评述美国同性婚姻合法性论争
摘要
婚姻是一种重要的制度,它不仅可以使婚姻双方在法律上获得很大的利益,而且在文化中也具有一定的象征意义,并且历来被认为是男女的结合。但随着社会的发展,人们的道德观日益趋向于多元化、自由化以及人权观念日渐深入人心,同性恋者也开始争取结婚的权利。“在法律上是否应该允许同性婚姻”已经成为同性恋研究的核心问题之一。现在有一些欧洲国家已经承认同性婚姻了,但相比之下美国就表现的不如欧洲国家那么宽容,在美国国内关于同性婚姻合法化争论持续升温,并已经成为司法、立法、政治上的敏感话题。文章将会以美国为标本,通过研究现实美国同性婚姻的立法、司法实践,以及评述美国同性恋支持者与反对者的理由,来重新看待同性婚姻合法性问题,从性道德观念、婚姻制度的发展趋势,同性婚姻纳入法律制度的意义以及同性恋权利斗争成果等方面来论证美国同性婚姻的合法性以及必要性。
Along with rising up of the rights movement, people's morality tends to multiplex day by day, as well as the human rights lie deeply embedded in people’s mind, gays and lesbians start to pursue their own equal status and rights. In the process of pursuing rights, same-sex marriage is always one of most controversial questions, and also is a hard-core question. And America is the country that argues on same-sex marriage most hotly. In America,the battle exists between the conservative religious influence and the gay and lesbian rights community, the both sides give many reasons to support their own viewpoints in order to persuade people to accept their mind and strive for their own benefits in American legislation, the judicature as well as politics and so on. In addition, America is a multiplex country, unique religious background, check and balance in political system and so on, which make people attitudes towards homosexuality as well as same-sex marriage so diverse. Therefore this thesis will comb and analyze argument about same-sex marriage, and then proves legitimacy of American same-sex marriage.
The thesis consists of four parts:
In the first part, the thesis elaborates the meaning and the form of same-sex marriage, then describes the background and development of the gay and lesbian rights movement. The thesis points out, in America, from legislative angle, we arrive at the meaning of same-sex marriage in double layers. In broad sense, the form of same-sex marriage can be divided into marriage and para-marriage which is similar to marriage such as civil union and so on. After defining the meaning of same-sex marriage, the thesis starts to study the background and development of the gay and lesbian rights movement. The thesis points out; the reason why the influence of the opponents is still formidable in American modern society is that America has unique religious background. From the time when America was established to the present, the majority people still believe Christianity. So the influence of Christianity in America is so deep. In addition, after the rising up of the counter-cultural movement, the traditional idea receives the destruction, the idea of freeness, democracy, equality starts to prevail. As minority community, gays and lesbians start to resist oppression and strive for the equal rights. Thus, American cultural is in a state of unbalance, new culture coexist with old culture, so debate over homosexuality and legitimacy of same-sex marriage is especially hot.
In the second part, the thesis describes American legislative practice and judicial practice, and then compares and analyzes them. By comparing and analyzing the legislation and judicial precedent of Hawaii, Vermont, Massachusetts, the thesis arrives at some conclusions. The thesis points out, legislative practice and judicial practice of these states has some similarities. Same place performance in: Making use of check and balance in political system and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, gays and lesbians all strive for the rights by courts. At the same time, the basis of judging which was taken by courts has also been changed, the courts start to invoke the Equal Protection Clause and apply strict scrutiny to marital legislation, require state to give a more stringent and reasonable reason why excludes the gay and lesbian couples from marriage, the reason is usually relevant to procreation and child-rearing, but the reason were refused. Thus, we find, in America, the legislative and judicial attitudes towards same-sex marriage became more and more tolerant. In addition, the differences performance in: Each state takes measures in different ways to protect the gay and lesbian couples, at present, only Massachusetts accepts the marriage between couples which consists of two men or two women, while other states usually take para-marriage, such as“civil union”and so on, to protect the gay and lesbian couples. In fact, para-marriage separates legal rights and legal status of marriage, just establishing rights for same-sex couples, so it is a compromise which increases discrimination against gays and lesbians.
