l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 by Jammie
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a pair of cases that could —
but likely will not — establish a nationwide, constitutional right to gay
marriage. The cases leave the high court plenty of escape hatches from
taking a big step the country may not be ready for yet, said William
Eskridge, a constitutional law scholar at Yale Law School who contributed
the legal reasoning that helped decide one of the cases, a challenge to an
anti-gay marriage referendum in California.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear Hollingsworth v. Perry, the California
case, as well as U.S. v. Windsor, a challenge to the federal Defense of
Marriage Act. Both go to the core of one of the most divisive issues in
American politics, the equivalent of interracial marriages in the 1950s.
Very few people today would seriously support legal restrictions on a
marriage between a white man and a black woman, but it wasn’t until the
high court’s 1967 decision in Loving v. Virginia that such laws were
declared unconstitutional nationwide. Eskridge, whose scholarship has
focused on how the Supreme Court adapts to mass political movements, thinks
the country hasn’t yet reached a similar consensus on gay marriage. | q******s
发帖数: 7469 | 2 您还能潮吹吗?
—
California
【在 l****z 的大作中提到】
: by Jammie
: The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a pair of cases that could —
: but likely will not — establish a nationwide, constitutional right to gay
: marriage. The cases leave the high court plenty of escape hatches from
: taking a big step the country may not be ready for yet, said William
: Eskridge, a constitutional law scholar at Yale Law School who contributed
: the legal reasoning that helped decide one of the cases, a challenge to an
: anti-gay marriage referendum in California.
: The Supreme Court agreed to hear Hollingsworth v. Perry, the California
: case, as well as U.S. v. Windsor, a challenge to the federal Defense of
|
|
