【Native Speaker每日综合训练—43系列】【43-01】文史哲 Marriage Equality

油桃F

内容：油桃F 编辑：油桃F

Stay tuned to our latest post! Follow us here ---> http://weibo.com/u/3476904471

Part I: Speaker

Flood Of Gay Marriage Cases Releasing Stream Of Federal Rulings

Source: NPR
http://www.npr.org/2014/02/15/277316205/flood-of-gay-marriage-cases-releasing-stream-of-federal-rulings

[Rephrase 1, 3:47]

油桃F

Part II: Speed

The Supreme Court’s Marriage Equality Inaction Has Thrust Us Into Chaotic Lawlessness
BY Mark Joseph Stern | Oct 8, 2014

[Time 2]
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court’s handling of marriage equality officially lurched from surprising and questionable to chaotic and bizarre. Last week, we thought the justices were simply taking the slow boat to marriage equality. It now appears the court has decided to conduct a frenzied game of jurisprudential bumper cars. Over the last three days, the justices have sent states and federal courts on a collision course, changing the rules on a whim, and leaving everyone—from governors and attorneys general to judges and gay plaintiffs—to crash into each other repeatedly and pointlessly. It is madness, it is fruitless, and it must stop now.

The latest pileup arrived on Wednesday, when gay marriage in Nevada went from being illegal to legal to illegal again to legal again—all in the span of less than 24 hours. Here’s the gruesome tale: On Tuesday, the 9th Circuit struck downgay marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada. Overnight, Idaho begged Justice Anthony Kennedy, who oversees the 9thCircuit, to prevent the ruling from taking effect within the state while it readied an appeal. On Wednesday morning, Kennedy did way more than that: He put the entire ruling on hold, meaning gay marriage remained illegal in both Idaho and Nevada.

There was a problem, though. Nevada did not ask to stay the ruling. In fact, Nevada’s governor and attorney general decided not to appeal a pro-gay ruling last year. The state was quite content with the 9th Circuit’s decision, and nobody else had standing to defend the ban on their behalf. On Tuesday night, Nevadans went to bed thinking gay marriage had arrived in their state for good. But Kennedy’s Wednesday morning order ripped Nevada’s gay marriage ban from its shallow grave, reinstating the butchered ban—completely against the wishes of the state. By asking Kennedy to preserve its own ban, Idaho had accidentally defended Nevada’s ban. Marriages within the silver state were halted.
[319 words]

[Time 3]
Thus arose the second problem of the day. For better or for worse, one state cannot actually revive another state’s slain law and send its zombielike corpse to stalk down defendants and gnaw away at their newfound rights. Presumably, Kennedy realized this fact at some point around lunchtime, as he issued a second order just hours later, reversing course. “Upon further consideration,” Kennedy wrote, only Idaho’s ban would be granted a reprieve. Nevada’s ban, mercifully, could be shoved back into its resting place, and marriages within the state could continue.

This is not how the law is supposed to work. This is barely even law. But by repeatedly shrugging away the marriage equality question, the Supreme Court has forced us to contend with such chaos. This week’s decisions have theoretically legalized gay marriage in South Carolina, North Carolina, West Virginia, Wyoming, Kansas, Colorado, Nevada, Idaho, Alaska, Montana, and Arizona. Only Colorado has cleanly instituted marriage equality as the new rule of law. Nevada has seen its ban die twice. The other states are acting like nothing has even happened. The Supreme Court is supposed to prevent pandemonium like this. Instead, it has only exacerbated it.

