u*****a
发帖数: 6276 | 1 肯尼迪大法官，在有关同性恋婚姻合法性的判决书中写道：
The centrality of marriage to the human condition makes it unsurprising that
the institution has existed for millennia and across civilizations. Since
the dawn of history, marriage has transformed strangers into relatives,
binding families and societies together. Confucius taught that marriage lies
at the foundation of government. 2 Li Chi: Book of Rites 266 (C. Chai & W.
Chai eds., J. Legge transl. 1967).
你知道上文提到的孔子语录的出处和原文吗？ |
u*****a
发帖数: 6276 | |
u*****a
发帖数: 6276 | 3 昏禮者，將合二姓之好，上以事宗廟，而下以繼後世也。故君子重之。男女有別，而後
夫婦有義；夫婦有義，而後父子有親；父子有親，而後君臣有正。故曰：婚禮者，禮之
本也。（卷七.禮記） |
n********h
发帖数: 13135 | 4 孔子说男女之间的婚姻，是礼之本。
【在 u*****a 的大作中提到】
: 昏禮者，將合二姓之好，上以事宗廟，而下以繼後世也。故君子重之。男女有別，而後
: 夫婦有義；夫婦有義，而後父子有親；父子有親，而後君臣有正。故曰：婚禮者，禮之
: 本也。（卷七.禮記）
|
u*****a
发帖数: 6276 | 5 孔子也许没用穷举法。即使是一代天骄，也有自身局限性。 |
n********h
发帖数: 13135 | 6 孔子可能有局限性，但是人家说得男女有别的婚姻才是礼之本。
我觉得孔子说得挺对的，婚姻确实是一个社会政府之本。 你如何定义婚姻，决定了一
个国家的根本和未来。
【在 u*****a 的大作中提到】
: 孔子也许没用穷举法。即使是一代天骄，也有自身局限性。
|
d****g
发帖数: 7460 | |
c******i
发帖数: 4091 | 8 谢谢最高法自搧耳光的表演。呵呵
【在 u*****a 的大作中提到】
: 昏禮者，將合二姓之好，上以事宗廟，而下以繼後世也。故君子重之。男女有別，而後
: 夫婦有義；夫婦有義，而後父子有親；父子有親，而後君臣有正。故曰：婚禮者，禮之
: 本也。（卷七.禮記）
|
u*****a
发帖数: 6276 | 9 我不清楚的地方是：礼为什么成 government?
【在 d****g 的大作中提到】
: 赞学习态度
|
u*****a
发帖数: 6276 | 10 当然，也许法官的中文和三观小时候都没教好。这不能怪他的父母吧？ |
|
|
r***e
发帖数: 127 | 11 人而不仁，如礼何
孔子认为礼只是统治的形式，礼背后的仁才是统治的基础
【在 u*****a 的大作中提到】
: 我不清楚的地方是：礼为什么成 government?
|
u*****a
发帖数: 6276 | 12 答案（抄）来了：
美国最高法院的长文判词吸引了全球的眼光。许多新闻网站很快就分析出里面的各种“
金句”，其中不乏名人名言的引用，而最醒目的莫过于开头部分引用的一句孔子名言，
判词说：
Confucius taught that marriage lies at the foundation of government.
