很多法官就如诗人一般

bananayuxiaoUID: 2614355

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

It is so ordered.

在WM读书的时候之所以觉得法律不再枯燥乏味，很大程度上是因为法官们的判决值得细嚼慢品，原来这么严谨的逻辑可以用这么美的语言来表达，that is law.

golingoUID: 3596899

谢谢分享

wuboschUID: 3603372

这个语言表达，写得真是太好了……

bananayuxiaoUID: 2614355

判决全文供拜读

bananayuxiaoUID: 2614355

Justice的反对意见：

"Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority's approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens through the democratic process to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept."

"This universal definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman is no historical coincidence. Marriage did not come about as a result of a political movement, discovery, disease, war, religious doctrine, or any other moving force of world history and certainly not as a result of a prehistoric decision to exclude gays and lesbians. It arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship."

君王的合木UID: 3491625

Robert都气疯了，直接说"it is nothing about constitution"，小鸟也变身“愤怒的小鸟”

bananayuxiaoUID: 2614355

君王的合木 发表于 2015-6-27 11:17
Robert都气疯了，直接说"it is nothing about constitution"，小鸟也变身“愤怒的小鸟”

其实个人也略倾向于dissenting的意见。

washulawUID: 3502447

bananayuxiao 发表于 2015-6-27 11:52
其实个人也略倾向于dissenting的意见。

判决能读懂吗？

bananayuxiaoUID: 2614355

washulaw 发表于 2015-6-27 17:21
判决能读懂吗？

文字上读得懂，不过这种事情如果说读完就能完全说服人的话就不会有那么大争议了。

JD@UVAUID: 3503603

抄来的：

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。

washulawUID: 3502447

bananayuxiao 发表于 2015-6-27 18:05
文字上读得懂，不过这种事情如果说读完就能完全说服人的话就不会有那么大争议了。

噢，那你厉害的！没有系统学过美宪法1和2的课，dui这问题判例很熟悉，其实看不怎么懂。

washulawUID: 3502447

JD@UVA 发表于 2015-6-27 22:22
抄来的：

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“

大家想多了。判决里面引中国内容只是简单说：自古以来，婚姻是个很重要的社会制度。这对判决没有实质作用。双方都说得中国/汉人文化--强调婚姻制度的历史悠久性而已。

JD@UVAUID: 3503603

上述讲解孔子有关大婚的贴子，只是想找出法案判决对该引用的出处，实为调研之用，而无轻重之分。

falconcaptorUID: 3415290

7th Circuit Court of Appeals 的Posner法官发了篇文章The chief justice’s dissent is heartless.,下面转载一段关于首席法官Roberts的反对意见. 原文链接在这里

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.