美國如何將同性婚姻寫入法律
Seen from abroad, the United States in 2015 must a present curious spectacle. Its vaunted democratic political system is paralyzed—so dysfunctional that, earlier this year, a Justice of the Supreme Court drew open laughter when he suggested that Congress might act to fix a defective statute.
在世界其他地區的人們看來，2015年的美國想必成了當今一個光怪陸離之地。其所吹噓的民主政治制度已然癱瘓，而且到了極其嚴重的地步——今年最高法院的一名法官提議國會着手修訂一項有缺陷的法律時，引起了鬨堂大笑。
On the other hand, the country’s legal and social system has just gone through a stunning peaceful revolution. Fifty years ago, Gay men and lesbians were an invisible minority; homosexuality was a mental illness; gay sex was a criminal offense. Thirty years ago, the Supreme Court held that any claim for homosexual rights was, in the words of Justice Byron White, “at best, facetious.” Twenty years ago, Republican and Democratic lawmakers passed (and President Bill Clinton signed) the Defense of Marriage Act barring federal recognition of same-sex marriages. Ten years ago, opposition to gay marriage powered George W. Bush’s narrow re-election victory.
另一方面，美國的法律和社會制度卻剛剛經歷了一場和平的驚天大變革。50年前，同性戀者是“隱形的少數羣體”(invisible minority)；同性戀是一種精神病；同性性行爲是犯罪行爲。30年前，最高法院裁定，任何要求同性戀相關權益的主張——用法官拜倫 祠(Byron White)的話來說——“說好聽點，都是滑稽的”。20年前，共和黨和民主黨議員在國會上通過了《婚姻保護法》(Defense of Marriage Act)——禁止聯邦承認同性婚姻（比爾克林頓總統(Bill Clinton)簽署了該法案）。10年前，反對同性婚姻的立場幫助喬治圠布什(George W. Bush)以微弱優勢贏得總統連任。
Yet as of July 1, 2015, marriage between two adults of the same sex is the law. A few state officials are still resisting, but gay couples are marrying in all 50 states.
但是，在2015年7月1日，兩名同性成年人的婚姻被寫進了法律。一些州的官員仍在抵制，但全美國50個州的同性伴侶們已經在登記結婚。
How did this change happen in a “frozen” political system?
這種改變是如何發生在一個“凍結的”政治體制中的呢？
American conservatives have a ready answer: “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a bitter dissent to the same-sex marriage decision, Obergefell v. Hodges.
美國保守派有現成答案：“五位法官給這場辯論畫上了句號，把他們自己對婚姻的構想作爲一條符合憲法的法律予以通過，”在“奧貝格費爾訴霍奇斯”(Obergefell v. Hodges)同性婚姻案的裁決中，首席大法官約翰圠伯茨(John Roberts)在一份措辭激烈的不同意見書中如此寫道。
The reality, however, is more complicated. Courts in the United States are independent. For that reason, they are a crucial part of the American mechanism of social change. When the political branches close their ears, litigants may still seek justice in court. Though church and state may scorn those who seek the their—minorities, dissidents, even condemned murderers—judges must at least pretend to listen to their arguments with respect.
然而，現實情況要複雜得多。在美國，法院是獨立的，也因此，法院成了美國社會變革機制中一個至關重要的組成部分。當政治機構充耳不聞時，當事人仍可以通過訴訟在法庭上尋求正義。雖然教會和州政府也許會對某些尋求正義之人——少數羣體、異見者、甚至已被定罪的謀殺犯——嗤之以鼻，但法官肯定至少會假裝以尊重的態度傾聽他們的觀點。
That listening can change the terms of the debate.
這種傾聽可以改變辯論的條件。
In 1835, the French writer Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, “Scarcely any political question arises in the United States that is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question . . . . [T]he spirit of the law, which is produced in the schools and courts of justice, gradually penetrates beyond their walls into the bosom of society, where it descends to the lowest classes, so that at last the whole people contract the habits and the tastes of the judicial magistrate.”