In the third part, the thesis elaborates and analyzes the debate over legitimacy of same-sex marriage in America. The thesis elaborates and analyzes opponent viewpoint, proponent viewpoint and Queer Theory. Same-sex marriage opponents who mainly compose traditional Christianity and the partial natural law scholars point out, the essence of marriage is procreation, the gay and lesbian couples cannot procreate children, so they cannot marry. Moreover, they advocate that, people should be monkish, none but procreation is the legitimate purpose of the sexual acts, the gay and lesbian couples cannot procreate children, so they are counter-natural; Same-sex marriage proponents prove the legitimacy of same-sex marriage in different ways, some proponents construe the legitimacy of same-sex marriage in the traditional frame. They said that, the homosexual phenomenon had been existing from ancient times, so it’s natural. Some other proponents provide the explanation for legitimacy of homosexuality and same-sex marriage in the sight of constructionism. They point out, homosexual and heterosexual identity is constructed by society, As a result of social and the cultural difference, the homosexual identity can exist in different forms. Moreover, marriage is also constructed by society. They advocate, no matter whatever identity or marriage, both have certain oppression, so we must reform the social institutions to eliminate the oppression; Queer Theory are more radical, they advocated, identity or marriage needs to be done away completely, so does the dualistic sex mode. At same time they summon people who were oppressed by traditional institutions to revolt. By analyzing the viewpoints and the theories, the thesis points out that the traditional theory cannot explain the question that is“since the homosexuality is counter-natural, why so many societies advocate it”. Moreover, along with sex separating from procreation, some new social phenomenon appearing and the people idea changing, the traditional moral which is against homosexuality and the same-sex marriage is getting more and more challenge. At same time, supporters in the traditional frame cannot jump out of the fetter of the traditional definition, and they failed to persuade to other people. Whenas, Queer Theory is so radical, that finally it will cause the struggle nihilism. So jumping out of the traditional frame, by taking constructionism to criticize the traditional homosexual role and the traditional marriage, the thesis points out, we should respect life style which homosexuality as minority chooses, and give them the same rights and protection with straight couples. At same time, we should break the traditional definition of marriage, define it over again and reform it, then allow the gay and lesbian couples to marry.
In the fourth part, basing on foregoing content, the thesis ponders on legitimacy of same-sex marriage over again. The thesis points out that, firstly, considering the development trend of sexual morality and the changing of traditional marriage, we can see that gays and lesbians should have right to marry. Entering the modern times, people's sexual morality idea becomes more and more secular, free and diverse; the homosexual act has been accepted by society gradually. Moreover, while the definition of marriage has also transformed along with social development, the focus of marital functions has transferred from procreation to sentiment. Now, procreation is not the essential factor of marriage, instead people pays more attention to sentimental factor of marriage, so the gay and lesbian couples should have rights to marry. Secondly, admitting same-sex marriage in legislation will give the gay and lesbian couples legal protection, it also makes society more equal. At same time, when more and more homosexual families start to adopt children, not accepting same-sex marriage will make these homosexual family lack protection, be bad for child-rearing and social stabilization, therefore from the angle of society, we must allow the gay and lesbian couples to marry. Thirdly, as the political power of the gay and lesbian community increases gradually, as gays and lesbians has obtains the success in the legislative practice and the judicial practice domain, we believe that gays and lesbians will obtain right to marry.
Along with rising up of the rights movement, people's morality tends to multiplex day by day, as well as the human rights lie deeply embedded in people’s mind, gays and lesbians start to pursue their own equal status and rights. In the process of pursuing rights, same-sex marriage is always one of most controversial questions, and also is a hard-core question. And America is the country that argues on same-sex marriage most hotly. In America,the battle exists between the conservative religious influence and the gay and lesbian rights community, the both sides give many reasons to support their own viewpoints in order to persuade people to accept their mind and strive for their own benefits in American legislation, the judicature as well as politics and so on. In addition, America is a multiplex country, unique religious background, check and balance in political system and so on, which make people attitudes towards homosexuality as well as same-sex marriage so diverse. Therefore this thesis will comb and analyze argument about same-sex marriage, and then proves legitimacy of American same-sex marriage.
The thesis consists of four parts:
In the first part, the thesis elaborates the meaning and the form of same-sex marriage, then describes the background and development of the gay and lesbian rights movement. The thesis points out, in America, from legislative angle, we arrive at the meaning of same-sex marriage in double layers. In broad sense, the form of same-sex marriage can be divided into marriage and para-marriage which is similar to marriage such as civil union and so on. After defining the meaning of same-sex marriage, the thesis starts to study the background and development of the gay and lesbian rights movement. The thesis points out; the reason why the influence of the opponents is still formidable in American modern society is that America has unique religious background. From the time when America was established to the present, the majority people still believe Christianity. So the influence of Christianity in America is so deep. In addition, after the rising up of the counter-cultural movement, the traditional idea receives the destruction, the idea of freeness, democracy, equality starts to prevail. As minority community, gays and lesbians start to resist oppression and strive for the equal rights. Thus, American cultural is in a state of unbalance, new culture coexist with old culture, so debate over homosexuality and legitimacy of same-sex marriage is especially hot.
