同性恋婚姻 英文版的课件

The

Second

Part

Some

Views

of

The

Majority

and

of

Some

Judges1.Jan.

1st,

1962--Sodomy

Laws

was

abolished

in

Illinois.The

first

state

to

abolish

it

in

U.S.2.June

28th,

1969--Stonewallriots,

the

first

time

for

homosexuals

to

revolve

the

government

in

U.S.3.Jan.

1st,

1974--

Homosexuality

is

no

more

a

kind

of

sickness.4.Jan.

1st,

1981--

The

AIDS

appeared,

which

made

the

identity

to

homosexual

disappear.

And

AIDS

plagued

in

America

after

its

appearing.5.May

17th,

2004–

Massachusetts

became

the

first

state

to

legalize

the

marriage

between

same-sex

couples.6.Mar.

5th,

2006--

BrokebackMountain

renouncestheworldsplendidly.7.June.

26th,

2015–

a

historical

day

when

the

Supreme

Court

in

U.S.

declared

the

marriage

between

same-sex

couples

was

legal.(Courtverdict

of

decriminalizing

homosexuality

in

U.S.)…………….Some

events

happened

about

the

legalization

of

homosexual

marriage2.UnitedStatesDistrictCourtDecisions

611.UnitedStatesCourtsofAppealsDecisions13

3.StateHighestCourtDecisions

214.Legislation

125.JudicialDecisions

5TheDecisionsandLegislationsofU.S.Four

main

casesSupreme

Court

of

the

United

States

issued

the

writ

of

certiorari

to

theU.S.

Court

of

Appeals

for

the

Sixth

Circuit,

with

Chief

justice

Roberts,

with

whom

justice

Scalia

and

justice

Thomas

join,

dissenting.------byRoberts,C.J.,dissenting1.James

Boergefell,et

al.,

petitioners

14-556

v.

Richard

Hodges,

Director,

Ohio

Department

of

Health,

et

al.2.Valeria

Tanco,

et

al.,

petitioners

14-562

v.

Bill

Haslam,

Governor

of

Tennessee,

et

al.3.April

Deboer,

et

al.,

petitioners

14-571

v.

Rick

Snyder,

Governor

of

Michigan,

et

al.4.Gergory

Bourke,

et

al.,

petitioners

14-571

v.

Steve

Beshear,et

al.,

petitioners

14-574

v.

Steve

Beshear,

Governor

of

KentuckyI.

Main

purposeII.ExtraordinarystepstakenbytheIII.

“Righttomarry”andtheimperativeof“marriageequality”VI.RightofprivacyV.

DueProcessClauseVI.RightofprivacyVII.Lochnerv.NewYork,198U.S.45

VIII.Posenoriskofharmtothemselvesorthirdparties

IX.EqualProtectionClauseX.Federalcourtsarebluntinstrumentswhenitcomestocreatingrights.Main

PointsI.

Main

purpose:

Same-sexcouplescanmarryjustliketheopposite-sexcouples

ButthisCourtisnotalegislature.ThepeoplewhoratifiedtheConstitutionauthorizedcourtstoexercise“neitherforcenorwillbutmerelyjudgment.”----AnsweredbyHamiltonThus,thefundamentalrighttomarrydoesnotincludearighttomakeaStatechangeitsdefinitionofmarriage.II.ExtraordinarystepsoforderingeveryStatetolicenseandrecognizesame-sexmarriage----takenbythecourttoday

RobertsJ.’sopinion:Supportersofsame-sexmarriagehaveachievedconsiderablesuccesspersuadingtheirfellowcitizens,butallendtoday.TherightitannounceshasnobasisintheConstitutionorthisCourt’sprecedent.Holmes,J.--TheConstitution“ismadeforpeopleoffundamentallydifferingviews.”

(1905)Harlan,J.--“courtsarenotconcernedwiththewisdomorpolicyoflegislation.”Begrudgenoneof

the

majority’s

celebrationReasons:IV.Majoritynotes

Someaspectsofmarriagehavechangedovertime.1.Arrangedmarriageshavelargelygivenwaytopairingsbasedonromanticlove.2.Stateshavereplacedcoverture.3.Racialrestrictionsonmarriage

wererepealedbymanyStatesandultimatelystruckdownbythisCourt.However,

theydidnotworkanytransformationinthecorestructureofmarriageastheunionbetweenamanandawoman.Eventually,theCourtrecognizeditserrorandvowednottorepeatit.

Expandingarightsuddenlyanddramaticallyislikelytorequiretearingitupfromitsroots.JusticeCurtis

dissents:

“wehavenolongeraConstitution;weareunderthegovernmentofindividualmen,whoforthetimebeinghavepowertodeclarewhattheConstitutionis,accordingtotheirownviewsofwhatitoughttomean.”

JusticeHolmes:TheConstitution“isnotintendedtoembodyaparticulareconomictheory.

Itismadeforpeopleoffundamentallydifferingviews,…..oughtnottoconcludeourjudgmentuponthequestionwhetherstatutesembodyingthemconflictwiththeConstitution.
VII:Lochnerv.NewYork,198U.S.45

----onlyoneprecedentoffersanysupportforthemajority’smethodology

Therighttopersonalchoiceregardingmarriageisinherentintheconceptof“individualautonomy”

Oneimmediatequestioninvitedbythemajority’spositioniswhetherStatesmayretainthedefinitionofmarriageasaunionoftwopeople.

----If

thereisdignityinthebondbetweentwomenortwowomenwhoseekto,

whywouldtherebeanylessdignityinthebondbetweenthreepeoplewho

seektomaketheprofoundchoicetomarry?VIII.Posenoriskofharmtothemselvesorthirdparties

----theclearestinsightintoitsdecision

ThisargumentagainechoesLochner,whichreliedonitsassessmentthat“wethinkthatalawliketheonebeforeusinvolvesneitherthesafety,themoralsnorthewelfareofthepublic,andthattheinterestofthepublicisnotintheslightestdegreeaffectedbysuchanact.”

IX.EqualProtectionClauseYetthemajorityfailstoprovideevenasinglesentenceexplaininghowtheEqualprotectionClausesuppliesindependentweightforitsposition,nordoesitattempttojustifyitsgratuitousviolationofthecanonagainstunnecessarilyresolvingconstitutionalquestions.Conclude:

themarriagelawsatissueheredonotviolatetheEqualProtectionClause.

X.Federalcourtsarebluntinstr