【“同”声传译·第9期】同志婚姻问题一解:取缔“婚姻”?

一篇挺老的文章,不过觉得对于大家了解国外同志婚姻问题有一定意义,所以翻译出来供大家参考。在文末附上了相关的概念、人物链接供大家进行拓展阅读。

A Gay-Marriage Solution: End Marriage?
同志婚姻问题一解:取缔“婚姻”?

原文地址:http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1885190,00.html
Monday, Mar. 16, 2009

翻译:吟啸风寒

redefined_marriage_0313.jpg

When a Jewish boy turns 13, he heads to a temple for a deeply meaningful rite of passage, his bar mitzvah. When a Catholic girl reaches about the same age, she stands in front of the local bishop, who touches her forehead with holy oil as she is confirmed into a 2,000-year-old faith tradition. But missing in each of those cases — and in countless others of equal religious importance — is any role for government. There is no baptism certificate issued by the local courthouse and no federal tax benefit attached to the confessional booth, the into-the-water-and-out born-again ceremony or any of the other sacraments that believers hold sacred.

犹太男孩长到13岁时,要在宗庙中进行在他的人生中具有重大意义的仪式——成人礼。而当信仰天主教的女孩到了大概同样的年纪,根据一项有着两千多年历史的信仰传统,她需要站在当地的主教面前,让主教把圣膏油涂抹在她的额上。像上面两个例子一样,很多类似的宗教传统都有着重要的宗教意义,但并不是政府的规定——任何一地的法院不会提供洗礼证明,而教堂的忏悔室也没有联邦财政补贴;像洗礼这种简单的“放到水中然后重生”的仪式以及一些宗教圣餐等都是信徒们虔诚的信仰。

Only marriage gets that treatment, and it’s a tradition that some legal scholars have been arguing should be abandoned. In a paper published March 2 in the San Francisco Chronicle, two law professors from Pepperdine University issued a call to re-examine the role the government plays in marriage. The authors — one of whom voted for and one against Proposition 8, which ended gay marriage in California — say the best way out of the intractable legal wars over gay marriage is to take marriage out of the hands of the government altogether.

只有婚姻的行为受到政府的干预。很多法律学者认为婚姻这项传统应该被取缔。在旧金山《纪录》三月二日刊登的一篇论文中,派伯丁大学的两位法学教授认为应该重审政府在婚姻中的角色。两位作者分别对“8号提案”(加州关于禁止同性恋婚姻的提案)投了赞成和反对票,他们认为解决同志婚姻在法理上纠结论战的最好方法,是将婚姻的概念整个从政府的控制中拿出来。

Instead, give gay and straight couples alike the same license, a certificate confirming them as a family, and call it a civil union — anything, really, other than marriage. For people who feel the word marriage is important, the next stop after the courthouse could be the church, where they could bless their union with all the religious ceremony they wanted. Religions would lose nothing of their role in sanctioning the kinds of unions that they find in keeping with their tenets. And for nonbelievers and those who find the word marriage less important, the civil-union license issued by the state would be all they needed to unlock the benefits reserved in most states and in federal law for married couples.

或者也可以给所有伴侣,不管是否为同志,一种同样的证明,以承认他们为一个家庭。我们姑且称这种关系为一种“公民组合”或者其他的名字,而不是“婚姻”。对于那些认为“婚姻”这个概念非常重要的人来说,这种重新命名在法院过后的下一关是教堂,在教堂里他们可以以任何自己希望的宗教仪式来庆祝这种“组合”。在这种组合中,双方可以共同恪守宗教信条,而宗教依旧起到了对于这种组合进行批准的效力。对于不信教者以及那些认为婚姻不重要的人来说,这种由国家颁发的“公民组合证明” 可以让他们享受那些在大部分州中根据联邦法律仅限于已婚伴侣的权益。

“While new terminology for all may at first seem awkward — mostly in greeting-card shops — it dovetails with the court’s important responsibility to reaffirm the unfettered freedom of all faiths to extend the nomenclature of marriage as their traditions allow,” wrote Douglas W. Kmiec and Shelley Ross Saxer. Kmiec voted for Prop 8 because of his belief in the teachings of the Catholic Church and his notion of religious liberty but has since said he thinks the courts should not allow one group of Californians to marry while denying the privilege to others.

“这个叫法(指“公民组合”)起初对于人们来说可能显得蹩脚(尤其对于那些贺卡店来说),但是,宗教信徒有根据自身传统对婚姻进行命名不受限制的自由,而这种重新命名正体现了法院在维护上述自由方面的重要义务,”道格拉斯•W•科密艾克和萨利•萝丝•萨克瑟尔写到。科密艾克由于自己对于天主教义和宗教自由的信仰投票支持了8号提案,但是之后又说法院不应该只让一些加利福尼亚人结婚而否认其他人的同样的权利。

Their idea got a big boost three days later, during the March 5 oral arguments before the California Supreme Court, which is expected to issue a ruling soon in the case brought by gay couples and others who argue the constitutional amendment passed by voters last fall should be invalidated. Justice Ming Chin asked attorneys for each side whether the idea would solve the legal issues connected to gay marriage — issues that at their core revolve around the question of whether allowing some couples to marry but not others violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law.