（孔子教导说，婚姻是政体的根基。）
判词又说，孔子几百年后，世界另一边的西塞罗在《论义务》一书也同样说：“社会关
系的第一个纽带存在于夫妻之间，然后是父母与子女，再以后是家庭。”以此证明在不
同文明之间，婚姻是人类社会至为重要的制度。
我们知道，虽然儒家主张“修身齐家治国平天下”，其中自然暗含了婚姻对国与天下的
重要性，但孔子本人到底有没说过这句话呢？
答案是肯定的。不过类似的话并不在《论语》中，而在另外一部儒家早期经典之一《礼
记》里。在《哀公问》章中，鲁哀公问政于孔子，就谈到了“大昏礼”，即天子或诸侯
婚娶之礼。孔子告诉哀公：“古人为政，把爱护他人看得最重要。要做到爱护他人，礼
最重要，要做到礼，敬最重要。要做到不折不扣的敬，大昏最重要。大昏是最为重要的
了！大昏的日子来到，就要戴着礼帽穿着礼服亲自去迎娶。”（古之为政，爱人为大；
所以治爱人，礼为大；所以治礼，敬为大；敬之至矣，大昏为大。大昏至矣！大昏既至
，冕而亲迎。）明·焦秉贞《孔子见鲁哀公》图。
哀公接着疑惑地问：“戴着礼帽穿着礼服去亲自迎娶，是不是显得过于隆重了？”孔子
于是严肃地阐发了一番大昏的重要性，最后总结说：“为政先礼。礼，其政之本与！”
怎么隆重都不过分。
可见，这里的“礼”实际上谈的是“大昏之礼”。孔子认为为政要做到三点：夫妇别，
男女亲，君臣信。然后提出“爱与敬”是“政之本”，而婚礼正是爱与敬的体现，能“
成亲”、“成身”，因此后来的《孔子家语》一书便将此章题为《大昏解》。
那么，“礼，其政之本与”这句话是如何变成“marriage lies at the foundation of
government”的呢？这是19世纪，英国的汉学家、牛津大学教授理雅各（James Legge
, 1815年－1897年）所译。在这《礼记》的首部英译本中，他将此句译为“this
ceremony [i.e., marriage] lies at the foundation of government.（这种礼[换言
之，婚姻]是政体的根基）”。理雅各（左）和他的三个中国学生。
不过，美国最高法院的判词接着写道：“应当诚实且必要地指出，这些（对古人的）引
用是基于婚姻是两性之间的结合的认识之上”（It is fair and necessary to say
these references were based on the understanding that marriage is a union
between two persons of the opposite sex.）这确是大实话，因为孔子在《哀公问》
里就指出，大昏是为了撮合两家的好事，传宗接代，以继承先圣的事业，以为天地、宗
庙、社稷的主人（“合二姓之好，以继先圣之后，以为天地宗庙社稷之主”）。
可以看出，孔子非常重视夫妇关系，并将其视作人伦之始、为政之本。《易·序卦》中
有一段可视作孔子婚姻思想的注脚：“有天地然后有万物，有万物然后有男女，有男女
然后有夫妇，有夫妇然后有父子，有父子然后有君臣，有君臣然后有上下，有上下然后
礼义有所错，夫妇之道不可以不久也，故受之以恒，恒者久也。”
我国古代如何看待同性恋？
一般而言，我国古代主流文化对同性恋普遍持倾向于中立的反对态度。对待同性恋问题
，我国在法律制裁、道德谴责等方面并非极端严厉，与西方相比，可谓比较宽容。而在
欧洲，古希腊文化、古罗马文化和基督教文化对同性恋的不同态度曾极大地改变了同性
恋者的生存状况。
古代对同性恋的态度有一个和缓的变化过程。在先秦时代，有关同性恋的记载主要涉及
国君与其嬖幸，其中以卫灵公与弥子瑕、魏王与龙阳君的故事最为著名，其他还有宋景
公与向魋、卫灵公与宋朝、楚王与安陵君、赵王与建信君等。《左传·哀公十一年》还
记载了一次战斗中，鲁国公子公为“与其嬖僮汪锜乘，皆死，皆殡”。后世儒家多指责
为这些外宠行为是“淫乱”。
到秦汉之际，男风盛行于帝王与幸臣之间，如汉高祖与籍孺，文帝与邓通，武帝与韩嫣
、李延年，成帝与张放，哀帝与董贤等等，微臣多因色获宠，为士人所不齿。而到了魏
晋南北朝，战乱频仍，人生如朝露，社会中形成一种放浪形骸的风气，据《宋书》说，
“自（晋）咸宁、太康后，男宠大兴，甚于女色，士大夫莫不尚之。”隋唐五代时期同
性恋记载数量较少，宋元时期男风面貌的记述也不多，但当时已经出现了职业性质的男
妓。明清由于小说、笔记丰富，对同性恋故事记载最为详尽。上至帝王将相，下至贩夫
走卒都有丰富的例证以资查考。明代亦有所谓“翰林风”，指翰林当中多同性恋者，可
见当时习气。
那么，当代新儒家如何看待同性恋呢？近日，儒者秋风作客澎湃新闻问吧，就提供了一
个有趣见解，他认为“中国文化对此从来宽容。中国可没有什么教会发布谕令，谴责同
性恋是罪恶的……社会主流与同性恋者相安无事，最好。”可见儒家在所谓“同性恋问
题”上的通脱态度。 |
u*****a
发帖数: 6276 | |
u*****a
发帖数: 6276 | 14 在裁决公布之后，诸如谷歌、摩托罗拉、Twitter等科技企业都参与到庆祝的行列中，
而其中最为高兴的要属苹果现任CEO库克，他在推文中写道：“今天标志着平等、坚持
和爱的胜利”，在随后的推文中引用了不同凡响（Think Different）系列广告中的标
语“只有那些疯狂到以为自己能够改变世界的人，才能真正地改变世界。” |
w*********o
发帖数: 3030 | 15 Thanks for reposting this. It didn't occur to me that the decision is worth
reading :)
I was just thinking that the Republican Party wants theses issues to be
left out of the next presidential debate and decided to make it not worth
debating anymore. But from this, it appears to me that some judge do think
without party stamp.
