上一篇貼文介紹首席大法官 John Roberts 如何從「婚姻」一詞的原始意義、歷史文獻的記載與詮釋，尤其是多數人對於這個名詞的認知等，解釋說明美國憲法所指稱的「婚姻」之意義，而且清楚地指出：婚姻，乃指異性婚而言，不包括同性婚在內。

當然，不能只因為人類發展歷史淵源及文義等限制，即否定和阻止人類文明的演變和進步。時至今日，人類社會對於許多事情、制度的觀點和看法，早已今非昔比。奴隸制度的廢止、女性主義的提倡，都是最好的例子。 首席大法官 John Roberts 當然也很清楚，了解時代趨勢會實質影響到法律的解釋：「 近年來，關於婚姻的定義已有所改變。自由戀愛取代了早期藉由相親、長輩的安排所成就的婚姻。許多州法也將婚姻關係中的男性與女性視為獨立的個體，以尊重其個別的權利。早期從奴隸制度而生，以提倡白種人優越主義，因而以法律限制不同種族結婚的規範，亦早已被各州所廢止，並且亦為本院宣告違憲。」 (some aspects of marriage have changed over time. Arranged marriages have largely given way to pairings based on romantic love. States have replaced coverture, the doctrine by which a married man and woman became single legal entity, with laws that respect each participant’s separate status. Racial restrictions on marriage, which “arose as an incident to slavery” to promote “White Supremacy,” were repealed by many States and ultimately struck down by this Court.)

然而，社會的改變是一回事，應如何就憲法為文義解釋，又是另一回事。「這些變化，並不只是表面的改變，而是深層地改變了社會結構。不過，這些變化並未改變婚姻仍然是以一名男性與一名女性為核心結構。」 (“were not mere superficial changes” in marriage, but rather “worked deep transformations in its structure.” They did not, however, work any transformation in the core structure of marriage as the union between a man and a woman.) 即便「婚姻的歷史正在改變，而且這樣的改變還在繼續中；但即便如此，婚姻仍然維持其原有的意義。 」 (“history of marriage is one of both continuity and change,” but the core meaning of marriage has endured.)

總的來說，雖然承認同性婚姻的合法性是不可避免的趨勢，但承認並接受這樣的趨勢，不在憲法已經承認及保障的「婚姻權」的範圍內，亦不是大法官得以決定的事項。誠如首席大法官 John Roberts 一再強調的：「 法官不能將他們的司法權，伸入道德與哲學的領域。尤其是法官不是經由選舉產生的，因此，法官唯有在法律領域裏行使他們的權力，始具有正當性。 」 (It is more skeptical that the legal abilities of judges also reflect insight into moral and philosophical issues. It is more sensitive to the fact that judges are unelected and unaccountable, and that the legitimacy of their power depends on confining it to the exercise of legal judgment.) 「 聯邦法院絕對是用以創造權利最駑鈍的工具。本院唯有就憲法爭議享有權力；不像立法機構，在創造新的權利時，可以彈性地表達各方意見。」 (Federal courts are blunt instruments when it comes to creating rights. They have constitutional power only to resolve concrete cases or controversies; they do not have the flexibility of legislatures to address concerns of parties not before the court or to anticipate problems that may arise from the exercise of a new right.)

憲法所稱之「婚姻」，依其文義，是否包括同性婚在內？只是本案的爭點之一，而且是最為單純、淺顯的爭點。另外兩個爭點，關係著憲法之基本原理原則的解釋與適用，那才是法律人一展論述長才的擅場。想知道美國聯邦最高法院的大法官們，就此表達什麼精闢的意見嗎？咱們下期續談。