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, I just asked about age. I didn't ask about anything else. That's not -we ask about people's age all the time.
MR. COOPER: Your Honor, and even asking about age, you would have to ask if both parties are infertile. Again -
JUSTICE SCALIA: Strom Thurmond was was not the chairman of the Senate committee when Justice Kagan was confirmed.
(Laughter.)
MR. COOPER: Very few men very few men outlive their own fertility. So I just -
JUSTICE KAGAN: A couple where both people are over the age of 55 -
MR. COOPER: I -
JUSTICE KAGAN: A couple where both people are over the age of 55.
MR. COOPER: And Your Honor, again, the marital norm which imposes upon that couple the obligation of fidelity -
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I'm sorry, where is this -
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I'm sorry, maybe you can finish your answer to Justice Kagan.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I'm sorry.
MR. COOPER: It's designed, Your Honor, to make it less likely that either party to that to that marriage will engage in irresponsible procreative conduct outside of that marriage. Outside of that marriage. That's the marital that's the marital norm. Society has an interest in seeing a 55-year-old couple that is just as it has an interest of seeing any heterosexual couple that intends to engage in a prolonged period of cohabitation to reserve that until they have made a marital commitment, a marital commitment. So that, should that union produce any offspring, it would be more likely that that child or children will be raised by the mother and father who brought them into the world.
相關鏈接：同性戀婚姻在美國內外
相關鏈接：派特森以及同事（心理學學者）：“同性戀家庭的青少年子女”（Adolescents with Same-Sex Parents: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health)
|