In the second part, the thesis describes American legislative practice and judicial practice, and then compares and analyzes them. By comparing and analyzing the legislation and judicial precedent of Hawaii, Vermont, Massachusetts, the thesis arrives at some conclusions. The thesis points out, legislative practice and judicial practice of these states has some similarities. Same place performance in: Making use of check and balance in political system and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, gays and lesbians all strive for the rights by courts. At the same time, the basis of judging which was taken by courts has also been changed, the courts start to invoke the Equal Protection Clause and apply strict scrutiny to marital legislation, require state to give a more stringent and reasonable reason why excludes the gay and lesbian couples from marriage, the reason is usually relevant to procreation and child-rearing, but the reason were refused. Thus, we find, in America, the legislative and judicial attitudes towards same-sex marriage became more and more tolerant. In addition, the differences performance in: Each state takes measures in different ways to protect the gay and lesbian couples, at present, only Massachusetts accepts the marriage between couples which consists of two men or two women, while other states usually take para-marriage, such as“civil union”and so on, to protect the gay and lesbian couples. In fact, para-marriage separates legal rights and legal status of marriage, just establishing rights for same-sex couples, so it is a compromise which increases discrimination against gays and lesbians.
In the third part, the thesis elaborates and analyzes the debate over legitimacy of same-sex marriage in America. The thesis elaborates and analyzes opponent viewpoint, proponent viewpoint and Queer Theory. Same-sex marriage opponents who mainly compose traditional Christianity and the partial natural law scholars point out, the essence of marriage is procreation, the gay and lesbian couples cannot procreate children, so they cannot marry. Moreover, they advocate that, people should be monkish, none but procreation is the legitimate purpose of the sexual acts, the gay and lesbian couples cannot procreate children, so they are counter-natural; Same-sex marriage proponents prove the legitimacy of same-sex marriage in different ways, some proponents construe the legitimacy of same-sex marriage in the traditional frame. They said that, the homosexual phenomenon had been existing from ancient times, so it’s natural. Some other proponents provide the explanation for legitimacy of homosexuality and same-sex marriage in the sight of constructionism. They point out, homosexual and heterosexual identity is constructed by society, As a result of social and the cultural difference, the homosexual identity can exist in different forms. Moreover, marriage is also constructed by society. They advocate, no matter whatever identity or marriage, both have certain oppression, so we must reform the social institutions to eliminate the oppression; Queer Theory are more radical, they advocated, identity or marriage needs to be done away completely, so does the dualistic sex mode. At same time they summon people who were oppressed by traditional institutions to revolt. By analyzing the viewpoints and the theories, the thesis points out that the traditional theory cannot explain the question that is“since the homosexuality is counter-natural, why so many societies advocate it”. Moreover, along with sex separating from procreation, some new social phenomenon appearing and the people idea changing, the traditional moral which is against homosexuality and the same-sex marriage is getting more and more challenge. At same time, supporters in the traditional frame cannot jump out of the fetter of the traditional definition, and they failed to persuade to other people. Whenas, Queer Theory is so radical, that finally it will cause the struggle nihilism. So jumping out of the traditional frame, by taking constructionism to criticize the traditional homosexual role and the traditional marriage, the thesis points out, we should respect life style which homosexuality as minority chooses, and give them the same rights and protection with straight couples. At same time, we should break the traditional definition of marriage, define it over again and reform it, then allow the gay and lesbian couples to marry.
