CNN News:美最高法院裁定支持同性婚姻 講究平等

I'm Anderson Cooper.

我是安德森·庫珀。

Welcome to the podcast.

歡迎收看播客節(jié)目。

The Supreme Court makes history on same-sex marriage.

最高法院對于同性婚姻做出了歷史的改革。

Let's get started.

讓我們馬上開始今天的節(jié)目。

We begin, though, tonight with the Supreme Court's two historic decisions on same-sex marriage.

我們今晚從最高法院對于同性婚姻的兩個歷史性決定開始。

One striking down a key provision of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.

一是推翻了聯(lián)邦婚姻保護法案的一項關鍵條款。

The other effectively allowing same-sex marriage in the state of California.

二是切實有效地允許在加利福尼亞的同性婚姻。

Here is how it looked and sounded outside the high court moments after the ruling came down.

下面是判決下來后最高法院外面人聲鼎沸歡慶的情況。

Jubilation there and among equality supporters across the country as words spread of the two decisions.

隨著廣播播出這兩項裁定，整個國家的平等支持者們歡呼聲不絕于耳。

In one, the court by a 5-4 majority striking down DOMA, which among other things barred federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

在其中，最高法院以5：4的票數(shù)認定《保護婚姻法案》(DOMA)違憲，在這項法案中禁止聯(lián)邦政府承認的同性婚姻。

Writing for the majority as he did 10 years ago in "Lawrence v. Texas,"

就像他在10年前為大多數(shù)人寫下的“勞倫斯訴德克薩斯州案”，

Justice Anthony Kennedy declared DOMA in violation of the Fifth Amendment's EqualProtection clause.

大法官安東尼·肯尼迪宣布DOMA違反第5修正案的平等保護條款。

In so many words, he also called it an act of cruelty.

在他的許多話語中，他也將其稱為殘酷的法案。

Quote, "The federal statute is invalid for no," excuse me.

這里引用他的原話:“聯(lián)邦法令對于任何無效,”對不起。

“Is invalid for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the state by its marriage laws sought to protect in personhood and dignity."

“對于以不合法的目的逾越目的和效果來貶低及傷害那些州尋求人格和尊嚴保護婚姻法律的人們無效。”

The four most conservative justices dissented including Chief Justice John Roberts on grounds that DOMA, which passed bipartisan support, should not be second guessed by the court.

包括首席大法官約翰·羅伯茨在內的4位最為保守的法官們反對，他們一致認為DOMA的通過得到了兩黨支持,不應由法院在之后評定。

Chief Justice Roberts went the other way on California's Proposition 8 marriage ban,

首席大法官羅伯茨從加州8號提案婚姻禁令的另一方面展開,

a 5-4 majority kicking it back to the state, effectively paving the way for same-sex marriages there to resume.

但最終5：4的票數(shù)結果將其駁回,有效地為同性婚姻的恢復鋪平了道路。

It's a thumbnail sketch of how the justices weighed the case.

這是一次法官們權衡案例的簡單概況。

At the end of the day, though, for people on both sides of the issue,

在這一天結束的時候,盡管仍然有這一問題持有異議的人們,

this is not just a constitutional question or a legislative matter.

但這不僅是一個憲法問題或者立法問題。

It is very personal.

它是非常私人的。

For Edie Windsor who brought the DOMA case after facing what she called unequal treatment because her late spouse was a woman,

對于牽涉DOMA案在內的伊迪·溫莎而言，因為自己的已故配偶是一位女性而面對她所說的不平等的待遇后，

this was bittersweet vindication.

她表示這是苦樂參半的辯護。

I cried. I cried. OK. Really, obviously, but yes, the immediate reaction was thus tears.

我哭了。我哭了。好的。真的,很明顯,但是太好了,我的第一反應就是痛哭流涕。

The same could be said for so many others including two of our guests tonight,

包括今晚我們的兩位客人在內及很多人可能會說和她一樣的話語,

blogger Andrew Sullivan and Evan Wolfson, both of whom have fought for marriage equality for years and millions more,

博主安德魯·蘇利文和伊萬·沃爾夫森兩人已爭取婚姻平等多年,而數(shù)百萬人,

some married, some waiting to get married, and some for whom marriage is not yet an option.

有些已經(jīng)結婚,有些則還在等待,而有些人的婚姻還是未知數(shù)。

On the other side, there are millions of other Americans whom,

另一方面,還有數(shù)以百萬計的其他美國人,

for whom marriage who believe is one man and one woman and see today's ruling as a betrayalof their beliefs in the Constitution.

他們相信婚姻就是男人和女人的事情,并且認為今天的裁決背叛自己在憲法中所信仰的。

This is far from over.

這還遠未結束。

In fact, the time is not on the side of those who want to redefine marriage.

事實上,時間沒有站在那些想重新定義婚姻的人一邊。

If it were, I don't think they would have gone to the court trying to impose same-sex marriage on the entire nation.

如果是這樣的話,我不認為他們會去法院試圖強加給整個國家同性婚姻。