s********t
发帖数: 4150 | 1 美国最高法院北京时间26日裁决，各州不能禁止同性婚姻，同性婚姻将在美国全国各州
合法。但并不是所有美国人都对这一裁决感到满意，比如得州州长。
得克萨斯州州长格雷格·雅培26日就最高法院的裁决发表声明称：“最高法院已经放
弃了它作为一个公正的司法仲裁机构的作用，它已成为一个由九名非选举产生的成员组
成的立法机构。宪法和法院的过去的判决维护了这个国家的人民，而5名大法官则在这
个问题上将自己的个人观点强加于整个国家。”
他称：“尽管最高法院已经下达裁决，但得州人的基本权利——宗教自由仍然受到保
护。没有一个得克萨斯人需要按照这个违背了自身婚姻宗教信仰的最高法院裁决行事。”
他还表示得州宪法保证任何情况下没有人有权在宗教事务上控制或干扰良知。他说美国
宪法第一修正案，得克萨斯州宗教自由恢复法案和新颁布的牧师保护法，都保证宗教自
由。这些法律为得州人坚持对传统婚姻的认识提供了强有力的法律保护。
他表示他将像过去所做的那样，继续捍卫所有得州人的宗教自由——包括婚姻自由是
一个男人和一个女人的结合这一认识。
他还表示今天晚些时候会责令联邦机构优先考虑的得州“宗教自由保护”。
Governor Greg Abbott today released the following statement regarding the
Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling:
“The Supreme Court has abandoned its role as an impartial judicial arbiter
and has become an unelected nine-member legislature. Five Justices on the
Supreme Court have imposed on the entire country their personal views on an
issue that the Constitution and the Court’s previous decisions reserve to
the people of the States.
“Despite the Supreme Court’s rulings, Texans’ fundamental right to
religious liberty remains protected. No Texan is required by the Supreme
Court’s decision to act contrary to his or her religious beliefs regarding
marriage.
“The Texas Constitution guarantees that ‘[n]o human authority ought, in
any case whatsoever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience
in matters of religion.’ The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
guarantees the free exercise of religion; and the Texas Religious Freedom
Restoration Act, combined with the newly enacted Pastor Protection Act,
provide robust legal protections to Texans whose faith commands them to
adhere to the traditional understanding of marriage.
“As I have done in the past, I will continue to defend the religious
liberties of all Texans—including those whose conscience dictates that
marriage is only the union of one man and one woman. Later today, I will be
issuing a directive to state agencies instructing them to prioritize the
protection of Texans’ religious liberties.” | X***R
发帖数: 2410 | 2 毕竟，这不只是宗教传统婚姻信仰问题，是基本生存权问题。
就如同吃饭是基本权，但也有少数人吃苍蝇吃粪也没事，是有这样的人的。
法律 or 律法理所当然的是为正常人制定的，而不是服务于少数的 freak，不能把苍蝇
或者食物残渣定义为日常用品。 |
|