There is only one way for the justices to get out of their current jam: They must take the next gay marriage case that comes to them. The days of waiting idly for a circuit split are over. This mess needs to be cleaned up as quickly as possible. At this point, it’s not just gay couples who are being harmed by the court’s inaction. Every governor and attorney general, every judge and county clerk, deserves to be given a clear view of the law. The Supreme Court has thus far denied everyone—from anti-gay governors to loving gay couples—this basic clarity. We all deserve better.
[302 words]

Source: Slate
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/10/08/the_supreme_court_is_turning_marriage_equality_into_chaotic_lawlessness.html

Marriage equality is not like abortion
BY Tim Holbrook | Sept. 23, 2014

[Time 4]
The Supreme Court is set to decide whether to take the same-sex marriage cases on September 29, a mere 15 months since they overturned the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional. That decision has created a deluge of cases, all of which (save one in Louisiana) have found that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional.

The pace at which this country has addressed marriage equality has been breathtaking. It was only 10 years ago that Massachusetts became the first state to allow same-sex marriage. It makes some wonder -- is this happening too quickly?

The Supreme Court eventually will decide the issue, and likely the future of marriage equality rests squarely on the shoulders of one man -- Justice Anthony Kennedy. He will be the deciding vote, so he needs to feel comfortable taking the next step.

Commentators have suggested that there is hesitancy at the Court on the part of Justice Kennedy and possibly Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The concern is not with same-sex marriage, though. It is the long shadow of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court's 1973 decision that found state bans on abortion unconstitutional. Because of the social upheaval following Roe, the justices may fear a similar backlash if they move too quickly on marriage equality.

Fortunately, the public's view of same-sex marriage has kept pace with legal advances for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. A May 2014 Gallup poll shows that 55% of Americans support same-sex marriage, up from 42% a mere 10 years ago. For those 18 to 29, support sky rockets to 78%, showing the generational nature of this issue. Moreover, 19 states and the District of Columbia now allow same-sex marriage.
[280 words]

[Time 5]
Even if there wasn't clear support, the issues in marriage equality differ significantly from those in the abortion debate. With marriage, the answer is binary -- either same-sex couples can marry or they can't. Legislatures have very few policy levers available to undermine marriage rights.

This contrasts sharply with the complicated legal issues surrounding abortion. As even Roe itself noted, there are a number of competing interests involved: "We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman ... and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life."

Abortion is a medical procedure, which means the state has an interest in its regulation. Each of these concerns provides legislatures opposed to a woman's right to choose with a potential lever to attempt to inject the state's interest, leading to various legal battles over the constitutionality of such efforts.

Same-sex marriage does not present these complications. Even if society has yet to achieve a certain level of acceptance of same-sex marriage (although it appears it has), there is little risk of ongoing social battles over marriage.

Indeed, the justifications for banning same-sex marriages are groundless. The Supreme Court has made it clear that religious-based objections cannot justify such discrimination against LGBT persons. Legislation that discriminates against certain groups only because the majority disfavors them, for religious or even secular reasons, are not legitimate. Moreover, the argument that allowing same-sex marriage undermines efforts to channel procreation into marriage is nonsensical.
[259 words]

[Time 6]
We allow infertile couples to marry, so procreation cannot be a necessary requirement for marriages. Even if such "channeling" is a legitimate interest, it would only support the creation of opposite-sex marriage, not a ban on same-sex marriage. No state has advanced a reason why same-sex marriage bans would have any impact on the procreation of straight persons.

As Judge Richard Posner on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit explained (with great rhetorical flourish): "Heterosexuals get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted children; their reward is to be allowed to marry. Homosexual couples do not produce unwanted children; their reward is to be denied the right to marry. Go figure." The "shotgun wedding" defense of same-sex marriage bans is meritless.

Same-sex marriage doesn't undermine marriage. Instead, it serves to enhance and confirm the importance of marriage in today's society. Thousands of gay couples are fighting for the right to enter an institution that has been waning within the heterosexual community, with divorce on the rise and couples choosing to cohabitate instead of getting married. Those in favor of marriage should be happy that gays and lesbians are fighting for inclusion, breathing fresh life into marriage's faltering lungs.

