【英语生活】美最高法院首次就同性婚姻权利举行听证

Supreme Court justices appeared divided Tuesday during historic arguments over the fate of gay marriage in California, at times almost regretful they took the case and at others splitting neatly into well-worn ideological camps.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, seen holding a key vote, wrote both of the court's major gay-rights decisions, most recently in 2003. On Tuesday, however, he made clear that the case of Proposition 8, a 2008 California voter initiative that rescinded the marriage rights of same-sex couples in the state, had left him conflicted.

'You're really asking…for us to go into uncharted waters,' he told Theodore Olson, the lawyer challenging Proposition 8. 'And you can play with that metaphor. There's a wonderful destination or there's a cliff.'

Tuesday's arguments came in the first of two cases in which the high court for the first time is directly tackling gay marriage, now legal in nine states and the District of Columbia. The court on Wednesday will hear a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law denying federal recognition and benefits, such as exemption from the estate tax, to same-sex spouses.

Lower federal courts have invalidated that law, saying the federal government has accepted state-authorized marriages in other instances. Decisions in both cases are expected before July.

In the California case, lower federal courts already have ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional. The justices could reinstate it or strike it down. They have a range of options in the latter scenario, including issuing a procedural ruling that would apply only to California or expanding same-sex marriage rights beyond California to some or even all of the 50 states.

Some justices appeared to search for a way to avoid placing the Supreme Court's imprimatur on a decision, one way or the other. Chief Justice John Roberts asked repeatedly whether the case should have reached the high court at all.

The state of California declined to defend Proposition 8 after its governor and attorney general concluded the measure was unconstitutional. Should the court adopt that position, it likely would leave in place a federal district court decision invalidating Proposition 8 but creating no binding precedent on gay marriage itself.

Although lower courts held that the official citizen-sponsors of the measure had legal standing to defend Proposition 8, Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that federal precedents might not allow private individuals to represent a state government's position in court.

周二，美国最高法院的大法官在针对加州同性婚姻的命运进行历史性听证期间似乎出现了意见分歧。在一些时候，大法官们似乎表现出对决定受理此案感到后悔；而在其他时间里，大法官们则明显分成了两大意识形态阵营。

AFP/Getty Images3月25日，人们在美国最高法院前排队等待入场。
美最高法院大法官安东尼•肯尼迪(Anthony Kennedy)被认为是持有一张关键投票。他曾执笔最高法院关于同性恋权利的两项主要决议，其中最近一项决议是在2003年做出的。然而周二，肯尼迪大法官却清楚地表示，就8号提案进行听证令他左右为难。所谓“8号提案”是指2008年加州选民投票通过的一项法案，该法案废除了同性伴侣在加州享有的婚姻权利。

肯尼迪大法官对挑战8号提案的律师奥尔森(Theodore Olson)说：你这是在要求我们进入未知领域。你可以巧妙地使用这一比喻。此行的目的地要么非常美妙，要么就是悬崖。

周二的听证是美最高法院此次举行的两个听证之一。这是美最高法院首次直面同性婚姻问题。美国现有九个州和哥伦比亚特区宣布同性婚姻合法。最高法院周三将对1996年通过的联邦《婚姻保护法》(Defense of Marriage Act)进行听证。这项法令禁止联邦政府承认同性婚姻，否认同性伴侣享有遗产税豁免等福利。

下级联邦法院已经宣布上述法案无效，称联邦政府在其它情况下已接受州政府许可的婚姻。最高法院关于两起听证的决议预计将在今年7月之前作出。

就加州的情况而言，下级联邦法院已经裁定8号提案违宪。美高院大法官可以恢复这项提案，也可以宣布其无效。在宣布其无效之后，大法官们还有一系列选择，其中包括作出一个只适用于加州的程序性裁决，或是将同性婚姻权利拓展至加州以外的州，甚至是全美50个州。

一些大法官似乎决意寻找某种方法，以避免最高法院不得不批准一个或支持、或反对的决定。美最高法院首席大法官罗伯茨(John Roberts)反复询问此案是否应该提交至最高法院。

在加州州长和总检察长指出8号提案违宪之后，加州政府拒绝替8号提案进行辩护。如果美最高法院接受这一立场，那么联邦地区法院宣布8号提案无效的裁决将得以保留，但这一做法并没有就同性婚姻本身树立一个具有约束力的判例。

虽然下级法院认为，8号提案的正式公民发起人在法律上有权替该提案进行辩护，但美最高法院大法官布雷耶(Stephen Breyer)则表示，联邦判例法可能不会允许个人在法庭上代表州政府的立场。