Now I am looking forward on the decision on AA. |
u*****a
发帖数: 6276 | 16 肯尼迪大法官的判决据说写得 Above Average，至少让读者知道他在说什么。
对比来说，斯卡利亚大法官有关同性恋的反对意见自1996年 Romer v. Evans 以来
，就让读者知道该法官的词汇量很大，但无法掩饰其反对意见的窘迫，浅薄，和没有前
瞻性。斯卡利亚大法官还有个毛病：从来不会写出与自己以前判决相反的意见。说俗了
就是嘴硬，不服输。他的另一个特点：Right or wrong, Never in doubt! 很有意思的。
worth
【在 w*********o 的大作中提到】
: Thanks for reposting this. It didn't occur to me that the decision is worth
: reading :)
: I was just thinking that the Republican Party wants theses issues to be
: left out of the next presidential debate and decided to make it not worth
: debating anymore. But from this, it appears to me that some judge do think
: without party stamp.
: Now I am looking forward on the decision on AA.
|
u*****a
发帖数: 6276 | 17 白宫
旧金山市政厅
帝国大厦
勃兰登堡门
特拉维夫市政厅
.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.jpg |
u*****a
发帖数: 6276 | 18 第七巡回上诉法庭的波斯纳法官，发了篇文章，反驳最高法院首席大法官罗伯茨的在判
决书中的 dissent：
The chief justice criticizes the majority for “order[ing] the
transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human
society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the
Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?” We’re pretty
sure we’re not any of the above. And most of us are not convinced that what
’s good enough for the Bushmen, the Carthaginians, and the Aztecs should be
good enough for us. Ah, the millennia! Ah, the wisdom of ages! How arrogant
it would be to think we knew more than the Aztecs—we who don’t even know
how to cut a person’s heart out of his chest while’s he still alive, a
maneuver they were experts at.
The only effort the chief justice makes to distinguish the Loving case from
the same-sex marriage case is that it did not alter “the core structure of
marriage as the union between a man and a woman.” But the states that
forbade miscegenation considered the prohibition an important part of the
core structure of marriage. For they thought part of the core was that
marriage be uniracial—that whites must just marry whites and blacks just
marry blacks—just as Orthodox Jews believe that the core structure of (
their) marriage culture is both spouses subscribe to Orthodox Judaism.
The chief justice worries that the majority opinion has mounted “assaults
on the character of fairminded people” who oppose same-sex marriage, by
remarking that they impose “ ‘[d]ignitary wounds’ upon their gay and
lesbian neighbors.” But of course they do, even if innocently, because a
married couple doesn’t appreciate being told that their marriage, though
legal, is sinful. That isn’t to say that people are forbidden to oppose
same-sex marriage; it is merely to remark on one of the costs of that
opposition and one of the reasons to doubt that it should be permitted to
express itself in a law forbidding such marriage.
Related to the preceding point, the chief justice’s dissent is heartless.