So, if Justice Kennedy is reading this -- it'll be OK. Take the next step. The time has come to open the doors to marriage to all couples, regardless of their sex or gender. America is ready, and we can handle it.
[241 words]

Source: CNN opinions
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/23/opinion/holbrook-marriage-equality

油桃F

Part III: Obstacle

America’s amazing transformation on same-sex marriage
By Ruth Marcus | Oct. 7, 2014

[Paraphrase 7]
Who would have thought:

That gay rights groups’ biggest concern would be not how the Supreme Court would rule on same-sex marriage but that it wasn’t ruling fast enough?
That the Republican response to the justices’ move to let same-sex marriages proceed in nearly half the states would be . . . near-total silence?

Let us pause to savor this moment and the transformation of the American legal and social landscape.

Recall, it was less than 30 years ago that the courtupheld laws making homosexual sex a crime. Citing the “ancient roots” of prohibitions against homosexuality, John F. Kennedy appointee Byron White asserted, for five justices, that the Constitution does not grant “a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy.”

When the court reversed itself in 2003, Justice Antonin Scalia was apoplectic. “Do not believe it,” he wrote of the majority’s assurance that its ruling did not involve the right to marry. “Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned.”

At the time, Scalia’s warning seemed fanciful. Now, it appears prophetic.

Recall, too, that as recently as 2008, the Democratic contenders for the presidential nomination could not risk coming out in favor of marriage equality.

“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman,” soon-to-be-president Barack Obama said that year. “I am not in favor of gay marriage.”

On the issue of same-sex marriage, evolution has occurred at warp speed. In the next presidential cycle, it is unimaginable that a Democratic candidate would oppose same-sex marriage and unlikely that the ultimate Republican nominee would make an issue of it.

Now, the fallback Republican position against marriage equality is not to clamor for a constitutional amendment to protect the country against the scourge of same-sex marriage, a move George W. Bush supported. Rather, it’s to argue that the matter ought to be left to individual states.

And there wasn’t even much of that — at least not from elected officials — when the court declined Monday to take up any of the same-sex marriage cases before it. “Tragic and indefensible,” thundered Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.). Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said the court “owes it to the people . . .whose democratic choices are being invalidated” to decide the issue.

Other than that — nothing. Not from the Republican congressional leadership. Not from the Republican National Committee. This from a party whose 2012 platform termed court rulings on same-sex marriage “an assault on the foundations of our society” and reaffirmed support for a constitutional amendment.

So what to make of the court’s decision not to decide?

First, that it is telling. It takes four votes to hear a case. If a majority of the justices thought the lower courts were misinterpreting last year’s ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act when they struck down state bans on same-sex marriage, the court could have easily intervened. It didn’t.

Tony Perkins of the conservative Family Research Council argued that, “by refusing to get involved in a mess it helped create, the justices are leaving our laws vulnerable to rogue judges on the lower courts.”

But the three federal appeals courts that have struck down state bans on same-sex marriage are not judges gone rogue. They are, as Scalia predicted, judges dutifully applying the inexorable logic of binding precedent. If the four conservative justices in the minority in last year’s ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act thought they had a fifth vote on their side, they could have voted to take up the issue.

Second, that it is a temporary, and probably healthy, stopping point on the way to declaring a fundamental right for gay and lesbian couples to marry.

The delay, said Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry, “prolongs the patchwork of state-to-state discrimination and the harms and indignity that the denial of marriage still inflicts on too many couples in too many places.”

Easy for me, perhaps, to counsel patience. I’m not a gay woman living in Alabama, where only court intervention will protect my right to marry.

But a Supreme Court pronouncement is coming. A federal appeals court will likely rule the other way, creating a split for the justices to resolve. Or even without a circuit split, the Supreme Court will conclude it is time to weigh in on an undoubtedly important federal question.

