A landmark rulingIn front of a pack

A landmark ruling
In front of a packed courtroom, Justice Anthony Kennedy led the 5-4 majority in holding that the 14th Amendment's due-process and equal-protection guarantees require states to license marriages between same-sex couples and to recognize those marriages when lawfully performed out of state.
Although marriage between a man and a woman has been the rule for millennia, he wrote, "The past alone does not rule the present." The nation's understandings of marriage have changed as new generations recognized "new dimensions of freedom," he said.
That changing dynamic, he wrote, can be seen in the nation's experiences with gay and lesbian rights. After describing the history of treatment of gays and lesbians and the court's own precedents in this area, three of which were written by Kennedy himself, the justice moved to the constitutional questions raised by the same-sex marriage cases.
He found in the court's decisions on interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia), privacy and contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut) and other cases "essential attributes of the right to marry" that, he said, "compels the conclusion that same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry."
First, the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of personal autonomy. "Like choices concerning contraception, family relationships, procreation and childrearing, all of which are protected by the Constitution, decisions concerning marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make," Kennedy wrote.
Second, "the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals." As the court held in Lawrence v. Texas, striking down state sodomy bans, Kennedy said, "same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association."
Third, the right to marry safeguards children and families. "As all parties agree, many same-sex couples provide loving and nurturing homes to their children, whether biological or adopted. And hundreds of thousands of children are presently being raised by such couples," he wrote.
"Fourth and finally, this court's cases and the nation's traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of our social order," he wrote. "There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle."
Kennedy rejected the dissenters' argument that the majority was creating a new right to same-sex marriage—one the 14th Amendment's framers would never have recognized. He said that originalist approach is not the one the court has taken in the past when examining other fundamental rights, including to marriage and intimacy.
"Rather, each case inquired about the right to marry in its comprehensive sense, asking if there was a sufficient justification for excluding the relevant class from the right," he wrote. "The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition, but rights come not from ancient sources alone. They rise, too, from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.
"Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the state itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied. "
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, dissented. Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, Roberts wrote, "the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a state change its definition of marriage.

Kết quả (Việt) 1:

Một phán quyết mốcỞ phía trước của một phòng xử án bữa, tư pháp Anthony Kennedy lãnh đạo đa số 5-4 trong giữ rằng việc sửa đổi 14 đến hạn, quá trình và bảo vệ bằng bảo đảm yêu cầu kỳ để giấy phép hôn nhân giữa cặp vợ chồng cùng giới và để nhận ra những cuộc hôn nhân khi hợp pháp thực hiện ra khỏi nhà nước.Mặc dù cuộc hôn nhân giữa một người đàn ông và một phụ nữ đã là các quy tắc cho Thiên niên kỷ, ông đã viết, "trước đây một mình không cai trị hiện tại." Sự hiểu biết của quốc gia của cuộc hôn nhân đã thay đổi như thế hệ mới công nhận "kích thước mới của tự do", ông nói.Rằng việc thay đổi năng động, ông đã viết, có thể được nhìn thấy trong kinh nghiệm của quốc gia với quyền gay và lesbian. Sau khi mô tả lịch sử của điều trị của người đồng tính nam và đồng tính nữ và các tiền lệ của tòa án trong lĩnh vực này, ba trong số đó được viết bởi Kennedy mình, bộ tư pháp di chuyển cho các câu hỏi hiến pháp nêu ra bởi các trường hợp hôn nhân cùng giới tính.Ông tìm thấy trong các quyết định của tòa án interracial hôn nhân (Loving v. Virginia), bảo mật và tránh thai (Griswold v. Connecticut) và trường hợp khác "thuộc tính cần thiết của các bên phải kết hôn với" đó, ông nói, "buộc kết luận rằng cặp vợ chồng cùng giới tính có thể thực hiện quyền lập gia đình."Trước tiên, quyền cá nhân hôn nhân sự lựa chọn về là cố hữu trong các khái niệm về quyền tự chủ cá nhân. "Giống như sự lựa chọn liên quan đến thuốc ngừa thai, mối quan hệ gia đình, sự sanh thực và childrearing, tất cả đều được bảo vệ theo hiến pháp, quyết định liên quan đến hôn nhân là một trong hầu hết các thân mật một cá nhân có thể thực hiện," Kennedy đã viết.Second, "the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals." As the court held in Lawrence v. Texas, striking down state sodomy bans, Kennedy said, "same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association."Third, the right to marry safeguards children and families. "As all parties agree, many same-sex couples provide loving and nurturing homes to their children, whether biological or adopted. And hundreds of thousands of children are presently being raised by such couples," he wrote."Fourth and finally, this court's cases and the nation's traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of our social order," he wrote. "There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle."Kennedy rejected the dissenters' argument that the majority was creating a new right to same-sex marriage—one the 14th Amendment's framers would never have recognized. He said that originalist approach is not the one the court has taken in the past when examining other fundamental rights, including to marriage and intimacy."Rather, each case inquired about the right to marry in its comprehensive sense, asking if there was a sufficient justification for excluding the relevant class from the right," he wrote. "The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition, but rights come not from ancient sources alone. They rise, too, from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era. "Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the state itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied. "
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, dissented. Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, Roberts wrote, "the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a state change its definition of marriage.