There is of course a long history of persecution of gay people, a history
punctuated by such names as Oscar Wilde, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, and Alan
Turing. Until quite recently, many American gays and lesbians took great
pains to conceal their homosexuality in order to avoid discrimination. They
value marriage just as straight people do. They want their adopted children
to have the psychological and financial advantages of legitimacy. They are
hurt by the discrimination that the dissenting justices condone. Prohibiting
gay marriage is discrimination. |
u*****a
发帖数: 6276 | 19 奥斯卡·王尔德，彼得·伊里奇·柴可夫斯基，和艾伦·图灵！！ |
c******i
发帖数: 4091 | |
|
|
c******i
发帖数: 4091 | 21 有人以为自己搞同性恋就和图灵一样天才了，呵呵。
其实很多天才是运气不好得病了。
比如霍金。一般人也瘫痪成那样，能宇宙大爆炸吗？ |
u*****a
发帖数: 6276 | 22 最高法院26日裁定同性婚姻合法化，为美国民权历史揭开新的一章，也令原告奥伯格菲
（Jim Obergefell）成为最新民权代表人物，然而这宗诉讼的出发点只是为了捍卫他与
同性伴侣的婚姻。大有可能名垂青史的奥伯格菲表示，他很开心自己的婚姻终于得到承
认和尊重，终于觉得自己不再是「二等公民」。
综合《新闻周刊》（Newsweek）和《人物》杂志（People）等传媒报道，现年48岁的奥
伯格菲回忆说，高院在2013年6月26日裁定《婚姻捍卫法桉》（DOMA）的部分条文违宪
时，他与患有渐冻人症（ALS）的亚瑟已经相爱了20年，并决定赶在亚瑟的最后人生阶
段结婚。
由于他们居住的俄亥俄州在04年明文禁止同性婚姻，于是他们在2013年7月前往马里兰
州注册结婚。
“When we decided, ‘Let’s try and make this happen,’ at that point [John]
was bedridden and in hospice care at home,” Obergefell said. “All he
could do was move his right hand and his head a little, and speak.”
The couple decided to marry in Maryland, which offered simpler licensing
requirements. But Obergefell did not think Arthur could make it by car. The
only feasible option seemed to be chartering a medical jet at a cost of $13,
000.
When he posted their financial dilemma on Facebook, friends and family
quickly raised the money.
They never left the plane in Baltimore. On July 11, 2013, Arthur’s aunt,
Paulette Roberts, performed the marriage, having ordained herself a minister
for the occasion online. Each of them said, “I thee wed,” Arthur with
some difficulty. A newspaper photographer came aboard to capture the moment.
其后他们获民权律师告知，俄州政府不承认这段婚姻关係，因此一旦亚瑟离世
，死亡证明仍会把他列为「未婚」。最终奥伯格菲和亚瑟决定控告州当局；令他始料不
及的是，他在其后数月获到大量支持。
Eleven days after their wedding, a federal judge ordered Ohio to issue the
word “married” on the death certificate when Arthur died. Like many other
gay marriage rulings around the country, it was based on the 2013 Supreme
Court decision striking down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
Arthur died on Oct. 22, three months after their wedding. Because of the
court decision, he was listed as married to Obergefell at the time of death.
But Ohio appealed and won a year later. It was the first time since the
2013 Supreme Court decision in Windsor vs. U.S. that a federal appeals judge
had ruled against gay marriage。
Deciding six cases from four states, including Obergefell’s, the U.S. 6th
Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati said that the people, not the courts,
should decide such fundamental issues. “Is it not possible that the
traditional arbiters of change - the people - will meet today's challenge
admirably and settle the issue in a productive way?” asked Judge Jeffrey S.
Sutton.
最新裁决意味着，奥伯格菲可在亚瑟的死亡证明书上被列为未亡配偶，并捍卫了全美同
性伴侣的结婚权利。最初这场只是2人的私人诉讼，但是随着桉件打上最高法院，这场
诉讼已经演变成涉及全美同性恋者的重大事件。
总统奥巴马在同日致电恭贺奥伯格菲，并声称他的领导能力「改变了美国」。
奥巴马又说，奥伯格菲不仅是民众的楷模，也会国家带来了长远改变，因此对他和亚瑟
深感骄傲。奥伯格菲则感谢奥巴马一直支持同性社区。他在同日也接获亲友的脸书恭贺。
亚瑟在提诉后不久去世。自从高院4月受理此桉以来，奥伯格菲每天都到庭外等待消息
，确保自己能够亲耳听到宣判。
他认为这样能够达成他对亚瑟的承诺：「我们一起展开诉讼，现在由我为他和这段婚姻
来完成它。 |
u*****a
发帖数: 6276 | |
c******i
发帖数: 4091 | 24 Darwin Award candidates OK! |
w*********o
发帖数: 3030 | 25 I was hoping to see some reasonable opinions from moderate conservatives on
this board. So far, very dissapointing.
