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，長(zhǎng)久以來(lái)都乃自由之人追求幸福不可或缺之至高無(wú)上人權(quán)之一。美國(guó)最高法院的首席大法官Earl Warren在1967年時(shí)和他的同僚們一致通過(guò)裁定，認(rèn)為禁止不同種族通婚的禁令違反了第十四修正案的平等保護(hù)條款和正當(dāng)程序條款，為了解釋這一裁定，他寫(xiě)下了上面這句話。同性戀婚姻的支持者們希望看到這同一法庭也將同一理由適用于他們的案件。而加州聯(lián)邦法庭在2月7日的判決讓他們離自己的目標(biāo)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.

　　美國(guó)第九巡回上訴法院裁定8號(hào)提案違憲。8號(hào)提案最早在2008年11月在加州投票通過(guò)，修改憲法以禁止同性婚姻。而在8號(hào)提案通過(guò)的五個(gè)月之前，加州最高法院推翻了之前一項(xiàng)關(guān)于同性婚姻的禁令;在此期間內(nèi)，加州為大約18,000對(duì)同性夫妻頒發(fā)了結(jié)婚證書(shū)。

　　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.

　　雖然巡回上訴法院支持初級(jí)法院在 2010年做出的關(guān)于8號(hào)提案違反第十四修正案的裁定，但它基于的理由卻極為狹隘，它回避了一個(gè)更廣泛的懸而未決的問(wèn)題美國(guó)各州是否會(huì)將婚姻僅限定于異性夫妻之間;相反地，卻只針對(duì)由于加州的做法剝奪了一項(xiàng)同性戀者們?cè)?jīng)享有的權(quán)利，反而對(duì)他們?cè)斐闪颂囟▊@一點(diǎn)做文章。加州的法律規(guī)定，同性戀享有領(lǐng)養(yǎng)孩子，共同納稅以及共享銀行賬戶(hù)的權(quán)利。8號(hào)提案只是否決了他們婚姻的合法的，崇高的地位，這使法庭斷定8號(hào)提案唯一的目的就是要降低加州同性戀者的地位并剝奪他們的尊嚴(yán)。

　　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.

　　盡管其他州都在推動(dòng)允許同性婚姻的進(jìn)程2月8日，華盛頓州眾議院投票通過(guò)允許同性婚姻的提案，當(dāng)然決議的最終批準(zhǔn)還需公民投票表決但現(xiàn)在看來(lái)，此案一定會(huì)上訴至美國(guó)最高法院。婚姻，是與情感高度相關(guān)之事，遠(yuǎn)不同于養(yǎng)老金，銀行賬戶(hù)等一般俗務(wù)。就像第九巡回上訴法院在宣布其裁決時(shí)所指出的那樣： 如果瑪麗蓮夢(mèng)露的電影叫《如何與百萬(wàn)富翁簽訂一紙家庭伴侶關(guān)系》，意思就大相徑庭了。

　　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，長(zhǎng)久以來(lái)都乃自由之人追求幸福不可或缺之至高無(wú)上人權(quán)之一。美國(guó)最高法院的首席大法官Earl Warren在1967年時(shí)和他的同僚們一致通過(guò)裁定，認(rèn)為禁止不同種族通婚的禁令違反了第十四修正案的平等保護(hù)條款和正當(dāng)程序條款，為了解釋這一裁定，他寫(xiě)下了上面這句話。同性戀婚姻的支持者們希望看到這同一法庭也將同一理由適用于他們的案件。而加州聯(lián)邦法庭在2月7日的判決讓他們離自己的目標(biāo)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.

　　美國(guó)第九巡回上訴法院裁定8號(hào)提案違憲。8號(hào)提案最早在2008年11月在加州投票通過(guò)，修改憲法以禁止同性婚姻。而在8號(hào)提案通過(guò)的五個(gè)月之前，加州最高法院推翻了之前一項(xiàng)關(guān)于同性婚姻的禁令;在此期間內(nèi)，加州為大約18,000對(duì)同性夫妻頒發(fā)了結(jié)婚證書(shū)。

　　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.

　　雖然巡回上訴法院支持初級(jí)法院在 2010年做出的關(guān)于8號(hào)提案違反第十四修正案的裁定，但它基于的理由卻極為狹隘，它回避了一個(gè)更廣泛的懸而未決的問(wèn)題美國(guó)各州是否會(huì)將婚姻僅限定于異性夫妻之間;相反地，卻只針對(duì)由于加州的做法剝奪了一項(xiàng)同性戀者們?cè)?jīng)享有的權(quán)利，反而對(duì)他們?cè)斐闪颂囟▊@一點(diǎn)做文章。加州的法律規(guī)定，同性戀享有領(lǐng)養(yǎng)孩子，共同納稅以及共享銀行賬戶(hù)的權(quán)利。8號(hào)提案只是否決了他們婚姻的合法的，崇高的地位，這使法庭斷定8號(hào)提案唯一的目的就是要降低加州同性戀者的地位并剝奪他們的尊嚴(yán)。

　　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.

　　盡管其他州都在推動(dòng)允許同性婚姻的進(jìn)程2月8日，華盛頓州眾議院投票通過(guò)允許同性婚姻的提案，當(dāng)然決議的最終批準(zhǔn)還需公民投票表決但現(xiàn)在看來(lái)，此案一定會(huì)上訴至美國(guó)最高法院。婚姻，是與情感高度相關(guān)之事，遠(yuǎn)不同于養(yǎng)老金，銀行賬戶(hù)等一般俗務(wù)。就像第九巡回上訴法院在宣布其裁決時(shí)所指出的那樣： 如果瑪麗蓮夢(mèng)露的電影叫《如何與百萬(wàn)富翁簽訂一紙家庭伴侶關(guān)系》，意思就大相徑庭了。