2023考研英语阅读平等保护同性恋婚姻
THE freedom to marry, wrote Earl Warren, chiefjustice of the United States Supreme Court,haslong been recognised as one of the vital personalrights essential to the orderly pursuit of happinessby free men. Warren wrotethat sentence in 1967,by way of explaining why he and his colleaguesunanimously ruled that laws banning interracialmarriages violated both theequal protection anddue process clauses of the fourteenth amendment.Supporters of gay marriage would like to see thatsame court apply that same reasoning to theircause. On February 7th a federal court in California brought them one step closer.
婚姻自由，长久以来都乃自由之人追求幸福不可或缺之至高无上人权之一。美国最高法院的首席大法官Earl Warren在1967年时和他的同僚们一致通过裁定，认为禁止不同种族通婚的禁令违反了第十四修正案的平等保护条款和正当程序条款，为了解释这一裁定，他写下了上面这句话。同性恋婚姻的支持者们希望看到这同一法庭也将同一理由适用于他们的案件。而加州联邦法庭在2月7日的判决让他们离自己的目标更近了一步。
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Proposition 8, a ballotinitiative passed by Californias voters in November 2008 amending the constitution toprohibit gay marriage, was unconstitutional. That initiative passed fivemonths afterCalifornias Supreme Court overturned an earlier ban on gaymarriage; during that time,California granted marriage licences to some 18,000 gay couples.
美国第九巡回上诉法院裁定8号提案违宪。8号提案最早在2008年11月在加州投票通过，修改宪法以禁止同性婚姻。而在8号提案通过的五个月之前，加州最高法院推翻了之前一项关于同性婚姻的禁令;在此期间内，加州为大约18,000对同性夫妻颁发了结婚证书。
The appeals court upheld a lower courts ruling in 2010 that Proposition 8 violated thefourteenth amendment, but did so on far narrower grounds, leaving unanswered the broadquestion of whether states could ever restrict marriage to heterosexual couples, and findinginstead that Californias measure visited a unique harm upon gays and lesbians by strippingthem of a right they once enjoyed. Under California law, gays retained the rights to adoptchildren,file taxes jointly and share bank accounts. Proposition 8 simply denied them theofficial, cherished status of marriage,leading the court to conclude that its sole purposewas to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California.
虽然巡回上诉法院支持初级法院在 2010年做出的关于8号提案违反第十四修正案的裁定，但它基于的理由却极为狭隘，它回避了一个更广泛的悬而未决的问题美国各州是否会将婚姻仅限定于异性夫妻之间;相反地，却只针对由于加州的做法剥夺了一项同性恋者们曾经享有的权利，反而对他们造成了特定伤害这一点做文章。加州的法律规定，同性恋享有领养孩子，共同纳税以及共享银行账户的权利。8号提案只是否决了他们婚姻的合法的，崇高的地位，这使法庭断定8号提案唯一的目的就是要降低加州同性恋者的地位并剥夺他们的尊严。
The case now seems certain to be appealed to the United States Supreme Court, thoughother states are simply pushing ahead with allowing gay marriage: on February 8thWashingtons state legislature voted to allow it, though the decision could yet requireapproval at a referendum. Marriage, far beyond such mundane matters aspensions andbank accounts, is of course a hugely emotive subject. As the Ninth Circuit noted in handingdown its judgment, Had Marilyn Monroes film been called How to Register a DomesticPartnership with a Millionaire, it would not have conveyed the same meaning.