For the court to intervene then would disrupt not only settled law but also settled marriages. That’s not going to happen.
[750 words]

Source: The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-americas-amazing-transformation-on-same-sex-marriage/2014/10/07/3426582a-4e44-11e4-babe-e91da079cb8a_story.html

TVXQashley

第一次这么靠前~

time2  2:01
time3  1:36
time4  1:24
time5  1:40
time6  1:02

obstacle   4:27

14/10/12

松鼠奇奇大尾巴

掌管 6        00:04:01.79        00:11:38.02
Obstacle: The transformation of the American legal and social landscape in 2003, 2008 and now. The reasons are listed that now the court’s decision is not to take the same-sexual marriage cases

掌管 5        00:01:20.56        00:07:36.23
The procreation cannot be the block of the homosexual marriage.

掌管 4        00:01:36.35        00:06:15.66
The marriage equality dose not present the complications as abortion debate does and there would be little ongoing social battles over marriage.

掌管 3        00:01:23.30        00:04:39.30
The reason of hesitancy addressing marriage equality has been explained.

掌管 2        00:01:28.52        00:03:16.00
Kennedy has realized the problem and fixed it. However, it is not how the law works. Because people deserve a better condition, the justices should take the next gay marriage cases and make the law clear to people.

掌管 1        00:01:47.48        00:01:47.48
When the people thought that the justices took a slow boat to marriage equality, they suddenly change their mind, leaving things chaotic and bizarre.

clarence6

time2 01:55
time3 01:25
time4 01:33
time5 01:26
time6 01:23
time7 03:58
今天虽然比较简单，但是走神走的厉害，惭愧下不概括了。。。shotgun wedding...差点没喷出来。。。

影魔摇大…

Time2:3′22″
Time3:2′50″
Time4:2′39″
Time5:2′52″
Time6:2′27″
Obstacle:8′20″    速度变慢了........

cherry6891

43-02
speaker:federal in virginia stuck down the ban on same sex marriage. More states will copy but opponents say the state misread the DOHA
Time2
Supreme Court change the attitude to marriage equality from time to time
Time3
Kennedy stops changing the decision and accept Idaho's ban.
Time4
Supreme Court decide to turn the same-sex case on September after they overturned the defense of the Marriage act as unconstitutional.
Time5
The issue of discussion about marriage equality is different from that of abortion.
The ban of same sex marriage is nonsense.the Supreme Court disagree with the religious based objections discriminate LGBD persons
Time6
Same-sex marriage does not undermine marriage and the procreation

Obstacle
The transformation on same sex marriage in legal and social landscape.
It was crime about 30 years ago--then the court reversed it in 2003--democratic contenders don't want to risk in favor of same sex marriage
What make the court change the decision?

兮兮西西

Time 2 3’26’87 gay marriage ruling was banned again in NAVADA and IDOHA , which leaves a long way to go

Time 3 2’51’84 the law that allows gay couples’ marriage was accepted some states but banned in other states .

Time 4 2’37’56 the issue about the allowance about same-sex marriage was sent back again to the superme course and would be decided by kennidy . the good news is more than50% American stand by the agree side and many states has already allows gay marriage.

Time 5 2’58’30 same-sex marriage issue does not as complicated as abortion ,because it just cares about the marriage rights of people. This would be another battle.

Time 6 same-sex marriage doesn’t undermine the right of other couples, and it just fight for the rights of same equality marriage.  It’s not meritless .  the future of same-sex marriage is brilliant

O 6’31’09 the evolution of same-sex marriage: its just a matter of when the issue would pass. The attitude of people are changing
What factors makes the issue not to decide? Talking and it’s a temporary delay for same-sex marriage

shaopeiyuan0511

T2: 2:01
Supreme court forth changed its mind from banning same gender marriage to ban its legality finally.
T3: ? forget to record time
The author holds the positive attitudes to same sex marriage against several concerns in the society.
T4: 1:22 the decision of same sex marriage is in hands of a justice. the overall future is promising
T5:1:20 support the same sex marriage. it indicates the difference between abortion and claims the right for people.
T6: 1:23 American is ready to embrace the equal marriage right of gays or les.

obstacle:3:53