In the fourth part, basing on foregoing content, the thesis ponders on legitimacy of same-sex marriage over again. The thesis points out that, firstly, considering the development trend of sexual morality and the changing of traditional marriage, we can see that gays and lesbians should have right to marry. Entering the modern times, people's sexual morality idea becomes more and more secular, free and diverse; the homosexual act has been accepted by society gradually. Moreover, while the definition of marriage has also transformed along with social development, the focus of marital functions has transferred from procreation to sentiment. Now, procreation is not the essential factor of marriage, instead people pays more attention to sentimental factor of marriage, so the gay and lesbian couples should have rights to marry. Secondly, admitting same-sex marriage in legislation will give the gay and lesbian couples legal protection, it also makes society more equal. At same time, when more and more homosexual families start to adopt children, not accepting same-sex marriage will make these homosexual family lack protection, be bad for child-rearing and social stabilization, therefore from the angle of society, we must allow the gay and lesbian couples to marry. Thirdly, as the political power of the gay and lesbian community increases gradually, as gays and lesbians has obtains the success in the legislative practice and the judicial practice domain, we believe that gays and lesbians will obtain right to marry.
引文
[1] [法]托克维尔:《论美国的民主》(上),董果良译,商务印书馆 2004年第 1 版,第 30-31 页。
[2] 《同性婚姻》, http://www.smth.edu.cn/pc/pcarch.php?userid=souvent&y=2004&m=5,2008 年 3 月 19 日。
[3] See William N. Eskridge, A History of Same-Sex Marriage, Virginia Law Review 79 (1993), p.1420.
[4] 王菁:《同性婚姻立法比较研究》,武汉大学 2002 年硕士学位论文,第 2 页。
[5] 转引自赵庆寺、王启华:《20 世纪 60 年代美国同性恋运动兴起的历史考察》,《安徽史学》2003 年第 2 期,第 41 页。
[6] 董小川:《20 世纪美国宗教与政治》,人民出版社 2002 年第 1 版,第2 页。
[7] 参见董小川:《美国文化概论》,北京出版社 2006 年第 1 版,第 76-77页。
[8] 参见[美]卡普洛:《美国社会的发展趋势》,柳绪贻等译,商务印书馆1997 年第 1 版,第 51 页。
[9] 参见郭长刚、陈竞哲:《美国宗教多元主义历史与现实》,《兰州大学学报》(社会科学版)2007 年第 4 期,第 79 页。
[10] 参见李雯:《美国青年反主流文化运动滥觞的原因》,《青年研究》 2002 年第 8 期,第 41 页。
[11] 参见赵梅:《美国反文化运动探源》,《美国研究》2000 年第 1 期,第 69-70 页。
[12] See William N. Eskridge, A History of Same-Sex Marriage, Virginia Law Review 79(1993), p.1476.
[13] 参见黄兆群:《美国同性恋的历史考察》,《鲁东大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)2006 年 12 期,第 24-25 页。
[14] 事件发生于 1969 年 6 月 27 日, 地点是在纽约市的石墙酒吧, 因警察发现这里有同性恋活动便前往袭击,以达到驱散之目的。以往,警察这样的袭击都是以成功结束的,而这次却遭到了同性恋者的反抗,随即,同性恋者与警察之间发生了暴力冲突。参见房俐:《“神圣”的婚姻与公开化的同性恋———微观美国“文明”系列文章之八》,《新长征》2000 年第 8 期,第 42 页。
[15] 莎伦·史密斯:《错误的身份——身份政治可以消除压迫么?》,[美]葛尔·洛宾等:《酷儿理论——西方 90 年代性思潮》,李银河译,时事出版社 2000 年第 1 版,第 307 页。
[16] 莎伦·史密斯:《错误的身份——身份政治可以消除压迫么?》,[美]葛尔·洛宾等:《酷儿理论——西方 90 年代性思潮》,李银河译,时事出版社 2000 年第 1 版,第 310-311 页。
[17] 参见黄兆群:《美国同性恋的历史考察》,《鲁东大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)2006 年 12 期,第 26 页。
[18] See Christine Vestal, Gay Marriage Ripe for Decision in 3 Courts, http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=20695, Apr 17, 2007.
[19] 参见王丽萍:《同性婚姻:否定、接受还是对话?——法律、道德与伦理文化的审视》,《文史哲》2004 年第 4 期,第 152-153 页。
[20] See Kathleen E. Hull, The Political Limits of the Rights Frame: The Case of Same-Sex Marriage in Hawaii, Sociological Perspectives 44(2001), pp.212-213.
[21] Kathleen E. Hull, The Political Limits of the Rights Frame: The Case of Same-Sex Marriage in Hawaii, Sociological Perspectives 44(2001), p.214.
