【英语生活】美国如何将同性婚姻写入法律 About Same-sex Marriage

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.

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.

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.

How did this change happen in a “frozen” political system?

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.

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.

That listening can change the terms of the debate.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.”

Garrett Epps is a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law and the Supreme Court Correspondent for The Atlantic Online.

在世界其他地区的人们看来，2015年的美国想必成了当今一个光怪陆离之地。其所吹嘘的民主政治制度已然瘫痪，而且到了极其严重的地步——今年最高法院的一名法官提议国会着手修订一项有缺陷的法律时，引起了哄堂大笑。

另一方面，美国的法律和社会制度却刚刚经历了一场和平的惊天大变革。50年前，同性恋者是“隐形的少数群体”(invisible minority)；同性恋是一种精神病；同性性行为是犯罪行为。30年前，最高法院裁定，任何要求同性恋相关权益的主张——用法官拜伦?怀特(Byron White)的话来说——“说好听点，都是滑稽的”。20年前，共和党和民主党议员在国会上通过了《婚姻保护法》(Defense of Marriage Act)——禁止联邦承认同性婚姻（比尔?克林顿总统(Bill Clinton)签署了该法案）。10年前，反对同性婚姻的立场帮助乔治?W?布什(George W. Bush)以微弱优势赢得总统连任。

但是，在2015年7月1日，两名同性成年人的婚姻被写进了法律。一些州的官员仍在抵制，但全美国50个州的同性伴侣们已经在登记结婚。

这种改变是如何发生在一个“冻结的”政治体制中的呢？

美国保守派有现成答案：“五位法官给这场辩论画上了句号，把他们自己对婚姻的构想作为一条符合宪法的法律予以通过，”在“奥贝格费尔诉霍奇斯”(Obergefell v. Hodges)同性婚姻案的裁决中，首席大法官约翰?罗伯茨(John Roberts)在一份措辞激烈的不同意见书中如此写道。

然而，现实情况要复杂得多。在美国，法院是独立的，也因此，法院成了美国社会变革机制中一个至关重要的组成部分。当政治机构充耳不闻时，当事人仍可以通过诉讼在法庭上寻求正义。虽然教会和州政府也许会对某些寻求正义之人——少数群体、异见者、甚至已被定罪的谋杀犯——嗤之以鼻，但法官肯定至少会假装以尊重的态度倾听他们的观点。

这种倾听可以改变辩论的条件。

1835年，法国作家亚里克西?德?托克维尔(Alexis de Tocqueville)写道：“几无例外，美国的政治问题或早或晚都会转变为司法问题……发源于法学院和法院的法律精神穿过高墙逐渐渗透到社会中并直抵最底层阶级，以至于最后全体人民都染上了地方司法官的习性和品味。”

说得简单点：美国人针对宪法展开争论，而不是到街头互相厮杀。引起分歧的问题在法院和坊间之间来回往复传递，直到达成解决办法。

从这个角度来看美国同性婚姻的历史。早在1972年，就有同性恋人寻求结婚的权利。美国最高法院以不具有实质性(insubstantial)为由驳回这类主张。但这些主张开始让这个历史上隐形的少数群体露出了人的面目。仅仅通过发出疑问，同性恋群体表明了他们也是普通人，渴望拥有自己的住房和家庭。

到上世纪90年代，身为同性恋的原告们让夏威夷最高法院相信，他们的主张具有实质性。从这一个州开始，辩论拉开了序幕。国会通过了反对同性恋的《婚姻保护法》。夏威夷的选民们推翻了法院的判决。但这些挫折只是让同性婚姻的想法变得更加真实。一些州试图通过实施“民事结合法”来满足同性伴侣的婚姻诉求（后来被大法官鲁思?巴德?金斯伯格(Ruth Bader Ginsburg)称为“脱脂牛奶式的婚姻”）。但在2003年，备受尊敬的马萨诸塞州最高法院裁定，婚姻是所有成年人的权利，不需要什么替代品。

在美国，每一位联邦和地方官员都要宣誓遵守宪法。2004年，旧金山、新墨西哥、纽约、新泽西和俄勒冈的地方官员在没有法院许可令的情况下决定，誓言要求他们向同性伴侣颁发结婚证书。

法庭和选民阻止了那些婚姻。2008年，加州一家法庭裁定同性可以结婚。选民们同样也推翻了该判决，但挑战者们推动法庭展开了一场为期12天的庭审，击败了反对婚姻平等的主张。在每一步，都有更多的同性伴侣站了出来，他们对公正的诉求变得更加清晰。

到2012年，已经有6个州的议会或者法庭将同性婚姻合法化。现在这个问题有了一副面孔和一个声音——端庄优雅的纽约名媛伊迪?温莎(Edie Windsor)与其一生挚爱西达?斯派尔(Theda Spyer)在加拿大结婚。斯派尔过世后，美国联邦官员援引《婚姻保护法》，拒绝让温莎像其他悲伤的遗孀一样享受联邦税收优惠。最高法院在2013年裁定《婚姻保护法》违宪。该法院表示，如果一对配偶在某个州结了婚，联邦政府就不能把他们的婚姻视为低人一等。

在温莎案之后，同性恋人们接二连三地挑战了所在州的禁令；二十余家下级法院废除了同性婚姻禁令。问题在2015年春季又回到了最高法院。法律层面的辩论非常激烈，但在公共舆论场上，战斗已经结束。民调显示，绝大多数美国人倒向支持婚姻平等的阵营。今年6月，最高法院赞同了他们的意见。

是“五位法官”结束了辩论吗？根本不是。独立的法院既没有发起、也没有阻止社会变革，但的确让公众得以在不受邪恶政治——这种政治毒害着美国人生活中的其他方面——影响的情况下，了解根本性问题并做出他们的决定。

无论输赢，每一起同性婚姻诉讼案中的挑战者都被视为“法律面前的人”。投票中的每一次失败都激发了法庭上一次新的努力，每一起法庭诉讼案都激发了一次新的政治斗争，直到——似乎一眨眼之间——公众的抵制土崩瓦解；法庭和公民都被迫直面宪法中关于自由、正当程序和平等保护的承诺。

2015年6月26日，我在法庭上。当肯尼迪大法官(Justice Kennedy)宣布同性伴侣不必再“生活在孤独之中和被排除在人类文明最古老的制度之外”，资深诉讼律师们在众人面前落泪——他们并不是一群多愁善感的人。

离开法院，我看到寻常的一幕：大片欢庆的人群冲出人行道，攀上最高法院庄严的正门台阶。法律禁止这样做；但在6月26日，欢乐的人潮声势浩大，不可阻挡。

就像这群人一样，全国各地的同性伴侣们在过去20年里只是一个劲往前冲。仅仅靠倾听，法院认可了他们的尊严和勇气。这样的认可跟着他们回到公共领域，直至最后，这股潮流变得势不可挡。

这些伴侣——在20年前他们还是没有面目、无声无息的隐形人——慢慢地争取到了同胞的支持，并与之联合起来，以一种完全民主的方式，将他们对于婚姻的构想写入了法律。不管奥贝格费尔案的意见书上署着谁的名字，它的作者都不是“五位法官”，而是“我们人民”。

本文作者是巴尔的摩大学(University of Baltimore)法学院教授、《大西洋月刊》(The Atlantic)在线版的最高法院记者

译者/何黎