... An individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation.
（一個人是否對另一個人許下愛和相守的的承諾，並承擔養兒育女的責任，和這個人的性別已經不再有關係。)
主審禁止同性戀婚姻是否違反州憲法的加州最高法院法官Ronald George在長達121頁的判決書裡寫下這段話。
在麻州承認同性婚姻合法後的四年裡，紐約州、華盛頓州、紐澤西州的的法院相繼判定同性婚姻非法。昨天，加州這個以共和黨法官為主的審判團以4比3判決同性伴侶有結婚的權利。四名同意的法官裡，只有一個傾向民主黨。
加州的婚姻法最早可追溯到1977年的"one man, one woman marriage law"，接下來就是2000年「只有異性間的婚姻關係才合法」的公投，有61%的加州人民贊成。加州憲法並沒有如其他26個州將反同性戀婚姻明文入憲。
1999年，加州通過全美第一個同居人法，之後經歷數年的修訂增補，同性伴侶在加州得以享有和異性夫妻幾乎相等的權利，只除了那一紙證書。
目前，美國有10個州，包括華盛頓州，有類似的同居人法，只是賦予應享等同於婚姻關係的權力不等。
2004年，舊金山市長Newson開放同性婚姻，因為2000年的公投，被法院認定違法。這個事件在美國引起諸多關於同性戀婚姻的討論，影響之廣，甚至刺激美國的保守派人士團結起來，支持當年總統大選時，持相同立場的小布希。
昨天，近四年前引發爭端的Newson在聽到最高法院的判決後，說：
"It's about human dignity. It's about human rights. It's about time in California. As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. It's inevitable."
（這事關乎人的尊嚴和權利，而加州正站在浪頭上。若加州認可同性戀婚姻，無可避免的，其他州也將群起效尤。）
Newson能這麼說，也是因為這個佔了全美十分之一人口的大州，從二次大戰以來，多次主導美國國內社會文化價值觀的改變。
戰爭並沒有因為最高法院的判決而結束。即使加州州長阿諾不贊成，今年十一月，加州人將公投表決是否要將禁止同性戀婚姻明文寫入州憲法之內。
Ｘ Ｘ Ｘ
我不是基督徒，所以我不太能理解為什麼許多信仰耶穌宗教的人不贊同同性戀婚姻。對我來說，兩個同性的人結婚這種事，對我的生活一點影響也沒有。
也許也是因為不覺得自己的權利被侵犯了，所以每看到美國有又哪裡為了同性戀能不能結婚這檔事吵翻天時，只覺得莫名其妙。
這篇文章嚇到我的觀點其實是，沒想到四年前小布希是靠這些人當選的？那加州還真會挑時候提這件事，今年不就又要選總統了嗎？
扯遠了，把話題拉回來。
其實這個判決最重要的意義，是Northwest Women's Law Center的主任Lisa Stone說的，法律上為了公平正義，既得利益者沒有不應該拒絕未享有權利者同享利益的精神。
台灣人似乎很少從這個角度看事情，我們總是把想要共享資源的弱勢者看作是想分一杯羹的的敵人，這也是我想節譯這篇文章的原因之一。
原因之二，是我很喜歡這種將一件事的過往整理耙疏的文章，這似乎一直是台灣的新聞寫作很缺乏的部分。
相關連結：
Washington gay-marriage advocates see tide turning, but look to Legislature
Old law limiting same-sex marriage to die
2008.10.2新增連結：
Massachusetts eases gay marriage requirements
Massachusetts lets out-of state gay couples marry
Connecticut court overturns ban on gay marriage
2008.11.26新增連結：
Florida judge tosses out ban on adoption by gays
Seattle Times
Friday, May 16, 2008 - Page updated at 01:44 AM
California Supreme Court says yes to same-sex marriage
SAN FRANCISCO — The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry, rejecting state marriage laws as discriminatory.
The court's 4-3 ruling was unlikely to end the debate over gay matrimony in California. A group has circulated petitions for a November ballot initiative that would amend the state constitution to block same-sex marriage, while the Legislature has twice passed bills to authorize gay marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both.
Under court rules, Thursday's decision does not take effect for 30 days, lawyers said, and opponents of gay marriage said they would ask the court to stay its judgment pending the expected vote by the public in November.