[22] 参见王丽萍:《同性婚姻:否定、接受还是对话?——法律、道德与伦理文化的审视》,《文史哲》2004 年第 4 期,第 154-155 页。
[23] 参见佛蒙特州最高法院:《贝克诉佛蒙特州案》,[美]詹姆斯·P·斯特巴:《实践中的道德》,李曦等译,北京大学出版社 2006 年第 1 版,第 481 页。
[24] See Same-Sex Marriage. Vermont Supreme Court Holds State Must Extend Same-Sex Couples the Same Benefits as Married Opposite-Sex Couples. Baker v. State, 744A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999), Harvard Law Review 113(2000), pp.1883-1884.
[25] See Domestic Relations. Same-Sex Couples. Vermont Creates System of Civil Unions. Act Relating to Civil Unions, No. 91, 2000 Vt. Adv. Legis. Serv. 68 (LEXIS), Harvard Law Review 114(2001), p.1422.
[26] Domestic Relations. Same-Sex Couples. Vermont Creates System of Civil Unions. Act Relating to Civil Unions, No. 91, 2000 Vt. Adv. Legis. Serv. 68 (LEXIS), Harvard Law Review 114(2001), pp.1421-1422.
[27] 王菁:《同性婚姻立法比较研究》,武汉大学 2002 年硕士学位论文,第 30 页。
[28] Domestic Relations. Same-Sex Couples. Vermont Creates System of Civil Unions. Act Relating to Civil Unions, No. 91, 2000 Vt. Adv. Legis. Serv. 68 (LEXIS), Harvard Law Review 114(2001), pp.1423-1424.
[29] Hull Kathleen, Same-Sex Marriage:The Culture Politics of Love and Law, Cambridge University Press, 2006, p.10.
[30] Christine Vestal, Gay Marriage Ripe for Decision in 3 Courts,http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=20695, Apr 17, 2007.
[31] 马晓年:《现场见证——美国同性婚姻势不可挡》,《中国性科学》 2004 年第 7 期,第 40 页。
[32] 董小川:《20 世纪美国宗教与政治》,人民出版社 2002 年第 1 版,第 165-166 页。
[33] See Margaret Denike, Religion, Rights, and Relationships: The Dream of Relational Equality,http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1166381381&sid=2&Fmt=3&clientId=26486&RQT=309&VName=PQD, Apr 21, 2007.
[34] 参见邱小平:《法律的平等保护——美国宪法第十四修正案第一款研究》,北京大学出版社 2005 年第 1 版,第 501 页。
[35] 参见庄素娟:《欧洲国家同性婚姻立法的发展趋势》,《金陵法律评论》2006 年第 1 期,第 90 页。
[36] 参见孙建江、吴亚晖:《民事结合制度对传统婚姻家庭制度的冲击》,《法学》2005 年第 10 期,第 88 页。
[37] 参见张文显:《二十世纪西方法哲学思潮研究》,法律出版社 2006年第 1 版,第 36 页。
[38] Rev. Anthony Emile Giampietro, The New Natural Law Theory and the Question of Same-Sex Marriage, Fordham University, 2002, p.22.
[39] See Rev. Anthony Emile Giampietro, The New Natural Law Theory and the Question of Same-Sex Marriage, Fordham University, 2002,p.59.
[40] 参见约翰·菲尼斯:《同性恋行为的不正当性》,[美]詹姆斯·P·斯特巴:《实践中的道德》,李曦等译,北京大学出版社 2006 年第 1 版,第 443 页。
[41] See Rev. Anthony Emile Giampietro, The New Natural Law Theory andthe Question of Same-Sex Marriage, Fordham University, 2002,p.59.
