为什么同性婚姻在美国大多数州获得合法地位 ?

标签:
情感社会生活 |
活动人士庆祝美国最高法院(U.S. Supreme Court decision)2014年裁定不干涉各州关于允许同性婚姻的裁决。 (© AP Images)
为了争取与异性夫妇同等的法律承认和保护,同性夫妇纷纷在法庭对有关各州的禁令进行抗争。很多 支持他们的法院认为,根据美国宪法(U.S. Constitution),婚姻是每一个人都应该享有的权利,以性倾向为由采取歧视态度属于非法。
2013年,美国最高法院推翻了1996
的一项联邦法律。根据原来的法律,“婚姻”和“配偶”只适用于异性婚姻。最高法院预定4月
28日举行听辩会,有可能最终推翻美国所有现存的禁止同性婚姻的禁令。美国正
经历一场文化大变革,因为年轻一代对同性关系接触更多,也更容易接受,可为
有关的选举议题和推翻州禁令提供支持。很多主流宗教团体和政治组织,包括全国有色人种协进会(National
Association for the Advancement of Colored
People)都公开支持同性夫妇的权利。以下视频介绍了美国很多年轻人的看法。他们认为爱就是爱,无关性别。
视频:http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XOTM4NTA0MTEy.html
纽约大学(New York University)教授帕特里克·伊根(Patrick Egan
)曾经问道,“这些人愿意相守一生,忠贞不渝。你准备从法律上承认他们,还是希望法律强制宣布这份誓言无效?”
How same-sex marriage is becoming legal in the
U.S.
Thirty-seven U.S.
states
At that time, only 30 percent of Americans supported the idea. In
2015, that figure has doubled to 60 percent, and more than 70
percent of Americans now live in states where gay marriage is
legal. For many gay rights activists, the quick legal and cultural
change has been nothing short of
Activists celebrate a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2014 not to intervene in state rulings that allow same-sex marriage. (© AP Images)
As same-sex couples sought the same legal recognition and
protections that heterosexual couples enjoy, they challenged state
bans in courts. Many courts that sided with them took the view that
marriage is a right guaranteed to everyone under the U.S.
Constitution, and discrimination based on sexual orientation is
unlawful.
America underwent a cultural transformation as younger generations,
more exposed to and accepting of same-sex relationships, lent their
support to ballot measures and state efforts to overturn the bans.
Many mainstream religious groups and political organizations,
including the
This video highlights the attitudes of many younger Americans who
agree that love is love, regardless of gender.
link:
As New York University professor Patrick Egan asked, “Are you going
to legally recognize these people who are willing to make a
lifelong commitment to one another, or are you going to use the
force of law to render that commitment null and
void?”