"It benefits no one to redefine marriage for three to four months," said attorney Andrew Pugno of ProtectMarriage.com, who said he would seek a stay while pursuing an initiative to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
The court found marriage to be a "fundamental constitutional right," and that to deny that right to same-sex couples would require a compelling government interest. The Republican-dominated court said the state had failed to show such an interest.
"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority in a 121-page opinion.
The long-awaited court decision stemmed from San Francisco's highly publicized same-sex weddings, which in 2004 helped spur a conservative backlash in a presidential election year and a national dialogue over gay rights.
Several states have since passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.
The ruling affects more than 100,000 same-sex couples in the state, about a quarter of whom have children, according to U.S. census figures. It came after courts in New York, Washington and New Jersey refused to extend marriage rights to gay couples. Before Thursday, only Massachusetts' top court had ruled in favor of permitting gays to wed.
Unlike in Massachusetts, nothing prevents out-of-state same-sex couples from coming to California to get married.
"The invitation is going to be a kind of come one, come all, and that's going to produce a large number of gay marriages," said Douglas Kmiec, law professor at Pepperdine University. "They will then return to their home communities and will insist the states recognize their marriages as valid."
The ultimate reach of the ruling could be limited, however, since most states do not recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere. Nor does the federal government.
The California ruling is considered monumental by virtue of the state's size — 38 million out of a U.S. population of 302 million — and its historic role in the vanguard of the many social and cultural changes that have swept the country since World War II.
In San Francisco, the reaction was jubilant. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, pumping his fist in the air, told a roaring crowd at City Hall: "It's about human dignity. It's about human rights. It's about time in California. As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. It's inevitable."
Schwarzenegger, despite his vetoes of legislation to authorize same-sex marriage, said he would abide by the court's ruling.
"I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling," he said. "Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."
But in November, voters could be asked to render their opinion on an amendment that would again attempt to ban same-sex marriage.
A coalition of religious and conservative activists has submitted 1.1 million signatures to qualify the amendment, which would say that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Ron Prentice, executive director of the California Family Council, said the group was "not surprised by the ruling, though extremely disappointed."
He said the group expects "that with the November ballot, we will have the opportunity for the people of California to once again define marriage as only between a man and a woman and this time place it into California's constitution, which would strengthen it and keep it out of the hands of the courts."
After San Francisco decided to allow same-sex marriages in 2004, which set off a month of jubilant same-sex weddings in the city, the California Supreme Court intervened and ordered the city to stop issuing licenses to gay couples. The court later invalidated the documents and declined to address the constitutionality of a state ban on same-sex marriage until lower courts acted first.
Gay-rights lawyers won an early victory in the dispute when a San Francisco trial judge decided in 2005 that gays should be permitted to wed. An appeals court later overturned that decision on a 2-1 vote, ruling that only the Legislature or the voters could change California's traditional definition of marriage.
In 2000, 61 percent of California voters approved Proposition 22, which said that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."
Since the ballot measure, California has passed one of the strongest domestic-partnership laws in the country, giving registered same-sex couples most of the rights of married people.
But citing a 1948 California Supreme Court decision that overturned a ban on interracial marriages, the justices struck down the state's 1977 one-man, one-woman marriage law, as well as the similar, voter-approved law that passed in 2000.
The chief justice was joined by Justices Joyce Kennard and Kathryn Werdegar, all three of whom were appointed by Republican governors, and Justice Carlos Moreno, the only member of the court appointed by a Democrat.
In a dissent, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the majority but said that the court overstepped its authority and that changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters. Justices Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan also dissented.
California's secretary of state is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to put the gay-marriage amendment on the ballot.
Thursday's ruling could alter the dynamics of the presidential race and state and congressional contests in California and beyond by causing a backlash among conservatives and drawing them to the polls in larger numbers.
A spokesman for Republican John McCain, who opposes gay marriage, said the Arizona senator "doesn't believe judges should be making these decisions." The campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton said they believe the issue of marriage should be left to the states.
Material from the Los Angeles Times, The Christian Science Monitor, The Associated Press and The Sacramento Bee is included in this report.
Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company