[42] 参见约翰·菲尼斯:《同性恋行为的不正当性》,[美]詹姆斯·P·斯特巴:《实践中的道德》,李曦等译,北京大学出版社 2006 年第 1 版,第 443 页。
[43] 李拥军:《宽容与不容:现代社会法对性调整的特点与趋势——以性权利为视角的考察》,http://www.legaltheory.com.cn/info.asp?id=10384,2007 年 4 月 14 日。
[44] [美]伯尔曼:《法律与宗教》,梁治平译,中国政法大学出版 2002 年第 1 版,第 38 页。
[45] 参见[法]米歇尔·福柯:《性史》,张廷琛等译, 上海科学技术文献出版社 1989 年第 1 版,第 169-170 页。
[46] 参见[美]理查德·A·波斯纳:《性与理性》,苏力译,中国政法大学出版社 2002 年第 1 版,第 392-397 页。
[47] 参见何东平:《同性婚姻合理性的研究》,《乐山师范学院学报》2005年第 8 期,第 97 页。
[48] 参见约翰·菲尼斯:《同性恋行为的不正当性》,[美]詹姆斯·P·斯特巴:《实践中的道德》,李曦等译,北京大学出版社 2006 年第 1 版,第 447 页。
[49] 转引自斯蒂文·艾普斯坦:《酷儿的碰撞:社会学和性研究》,[美]葛尔·洛宾等:《酷儿理论——西方 90 年代性思潮》,李银河译,时事出版社 2000 年第 1 版,第 92 页。
[50] 转引自[英]杰佛瑞·威克斯:《二十世纪的性理论和性观念》,宋文伟等译,江苏人民出版社 2002 年第 1 版,第 73-74 页。
[51] 转引自[英]杰佛瑞·威克斯:《二十世纪的性理论和性观念》,宋文伟等译,江苏人民出版社 2002 年第 1 版,第 105-107 页。
[52] See William N. Eskridge, A History of Same-Sex Marriage, VirginiaLaw Review 79(1993), pp.1487-1491.
[53] 斯蒂文·赛德曼:《酷儿理论/社会学》引言,[美]葛尔·洛宾等:《酷儿理论——西方 90 年代性思潮》,李银河译,时事出版社 2000年第 1 版,第 117 页。
[54] 转引自李银河:《译者前言——关于酷儿理论》,[美]葛尔·洛宾等:《酷儿理论——西方 90 年代性思潮》,李银河译,时事出版社 2000年第 1 版,第 4-5 页。
[55] 李银河:《酷儿理论面面观》,《国外社会科学》2002 年第 2 期,第24 页。
[56] See Mario Feit, Extinction Anxieties: Same-Sex Marriage and Modes of Citizenship, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/v008/8.3feit.html, May 20, 2007.
[57] See Mario Feit, Extinction Anxieties: Same-Sex Marriage and Modes of Citizenship, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/v008/8.3feit.html, May 20, 2007.
[58] 卓施瓦·盖姆森:《身份运动非自我解体不可么?一个酷儿的两难问题》,[美]葛尔·洛宾等:《酷儿理论——西方 90 年代性思潮》,李银河译,时事出版社 2000 年第 1 版,第 282 页。
[59] 李银河:《中国人的性爱与婚姻》,中国友谊出版公司 2002 年第 1版,第 241 页。
[60] 参见[英]安东尼·吉登斯:《亲密关系的变革》,陈永国等译,社会科学文献出版社 2001 年第 1 版,第 35-38 页。
[61] 参见[英]杰佛瑞·威克斯:《二十世纪的性理论和性观念》,宋文伟等译,江苏人民出版社 2002 年第 1 版,第 211-223 页。
[62] 唐绿意:《美国的同性恋家庭》,《光明日报》2002 年 8 月 2 日第 4版。
[63] [美]理查德·A·波斯纳:《性与理性》,苏力译,中国政法大学出版社 2002 年第 1 版,第 82 页。
[64] 参见杨华:《论当代美国人的性爱观》,《中国性学》2001 年第 4 期,第 69-70 页。
[65] 刘达临:《世界当代性文化》,上海三联出版社 1999 年第 1 版,第614 页。
[66] 修义庭:《马克思主义法理学》,上海远东出版社 1993 年第 1 版,第254 页。
[67] 参见魏章玲:《美国家庭模式和家庭社会学》,世界知识出版社 1999年第 1 版,第 109 页。
[68] 参见李银河:《中国人的性爱与婚姻》,中国友谊出版公司 2002 年第1 版,第 135 页。
[69] See William Meezan, Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting, and America's Children , The Future of Children 15(2005), p.98.
[70] 唐绿意:《美国的同性恋家庭》,《光明日报》2002 年 8 月 2 日第 4版。
[71] William Meezan, Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting, and America's Children , The Future of Children 15(2005), p.98.