三天之后他们的观点就受到了广泛的拥护。一些同志伴侣和相关人士认为去年秋天颁布的宪法修正案无效,他们对此上诉法院。三月五日,在加州最高法院进行的五轮辩论,法院将不久据此进行最终裁决。陈惠明法官要求双方律师各陈己见,论证其理论是否可以解决与同志婚姻相关的法律问题。这些问题都围绕着一个核心,那就是是否应该允许一些伴侣结婚而不让其他伴侣结婚,这样是不是违背了宪法中关于公民受平等法律保护的承诺。

Both sets of lawyers agreed that the idea would resolve the equal-protection issue. Take the state out of the marriage business and then both kinds of couples — straight and gay — would be treated the same. Even Ken Starr, the Pepperdine law dean and former Whitewater independent counsel who argued in favor of Prop 8, agreed that the idea would solve the legal issues, though he said it was a solution that lies outside the legal authority of the court. An attorney for the other side, Michael Maroko, didn’t expressly endorse the idea, but he told Chin, “If you’re in the marriage business, do it equally. And if you’re not going to do it equally, get out of the business.”

双方的都认为这个解决方法(“公民组合”的措辞)能解决有关公民受平等保护的问题。将加州从婚姻这个概念的泥淖中解脱出来,确实可以让不论是异性伴侣还是同志伴侣享受平等的待遇。派伯丁法学院院长、前白水独立讼务律师肯•斯塔也认为该方法能解决同志婚姻法律上的问题;他支持8号提案,但认为这个解决办法不是法院的法律效力之所能及。另一方的一位叫马克•马洛克没有明确表面认同该办法,但它对陈法官说:“如果你要保留婚姻,就要公平;如果你不要公平,就取缔婚姻。”

The two Pepperdine professors are arguing that the court should use that line of thinking in crafting its decision in the case before it, short-circuiting the need for a new referendum. Their proposal is aimed at helping speed a resolution on the issue in other states — gay marriage is heating up in Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont and elsewhere — and at the federal level. All sides on the debate expect the issues bubbling up out of the state courts and legislatures to eventually gain traction in federal courts too, ultimately leading to a case before the Supreme Court or efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or both.

两位派帕丁的教授认为法院应该用这种思维方式来忖度当前的案件的判决以避免一次新的全民投票。随着同志婚姻问题在爱奥华州、康涅狄格州、佛蒙特州以及其他州都逐渐升温,他们的提议也旨在促成其他州以及在整个联邦的层面在这个问题上迅速决议。辩论双方都希望这个问题在州法院和立法院层面不得解决,从而获得来自联邦法院的牵制力,最终由最高法院来裁定,或者通过修正美国宪法来解决(或者两者兼有)。

But as Solomonic as the compromise seems, giving up the word marriage may be impossible. For many couples joined in matrimony, having the state no longer call them married may make them feel as if something important had been taken away — even if it’s hard to define just what was lost. And for many others — the folks who feel most strongly about marriage and most passionately supported the expensive campaign to defeat gay marriage — the issue of nomenclature is only the beginning. They are against not just gay marriage but also gay couples — and especially against government sanctioning of those relationships, no matter what they are called.

但是尽管这种折中之举可能是明智公平的,取缔婚姻这个词似乎并不可能。很多伴侣都处于婚姻关系之中,而不承认他们的关系为“婚姻”会让他们觉得若有所失,即使在这个过程中失去的东西很难界定。至于那些对于婚姻最在乎并且不惜代价进行反对同性恋婚姻运动的人,对他们来说,重新命名只是一个开始。他们反对的不仅是同志婚姻,而是同志伴侣;不管名号如何,他们反对政府对于这种关系任何形式的确认。

And as Chin considers whether he can craft a compromise with his fellow justices that would both uphold Prop 8 — and therefore the right of the people to amend the state constitution — and assert the right of gay people to be treated equally, he may find that the folks who cling hardest to marriage are gay couples. After all, what was the most sweeping part of the May 2008 decision Ming and his colleagues issued that granted gays the right to marry? It was the idea that the word marriage is so strong that denying it to gay couples violates the most sacred right enshrined in the state constitution: the right for all people to be treated with dignity and fairness. Just 10 months later, gay couples — whether or not they are among the 18,000 who married in the state before Prop 8 stopped the ceremonies — are loath to lose a word for which so many fought so hard and so long to have apply to themselves.

陈惠明法官和他的同事在试图找到一个折中方案,这个方案既能不违背8号提案(也就维护了人们修改州宪法的权利),又能让同志人群享受平等的权利。在这个过程中,他也许会发现那些对于“婚姻”的概念最执着的便是同志伴侣。毕竟,陈惠明和他的同事在2008年5月赋予同志伴侣婚姻权利的判决最激动人心的地方不正在于“婚姻”这个概念吗?这个概念太美好了,而对同志伴侣将其否认违背了宪法中最神圣的权利:应以尊严和平等对待所有人的权利。同志伴侣为之苦苦斗争并希望能为自己所有的这个词——“婚姻”,在仅仅十个月以后就离他们而去,就算在加州8号提案之前完婚的18,000人之列(之后其婚姻关系仍然有效),他们能不为之伤感哀悼吗?

But the Pepperdine idea puts into a play a new way of thinking — and whether it’s part of the court’s decision in the Prop 8 case or whether it makes its way into a new referendum, the idea of getting governments out of the marriage business offers a creative way of thinking about a problem that is otherwise likely to be around for a long, long time.

不论如何,派伯丁大学的这种方式确实为这个问题的解决提供了一种新思路。不管是作为在8号提案这个案件中法院的判决参考也好,还是对于新一轮全民投票的影响也好,这种将政府对于婚姻干预撤销的创造性思路对于同志婚姻问题的解决具有重要意义,有利于让问题尽快走出的纠结的死胡同。

陈惠明:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_Chin
8号提案:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)

顺便,第8号提案的舞台剧:https://forum.motss.cc/t/topic/16653/1

之前微博上一些人也有叫嚣取缔婚姻的

怎么行!!!我们还没享受到呢他们就不结了