这两天“脸书”上一片红。许多Facebook上的朋友都将自己的题头图像改成一个红底的等于符号，象征对同性恋人士争取婚姻平权的诉求的支持。(Facebook Profile Pictures Go Red In Support Of Gay Marriage Rights.) 两天之内脸书上有六万五千用户转发了这个消息，有两万三千用户点击表示赞同。美国百姓，尤其是年青一代，大多数（67%）表示对婚姻平权支持。支持同性恋这个少数群组争取正当权益，争取平等对待，争取与相爱的人结婚并受法律保护这是当代的人权运动，是大势所趋，是浩浩荡荡难以阻挡的世界潮流。 之所以脸书泛红，是因为美国最高法院正在听取加州8号提议案（禁止同性恋婚姻的全州公民投票表决案）是否违反美国宪法。 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 关注最高法院如何诠释婚姻平等 最高法院就加州禁止同性婚姻的“第8号议案”所作的聆听辩论 辩论冗长枯燥，但不时有亮点，爆出全场欢笑。亮点一：婚姻的目的是什么？是生儿育女？那么过了生育期的比如55岁以上的夫妇是否没有资格结婚？亮点二：结婚是公民权利，即使犯了法的罪人都有权结婚，那么同性恋呢？ （点击下面链接阅读高法辩论全文.) Transcript: Supreme Court Arguments On California Gay Marriage Ban （3/26/2013） 录音： 最高法院3/26/2013辩论 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.
相关链接：同性恋婚姻在美国内外
相关链接：派特森以及同事（心理学学者）：“同性恋家庭的青少年子女”（Adolescents with Same-Sex Parents: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health)
|
