“結婚權”是否是“天賦人權”的一部分？

我瀏覽了一下美國最高法院關於這次“同性婚姻是否合法？”的辯論和判決，發覺最關鍵的一條是贊成一方法官提出的，“same-sex marriage is a right”therefore, protected by United States' Constitution。

With all the respect, I dissent. Here is why.

“天賦人權”，是人的“自然權利”。也就是，人，生到這個世界上後自然應該有的權利。比如美國憲法裡提到的“自由，財產，追求幸福”等等 - 注意所以這些權利的特點是，完全從個人的角度出發，不涉及身外對象。也就是說，如果人的行為必須涉及他人，則是完全兩碼事了。

婚姻和家庭的基礎是什麼？當然首先是性關係(注意：不是異性之間的關係)。那麼
發生性關係是否是天賦人權的一部分？當然不是，因為它涉及除自身之外的一方。如果對方是另一個人，則自己必須徵得別人同意。否則，強姦犯罪就不存在了。

那麼，如果性關係非天賦人權，婚姻和家庭如何成為“天賦人權”呢？這顯然邏輯不通。再者，個人的性取向，是個人需要；而婚姻和家庭，是社會多數人的需要，也就是法律。個人需要怎麼可以強加於多數人的需要呢？

基於上述原因，I BEG TO DIFFER.


===============================================
FYI:

The Supreme Court justices in their own words

A sketch showed civil rights lawyer Mary Bonauto (right) argued before the Supreme Court during its hearing on same-sex marriage in April.

Dana Verkouteren/AP

A sketch showed civil rights lawyer Mary Bonauto (right) argued before the Supreme Court during its hearing on same-sex marriage in April.
By Laura Amico Globe staff  June 26, 2015

Many of the main questions the Supreme Court grappled with in the oral arguments of Obergefell v. Hodges — the landmark case that extended same-sex marriage rights to all — made appearances in the Court’s summary.

Below are key points from the summary of the opinion released today as well as audio excerpts from the justices’ questioning during oral arguments in April.

How marriage has changed over time

“The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change. Changes, such as the decline of arranged marriages and the abandonment of coverture, have worked deep transformations in the structure of marriage, affecting aspects of marriage once viewed as essential. These new insights have strengthened, not weakened, the institution. Changed definitions of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations.”

At oral arguments, this question was posed by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was widely seen as the swing vote in the case and did, in fact, side with the majority and wrote the opinion. Justice Stephen Breyer, who also voted in the majority, asked about tradition as well.

Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts, both of whom dissented, also spoke about the history of marriage, foreshadowing what became a 5-4 split on the decision.

On the privilege of marriage

“The petitioners, far from seeking to devalue marriage, seek it for themselves because of their respect-- and need-- for its privileges and responsibilities, as illustrated by the petitioners’ own experiences.”

In oral arguments Kennedy spoke about the “nobility and sacredness of marriage,” saying that same-sex couples could uphold that.

Is marriage a Constitutional right?

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, in oral arguments, spoke forcefully about the Constitution and marriage rights. Both sided with the majority in the ruling.

The opinion said simply:

“The Court has long held that the right to marry is protected by the Constitution.”

And later:

“The challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and they abridge central precepts of equality. The marriage laws at issue are in essence unequal: Same-sex couples are denied benefits afforded opposite-sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right. Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial works a grave and continuing harm, serving to disrespect and subordinate gays and lesbians.”

Four ‘principles and traditions’

In the summary, four “principles and traditions” supporting same-sex unions were outlined, all of which had been key discussion points during oral arguments. Said the opinion:

“Four principles and traditions demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples. The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy...

Sotomayor addressed this point in oral arguments.

“A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals...

Alito, who voted against extending same-sex marriage rights, spoke about point two in oral arguments:

“A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser...

Again, Sotomayor:

“This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children...

From Kagan:

“Finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order... It is demeaning to lock same-sex couples out of a central institution of the Nation’s society, for they too may aspire to the transcendent purpose of marriage.”

Was same-sex marriage a question for the Court or the states?

The justices’ major dissent came on the issue of the role of the Court in what could have been a matter of states.

From Justices Roberts and Scalia at oral arguments:

Even Breyer, who sided with the majority, questioned whether the Court had the responsibility to intervene.

But the majority found that waiting for states to take action would be harmful.

From the opinion:

“While the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, individuals who are harmed need not wait legislative action before asserting a fundamental right.”

More coverage of the gay marriage ruling：
Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage is a right