尽管其他州都在推动允许同性婚姻的进程2月8日，华盛顿州众议院投票通过允许同性婚姻的提案，当然决议的最终批准还需公民投票表决但现在看来，此案一定会上诉至美国最高法院。婚姻，是与情感高度相关之事，远不同于养老金，银行账户等一般俗务。就像第九巡回上诉法院在宣布其裁决时所指出的那样： 如果玛丽莲梦露的电影叫《如何与百万富翁签订一纸家庭伴侣关系》，意思就大相径庭了。
THE freedom to marry, wrote Earl Warren, chiefjustice of the United States Supreme Court,haslong been recognised as one of the vital personalrights essential to the orderly pursuit of happinessby free men. Warren wrotethat sentence in 1967,by way of explaining why he and his colleaguesunanimously ruled that laws banning interracialmarriages violated both theequal protection anddue process clauses of the fourteenth amendment.Supporters of gay marriage would like to see thatsame court apply that same reasoning to theircause. On February 7th a federal court in California brought them one step closer.
婚姻自由，长久以来都乃自由之人追求幸福不可或缺之至高无上人权之一。美国最高法院的首席大法官Earl Warren在1967年时和他的同僚们一致通过裁定，认为禁止不同种族通婚的禁令违反了第十四修正案的平等保护条款和正当程序条款，为了解释这一裁定，他写下了上面这句话。同性恋婚姻的支持者们希望看到这同一法庭也将同一理由适用于他们的案件。而加州联邦法庭在2月7日的判决让他们离自己的目标更近了一步。
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Proposition 8, a ballotinitiative passed by Californias voters in November 2008 amending the constitution toprohibit gay marriage, was unconstitutional. That initiative passed fivemonths afterCalifornias Supreme Court overturned an earlier ban on gaymarriage; during that time,California granted marriage licences to some 18,000 gay couples.
美国第九巡回上诉法院裁定8号提案违宪。8号提案最早在2008年11月在加州投票通过，修改宪法以禁止同性婚姻。而在8号提案通过的五个月之前，加州最高法院推翻了之前一项关于同性婚姻的禁令;在此期间内，加州为大约18,000对同性夫妻颁发了结婚证书。
The appeals court upheld a lower courts ruling in 2010 that Proposition 8 violated thefourteenth amendment, but did so on far narrower grounds, leaving unanswered the broadquestion of whether states could ever restrict marriage to heterosexual couples, and findinginstead that Californias measure visited a unique harm upon gays and lesbians by strippingthem of a right they once enjoyed. Under California law, gays retained the rights to adoptchildren,file taxes jointly and share bank accounts. Proposition 8 simply denied them theofficial, cherished status of marriage,leading the court to conclude that its sole purposewas to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California.
虽然巡回上诉法院支持初级法院在 2010年做出的关于8号提案违反第十四修正案的裁定，但它基于的理由却极为狭隘，它回避了一个更广泛的悬而未决的问题美国各州是否会将婚姻仅限定于异性夫妻之间;相反地，却只针对由于加州的做法剥夺了一项同性恋者们曾经享有的权利，反而对他们造成了特定伤害这一点做文章。加州的法律规定，同性恋享有领养孩子，共同纳税以及共享银行账户的权利。8号提案只是否决了他们婚姻的合法的，崇高的地位，这使法庭断定8号提案唯一的目的就是要降低加州同性恋者的地位并剥夺他们的尊严。
The case now seems certain to be appealed to the United States Supreme Court, thoughother states are simply pushing ahead with allowing gay marriage: on February 8thWashingtons state legislature voted to allow it, though the decision could yet requireapproval at a referendum. Marriage, far beyond such mundane matters aspensions andbank accounts, is of course a hugely emotive subject. As the Ninth Circuit noted in handingdown its judgment, Had Marilyn Monroes film been called How to Register a DomesticPartnership with a Millionaire, it would not have conveyed the same meaning.
尽管其他州都在推动允许同性婚姻的进程2月8日，华盛顿州众议院投票通过允许同性婚姻的提案，当然决议的最终批准还需公民投票表决但现在看来，此案一定会上诉至美国最高法院。婚姻，是与情感高度相关之事，远不同于养老金，银行账户等一般俗务。就像第九巡回上诉法院在宣布其裁决时所指出的那样： 如果玛丽莲梦露的电影叫《如何与百万富翁签订一纸家庭伴侣关系》，意思就大相径庭了。