1835年，法國作家亞里克西德堠克維爾(Alexis de Tocqueville)寫道：“幾無例外，美國的政治問題或早或晚都會轉變爲司法問題……發源於法學院和法院的法律精神穿過高牆逐漸滲透到社會中並直抵最底層階級，以至於最後全體人民都染上了地方司法官的習性和品味。”
To put it more simply: instead of killing each other in the streets, Americans argue about the Constitution. Divisive issues bounce back and forth between courts and streets until a settlement is reached.
說得簡單點：美國人針對憲法展開爭論，而不是到街頭互相廝殺。引起分歧的問題在法院和坊間之間來回往復傳遞，直到達成解決辦法。
View the history of same-sex marriage in that light. Gay couples began to seek the right to marry as early as 1972. The Supreme Court rejected that claim as “insubstantial.” But the mere claim began to put a human face on a minority that had been historically invisible. Simply by asking the question, gays and lesbians showed themselves as ordinary people who wanted homes and families of their own.
從這個角度來看美國同性婚姻的歷史。早在1972年，就有同性戀人尋求結婚的權利。美國最高法院以不具有實質性(insubstantial)爲由駁回這類主張。但這些主張開始讓這個歷史上隱形的少數羣體露出了人的面目。僅僅通過發出疑問，同性戀羣體表明瞭他們也是普通人，渴望擁有自己的住房和家庭。
By the 1990s, gay claimants convinced the Hawaii Supreme Court that the claim was substantial indeed. One state was all it took to begin the debate. Congress passed the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act; Hawaii voters overturned their court. But these setbacks only made the idea of same-sex marriage more real. Some states tried to still the demand by enacting “civil union” laws (later described by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as “skim-milk marriage”), which had the same effect. But in 2003, the highly respected Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that marriage, not a substitute, was the right of every adult.
到上世紀90年代，身爲同性戀的原告們讓夏威夷最高法院相信，他們的主張具有實質性。從這一個州開始，辯論拉開了序幕。國會通過了反對同性戀的《婚姻保護法》。夏威夷的選民們推翻了法院的判決。但這些挫折只是讓同性婚姻的想法變得更加真實。一些州試圖通過實施“民事結合法”來滿足同性伴侶的婚姻訴求（後來被大法官魯思巴德金斯伯格(Ruth Bader Ginsburg)稱爲“脫脂牛奶式的婚姻”）。但在2003年，備受尊敬的馬薩諸塞州最高法院裁定，婚姻是所有成年人的權利，不需要什麼替代品。
In the United States, every federal and local official swears an oath to the Constitution. In 2004, local officials in San Francisco, New Mexico, New York, New Jersey and Oregon, without a court permission, decided that oath required them to issue licenses to same-sex couples. Courts and voters halted those marriages. In 2008, a California court ordered marriages to begin. Voters rejected that decision as well, but the challengers forced a 12-day trial that exploded the arguments against marriage equality. At every step, more couples stepped forward into the sunlight, and their claim for justice became more vivid.
在美國，每一位聯邦和地方官員都要宣誓遵守憲法。2004年，舊金山、新墨西哥、紐約、新澤西和俄勒岡的地方官員在沒有法院許可令的情況下決定，誓言要求他們向同性伴侶頒發結婚證書。
By 2012, legislatures or courts had legalized same-sex marriages in half a dozen states. The issue now had a face and a voice—an elegant New York socialite, Edie Windsor, had married the love of her life, Theda Spyer, in Canada. Theda died, and federal officials, citing DOMA, denied Edie the federal tax benefits extended to other grieving widows. The Supreme Court in 2013 struck down DOMA. If states married a couple, the federal government could not treat their marriages as second class, the Court said.
法庭和選民阻止了那些婚姻。2008年，加州一家法庭裁定同性可以結婚。選民們同樣也推翻了該判決，但挑戰者們推動法庭展開了一場爲期12天的庭審，擊敗了反對婚姻平等的主張。在每一步，都有更多的同性伴侶站了出來，他們對公正的訴求變得更加清晰。
After the Windsor case, couple after couple challenged the bans in their home states; nearly two dozen lower courts struck them down. The issue returned to the Supreme Court in the spring of 2015. The legal rhetoric was sharp; but in the court of public opinion, the battle was over. Polls showed a strong majority of Americans had swung to the pro-marriage equality camp. In June, the Supreme Court agreed with them.