【在 u*****a 的大作中提到】
: RIP， Arthur。
|
u*****a
发帖数: 6276 | 26 They might be busy licking their wounds from the recent Supreme Court's
rulings, thereby they have no time to talk.
:)
on
【在 w*********o 的大作中提到】
: I was hoping to see some reasonable opinions from moderate conservatives on
: this board. So far, very dissapointing.
|
c******i
发帖数: 4091 | 27 Your Freudian slip talking reveals your ignorance to the constitutional
issue, you might be too absorbed to your licking life style.
【在 u*****a 的大作中提到】
: They might be busy licking their wounds from the recent Supreme Court's
: rulings, thereby they have no time to talk.
: :)
:
: on
|
w*********o
发帖数: 3030 | 28 Hehe,typing in English neither strengthen your point nor sharpen your tongue
. The only thing it shows is desperation.
【在 c******i 的大作中提到】
: Your Freudian slip talking reveals your ignorance to the constitutional
: issue, you might be too absorbed to your licking life style.
|
u*****a
发帖数: 6276 | |
u*****a
发帖数: 6276 | 30 芝加哥大学法学院教授对罗伯茨反对意见的驳斥：
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/the-same-sex-mar
A central complaint of the four justices who dissented from the Supreme
Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized a constitutional
right of same-sex couples to marry, was their repeated assertion that the
five justices in the majority were unabashedly -- and illegitimately --
distorting the "true" meaning of the Constitution to suit their own personal
values and beliefs.
Chief Justice Roberts, for example, charged that, "for those who believe in
a government of laws, not of men, the majority's approach is deeply
disheartening." The justices in the majority, he declared, have "enacted
their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law." This, he
insisted, "is an act of will, not legal judgment," because "the right it
announces has no basis in the Constitution." "Those who founded our country,
" he charged:
Would not recognize the majority's conception of the judicial role. They
would never have imagined yielding the right to govern themselves on a
question of social policy to unaccountable and unelected judges.
Similarly, Justice Scalia sneered that "today's decree says that my Ruler,
and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the
nine lawyers on the Supreme Court." The Court's decision, he maintained,
robbed "the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the
Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom
to govern themselves." The Court's decision, he fumed, was nothing less than
"a naked judicial claim to . . . power; a claim fundamentally at odds with
our system of government." Indeed, "a system of government that makes the
People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve
to be called a democracy."
Justices Thomas and Alito chimed in with similar denunciations of the Court'
s judgment, with Alito charging, for example, that "today's decision usurps
the constitutional right of the people."
Assertions of this sort might be warranted if they were made by justices who
actually believed in the principle of judicial restraint. There have, in
fact, been justices in our history -- Justices Felix Frankfurter and John
Marshall Harlan are examples -- who sincerely believed in judicial restraint
as a matter of principle. In their view, justices of the Supreme Court
should be modest in their interpretation of the Constitution, always giving
the benefit of the doubt to the elected branches of government. Under this
approach, justices should defer to the judgments of the elected branches --
unless their judgments clearly and unequivocally violated the Constitution.
If justices like Frankfurter and Harlan had written the words quoted above,
one would at least have had to respect the sincerity of their commitment to
the principle of judicial restraint. But Chief Justice Roberts and Justices
Scalia, Thomas and Alito are in no way adherents to this principle. To the
contrary, in decision after decision they exercise an often fierce form of
judicial activism, a form of activism that is completely incompatible with
their self-righteous paeans to judicial restraint in Obergefell.
These four justices, for example, have embraced and defended aggressive and
wholly unrestrained interpretations of the Constitution in order to hold
unconstitutional laws regulating campaign expenditures and contributions;
they have joined in aggressive and wholly unrestrained interpretations of
the Constitution in order to hold unconstitutional laws permitting
affirmative action programs; they have joined in aggressive and wholly
unrestrained interpretations of the Constitution in order to hold
unconstitutional laws regulating the availability of guns in our society;
they have joined in aggressive and wholly unrestrained interpretations of
the Constitution in order to hold unconstitutional laws protecting the
voting rights of racial minorities; and they have joined in aggressive and
wholly unrestrained interpretations of the Constitution in order to hold
unconstitutional laws designed to achieve racial integration in society.
In short, these four justices are not in any principled way committed to the
principle judicial restraint. Thus, although there are certainly arguments
they can make in opposition to the Court's decision on same-sex marriage,
their over-the-top and wildly overstated accusations that Obergefell
violates the proper role of the Court and intrudes in some egregious manner
on the norms of the democratic process are, at best, disingenuous. It is one
thing to disagree with the Court's reasoning. It is quite another thing to
charge that, in this decision in particular, the majority betrayed the
respect the Court owes to the democratic process. Quite simply, it did not.
Beyond that, though, there is a special hypocrisy in these claims. Under
long-established principles of constitutional interpretation, the cases in
which it is most appropriate for the Court to take a more activist approach,
and to give the least deference to the elected branches, are those in which
a law disadvantages a historically oppressed group, for in that situation
there is the greatest need for the judiciary to monitor abusive and
discriminatory government action.
It is noteworthy that none of the cases in which these four justices have
themselves engaged in unabashed judicial activism involved that situation.
What they did involve was the enforcement of unambiguously conservative
political beliefs. If one wants to make accusations of disingenuousness and
judicial manipulation, those decisions present a most interesting
opportunity. But in the Court's decision recognizing the right of same-sex
couples to marry, the justices in the majority did precisely what the
Constitution expects them to do -- protect the rights of those groups and
individuals in society who have historically been subjected to oppression
and discrimination. |
|
|
c******i
发帖数: 4091 | 31 Hmm, English typing helps you to strengthen your gay pride, but in chinese
you feel your gay pride is not so glory?
Interesting.
So your point might be that English is more gay than chinese? I won't argue
you with you for this.
tongue
【在 w*********o 的大作中提到】
: Hehe,typing in English neither strengthen your point nor sharpen your tongue
: . The only thing it shows is desperation.
|
c******i
发帖数: 4091 | 32 二个同性恋是否比一个同性恋或三个同性恋更平等？三个同性恋可以结婚吗？一个同性
恋可以和自己结婚吗？
constitutional
personal
in
【在 u*****a 的大作中提到】
: 芝加哥大学法学院教授对罗伯茨反对意见的驳斥：
: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/the-same-sex-mar
: A central complaint of the four justices who dissented from the Supreme
: Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized a constitutional
: right of same-sex couples to marry, was their repeated assertion that the
: five justices in the majority were unabashedly -- and illegitimately --
: distorting the "true" meaning of the Constitution to suit their own personal
: values and beliefs.
: Chief Justice Roberts, for example, charged that, "for those who believe in
: a government of laws, not of men, the majority's approach is deeply
|
c******i
发帖数: 4091 | 33 HIV/AIDS excite, and Darwin rules. hehe
【在 u*****a 的大作中提到】
|
w*********o
发帖数: 3030 | 34 I have been posting in English on this board way before current hype. The
world is bigger then the topic of gay or straight, you know.
argue
【在 c******i 的大作中提到】
: Hmm, English typing helps you to strengthen your gay pride, but in chinese
: you feel your gay pride is not so glory?
: Interesting.
: So your point might be that English is more gay than chinese? I won't argue
: you with you for this.
:
: tongue
|
c******i
发帖数: 4091 | 35 then, what is your english typing point? i did not nit pick your typing
english.
either languae, fact and logic rule, right?
【在 w*********o 的大作中提到】
: I have been posting in English on this board way before current hype. The
: world is bigger then the topic of gay or straight, you know.
:
: argue
|
S*******l
发帖数: 4637 | 36 这个反驳得很在点上。
最高法院的职能在于解释宪法。婚姻的定义宪法根本没有涉及。所以也在最高法的权限
之外。婚姻定义是个社会议题。
最高法的5：4等于把一个社会争议问题当作法律问题强行解决了。就是文中说的违背民
主原则，几个人代替全民决定了。
当年民权问题属于宪法问题，因为是关于个人权利的问题。
同性union已经有了和婚姻同样的所有社会法律权利，比如遗产分配传承等等。
至于是否同性union应该定义为婚姻，就不是法律问题了。
不过，我个人对高法判决本身中立。
只是觉着他们有点越权了。
constitutional
personal
in
【在 u*****a 的大作中提到】
: 芝加哥大学法学院教授对罗伯茨反对意见的驳斥：
: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/the-same-sex-mar
: A central complaint of the four justices who dissented from the Supreme
: Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized a constitutional
: right of same-sex couples to marry, was their repeated assertion that the
: five justices in the majority were unabashedly -- and illegitimately --
: distorting the "true" meaning of the Constitution to suit their own personal
: values and beliefs.