到2012年，已經有6個州的議會或者法庭將同性婚姻合法化。現在這個問題有了一副面孔和一個聲音——端莊優雅的紐約名媛伊迪溫莎(Edie Windsor)與其一生摯愛西達斯派爾(Theda Spyer)在加拿大結婚。斯派爾過世後，美國聯邦官員援引《婚姻保護法》，拒絕讓溫莎像其他悲傷的遺孀一樣享受聯邦稅收優惠。最高法院在2013年裁定《婚姻保護法》違憲。該法院表示，如果一對配偶在某個州結了婚，聯邦政府就不能把他們的婚姻視爲低人一等。
Was this “five lawyers” closing the debate ? Not at all. Independent courts do not start, or stop, social change. But they do allow the public to learn about and decide fundamental issues without the vicious politics that have poisoned American life elsewhere.
在溫莎案之後，同性戀人們接二連三地挑戰了所在州的禁令；二十餘家下級法院廢除了同性婚姻禁令。問題在2015年春季又回到了最高法院。法律層面的辯論非常激烈，但在公共輿論場上，戰鬥已經結束。民調顯示，絕大多數美國人倒向支持婚姻平等的陣營。今年6月，最高法院贊同了他們的意見。
Win or lose, the challengers in each same-sex marriage case were recognized as persons before the law. Each defeat at the polls spurred a new effort in court, and each court case spurred a new political fight, until—seemingly in the twinkling of an eye—popular resistance crumbled; courts and citizens alike were forced to confront the Constitution’s promise of liberty, due process, and equal protection.
是“五位法官”結束了辯論嗎？根本不是。獨立的法院既沒有發起、也沒有阻止社會變革，但的確讓公衆得以在不受邪惡政治——這種政治毒害着美國人生活中的其他方面——影響的情況下，瞭解根本性問題並做出他們的決定。
I was in the courtroom on June 26, 2015. Veteran litigators—not a sentimental bunch--wept openly as Justice Kennedy announced that same sex couples need no longer “live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions.”
無論輸贏，每一起同性婚姻訴訟案中的挑戰者都被視爲“法律面前的人”。投票中的每一次失敗都激發了法庭上一次新的努力，每一起法庭訴訟案都激發了一次新的政治鬥爭，直到——似乎一眨眼之間——公衆的抵制土崩瓦解；法庭和公民都被迫直面憲法中關於自由、正當程序和平等保護的承諾。
Leaving the Court, I saw an usual sight: a sea of celebrants had surged off the sidewalk and up to the Court’s iconic front steps. The law forbids this; but on June 26, the tide of joyful humanity was too much to be resisted.
2015年6月26日，我在法庭上。當肯尼迪大法官(Justice Kennedy)宣佈同性伴侶不必再“生活在孤獨之中和被排除在人類文明最古老的制度之外”，資深訴訟律師們在衆人面前落淚——他們並不是一羣多愁善感的人。
Like that crowd, gay couples around the country had simply surged forward over the past 20 years. Simply by listening, courts recognized their dignity and courage. That recognition followed them back into the public arena, until finally the tide became irresistible.
離開法院，我看到尋常的一幕：大片歡慶的人羣衝出人行道，攀上最高法院莊嚴的正門臺階。法律禁止這樣做；但在6月26日，歡樂的人潮聲勢浩大，不可阻擋。
Those couples—faceless and voiceless only 20 years ago—slowly won over their fellow Americans, and together, in a fully democratic way, they wrote their vision of marriage into constitutional law. No matter whose names were set to the opinion in Obergefell, its authors were not “five lawyers” but “We the People.”
就像這羣人一樣，全國各地的同性伴侶們在過去20年裏只是一個勁往前衝。僅僅靠傾聽，法院認可了他們的尊嚴和勇氣。這樣的認可跟着他們回到公共領域，直至最後，這股潮流變得勢不可擋。
Garrett Epps is a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law and the Supreme Court Correspondent for The Atlantic Online.
這些伴侶——在20年前他們還是沒有面目、無聲無息的隱形人——慢慢地爭取到了同胞的支持，並與之聯合起來，以一種完全民主的方式，將他們對於婚姻的構想寫入了法律。不管奧貝格費爾案的意見書上署着誰的名字，它的作者都不是“五位法官”，而是“我們人民”。