: Chief Justice Roberts, for example, charged that, "for those who believe in
: a government of laws, not of men, the majority's approach is deeply
|
u*****a
发帖数: 6276 | 37 But the four justices are like "the pot calling the kettle black," when
considering their own previous "legal arguments" to grant legal status to
non-constitution questions.
In addition, there are many definitions not mentioned in the Constitution,
but was construed to be born therefrom in Supreme Court rulings. For example
, nowhere in the original Constitution can one find the word "privacy." Now,
can you argue that because the word privacy was not defined in the
Constitution, privacy is not one of the fundamental rights protected by the
Constitution?
【在 S*******l 的大作中提到】
: 这个反驳得很在点上。
: 最高法院的职能在于解释宪法。婚姻的定义宪法根本没有涉及。所以也在最高法的权限
: 之外。婚姻定义是个社会议题。
: 最高法的5：4等于把一个社会争议问题当作法律问题强行解决了。就是文中说的违背民
: 主原则，几个人代替全民决定了。
: 当年民权问题属于宪法问题，因为是关于个人权利的问题。
: 同性union已经有了和婚姻同样的所有社会法律权利，比如遗产分配传承等等。
: 至于是否同性union应该定义为婚姻，就不是法律问题了。
: 不过，我个人对高法判决本身中立。
: 只是觉着他们有点越权了。
|
t*******r
发帖数: 22634 | 38 高院定义的，本质上还是同性婚姻的个人权利 minority group 的权利问题，因为
union 并不自动享有婚姻的所有权利。。。高院作为法律机构，本质上无法定义同性婚
姻的社会伦理，以及民俗上多大程度认可的问题。。。当然很多团体乐于过度
解读就是了。。。
【在 S*******l 的大作中提到】
: 这个反驳得很在点上。
: 最高法院的职能在于解释宪法。婚姻的定义宪法根本没有涉及。所以也在最高法的权限
: 之外。婚姻定义是个社会议题。
: 最高法的5：4等于把一个社会争议问题当作法律问题强行解决了。就是文中说的违背民
: 主原则，几个人代替全民决定了。
: 当年民权问题属于宪法问题，因为是关于个人权利的问题。
: 同性union已经有了和婚姻同样的所有社会法律权利，比如遗产分配传承等等。
: 至于是否同性union应该定义为婚姻，就不是法律问题了。
: 不过，我个人对高法判决本身中立。
: 只是觉着他们有点越权了。
|
c******i
发帖数: 4091 | 39 三个人的union是否自动享有婚姻的所有权利？三个同性恋不算少数群体？
所以，还是婚姻定义的问题。
【在 t*******r 的大作中提到】
: 高院定义的，本质上还是同性婚姻的个人权利 minority group 的权利问题，因为
: union 并不自动享有婚姻的所有权利。。。高院作为法律机构，本质上无法定义同性婚
: 姻的社会伦理，以及民俗上多大程度认可的问题。。。当然很多团体乐于过度
: 解读就是了。。。
|
t*******r
发帖数: 22634 | 40 婚姻的法律层面的定义问题，或者说谁有权 sign 这个 legal contract 的问题。。。
三个人的同性恋目前不被 grant sign 婚姻那个 legal contract 的权利，但从本质上
说，其实也没啥不可以。
从某种角度说，我觉得高院的这个判决，在给予少数群体权利的同时，实际上的确有可
能造成高院从此 de facto 地放弃对婚姻的社会习俗 guide 的约定俗成的习惯。。。
【在 c******i 的大作中提到】
: 三个人的union是否自动享有婚姻的所有权利？三个同性恋不算少数群体？
: 所以，还是婚姻定义的问题。
|
|
|
c******i
发帖数: 4091 | 41 首席写29页，就是声明这个判决让最高法的权力越界了，破坏了三权分立原则。他这一
点是立得住脚的。
【在 t*******r 的大作中提到】
: 婚姻的法律层面的定义问题，或者说谁有权 sign 这个 legal contract 的问题。。。
: 三个人的同性恋目前不被 grant sign 婚姻那个 legal contract 的权利，但从本质上
: 说，其实也没啥不可以。
: 从某种角度说，我觉得高院的这个判决，在给予少数群体权利的同时，实际上的确有可
: 能造成高院从此 de facto 地放弃对婚姻的社会习俗 guide 的约定俗成的习惯。。。
|
S*******l
发帖数: 4637 | 42 婚姻的法律定义，应该是立法机构来定义的。参众两院。也反应了民意，算更符合民主
程序的途径。
高法通过common law传统，先例有法律效力，其实就相当于立法。
这是争议核心。
【在 t*******r 的大作中提到】
: 高院定义的，本质上还是同性婚姻的个人权利 minority group 的权利问题，因为
: union 并不自动享有婚姻的所有权利。。。高院作为法律机构，本质上无法定义同性婚
: 姻的社会伦理，以及民俗上多大程度认可的问题。。。当然很多团体乐于过度
: 解读就是了。。。
|
l****5
发帖数: 5865 | |
u*****a
发帖数: 6276 | 44 每年6月的第三个周日是美国的父亲节。据外媒报道，今年，美国弗吉尼亚洲一位老人
杜安·施罗克在父亲节后数日，收到了一份不同寻常的礼物，这是已故儿子迟来26年的
父亲节卡片。
简短的字句终于解开了父子二人的心结，施罗克也留下了感动的眼泪，他表示十分感激
终于能收到这封信。
报道称，1995年，施罗克45岁时，他的儿子因艾滋病过世。而这张迟到的卡片早在1989
年的父亲节寄出，但由于施罗克搬家数次，因此迟迟未寄到他的手中。施罗克说：“我
在收到贺卡后，还是撕开了信封，撕开这封1989年的来信。”这也是父子二人因同性恋
议题撕破脸后的第一封信。
据悉，施罗克过去因不认同儿子的同性恋生活方式，两人时常发生争执，直至收到这封
盖着1989年邮戳的贺卡：“亲爱的爸爸，我们有好一阵子没有联系了，我在里士满过得
很开心。我好想听到你的消息，祝你有个愉快的父亲节，爱你的儿子。” (“Dear Dad
, we haven’t been in touch for quite a while,” Schock’s son wrote to him
in the now-bittersweet greeting card. “I’m doing fine and am very happy in
Richmond. I’d like to hear from you. Have a Happy Father’s Day.”)
简短的字句终于解开了父子二人的心结，施罗克也留下了感动的眼泪，他表示十分感激
终于能收到这封信，对他而言，简单的问候祝福就彷佛儿子依然在世。 |
n********h
发帖数: 13135 | 45 “报道称，1995年，施罗克45岁时，他的儿子因艾滋病过世“
1989
【在 u*****a 的大作中提到】
: 每年6月的第三个周日是美国的父亲节。据外媒报道，今年，美国弗吉尼亚洲一位老人
: 杜安·施罗克在父亲节后数日，收到了一份不同寻常的礼物，这是已故儿子迟来26年的
: 父亲节卡片。
: 简短的字句终于解开了父子二人的心结，施罗克也留下了感动的眼泪，他表示十分感激
: 终于能收到这封信。
: 报道称，1995年，施罗克45岁时，他的儿子因艾滋病过世。而这张迟到的卡片早在1989
: 年的父亲节寄出，但由于施罗克搬家数次，因此迟迟未寄到他的手中。施罗克说：“我
: 在收到贺卡后，还是撕开了信封，撕开这封1989年的来信。”这也是父子二人因同性恋
: 议题撕破脸后的第一封信。
: 据悉，施罗克过去因不认同儿子的同性恋生活方式，两人时常发生争执，直至收到这封
|
u*****a
发帖数: 6276 | |
c*****m
发帖数: 1160 | 47 不是要讨论孔子的么？怎么都走题了？
“为政先礼。礼，其政之本与”
孔子从来都是很在乎“正名”的，出师一定要名正，作什么事情也都要在合适的场合来
做。所以，有人说，我不反对同性恋住在一起，但是反对他们结婚。这就违背了孔子的
方式。结婚这个礼节是两个人住在一起很重要的一步，这样才能向世界宣布他们两个的
结合，才能“正名”。这次法官的宣判也符合这孔子这个思想，只有这样，两个人才能
合法地住在一起，享有婚姻内双方所应有的权利（继承权之类）。 |