[72] [美]理查德·A·波斯纳:《性与理性》,苏力译,中国政法大学出版社 2002 年第 1 版,第 391 页。
1.黄文艺:《婚姻正当性基础的法哲学追问》,宋显忠主编:《部门法哲学讲座》(第一辑),高等教育出版社2005年第1版。
2.黄兆群:《同性恋与美国社会风气》,《史学月刊》1998年第6期。
3.黄兆群:《美国同性恋的历史考察》,《鲁东大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)2006年第12期。
4.黎尔平:《同性恋权利:特殊人权还是普遍人权———兼论大赦国际对同性恋权利的保护》,《法学》2005年第10期。
5.黄秋月:《关于同性婚姻的法律思考》,《襄樊职业技术学院学报》2005年第6期。
6.孙建江、吴亚晖:《民事结合制度对传统婚姻家庭制度的冲击》,《法学》2005年第10期。
7.罗静:《试论特殊性别伴侣关系与婚姻》,《西南民族大学学报》(人文社科版)2003年第6期。
8.王丽萍:《同性婚姻:否定、接受还是对话?——法律、道德与伦理文化的审视》,《文史哲》2004年第4期。
9.[德]M?克斯特尔:《欧洲同性恋立法动态的比较考察》,《比较法研究》2004年第2期。
10.庄素娟:《欧洲国家同性婚姻立法的发展趋势》,《金陵法律评论》2006年第1期。
11.郭晓飞:《求同存异和求异存同:同性婚姻的宪法之维》,《环球法律评论》2005年第5期。
12.李银河:《酷儿理论面面观》,《国外社会科学》2002年第2期。
13.刘国生:《各国(地区)同性恋立法与司法概况》,《法律与医学杂志》2005年第4期。
14.何东平:《同性婚姻合理性的研究》,《乐山师范学院学报》2005年第8期。
15.朱靖江:《同性婚姻合法化激荡北美》,《新闻周刊》2003年第23期。
16.孙涉:《婚姻概念的法学解读》,《中共南京市委党校南京市行政学院学报》2006年第5期。
17.赵庆寺、王启华:《20世纪60年代美国同性恋运动兴起的历史考察》,《安徽史学》2003年第2期。
18.魏绪巧:《从婚姻的本质界定婚姻关系》,《十堰职业技术学院学报》2006年第6期。
19.张书义:《同性恋研究述要》,《天中学刊》2003年第1期。
20.白洁:《结婚制度若干问题的思考》,《新疆大学学报》(哲学·人文社会科学版)2006年第6期。
21.房俐:《“神圣”的婚姻与公开化的同性恋———微观美国“文明”系列文章之八》,《新长征》2000年第8期。
22.唐绿意:《美国的同性恋家庭》,《光明日报》2002年8月2日第4版。
23.李银河:《同性恋合法化的道路有多远?》,《中国社会导刊》2006年第4期。
24.马晓年:《现场见证——美国同性婚姻势不可挡》,《中国性科学》2004年第7期。
25.王菁:《同性婚姻立法比较研究》,武汉大学2002年硕士学位论文。
26.刘润仙:《论同性婚姻的合法性》,吉林大学2002年硕士学位论文。
27.李拥军:《宽容与不容:现代社会法对性调整的特点与趋势——以性权利为视角的考察》,http://www.legaltheory.com.cn/info.asp?id=10384,2007年4月14日。
28.《影响政坛“重磅炸弹” 美国同性婚姻再亮“绿灯》, http://news.163.com/06/1026/13/2UC5AGUP000120GU.html,2006 年 4月 7 日。
29.《同性婚姻》, http://www.smth.edu.cn/pc/pcarch.php?userid=souvent&y=2004&m=5,2008年3月19日。
1. Joe Rollins, Same-Sex Unions and the Spectacles of Recognition, Law & Society Review 39(2005).
2. Miriam Smith, The Politics of Same-Sex Marriage in Canada and the United States, Political Science& Politics 38(2005).
3. Kenyon Bunch, If Racial Desegregation, Then Same-Sex Marriage? Originalism and the Supreme Courts Fourteenth Amendment, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 28(2005).
4. Julie Goldscheid, State Anti-Marriage Amendments Threaten Domestic Violence Laws, National Now Times 37(2005).
5. Wolfson Evan, How to Win the Freedom to Marry, The Harvard Gay & Lesbian Review 4(1997).
6. Lawrence Hurley, ACLU Targets State's Ban on Same-Sex Marriage, The Daily Record, July 8, 2004.
7. Kathleen E. Hull, The Political Limits of the Rights Frame: The Case of Same-Sex Marriage in Hawaii, Sociological Perspectives 44 (2001).
8. Ann Parks, Same-Sex Marriage Proponents Get Their Day in Baltimore City Circuit Court, The Daily Record, August 31, 2005.
9. Robert D. Kalinoski, Commentary: Sense and Sensibility on Gay Marriage,The Daily Record, June 18, 2004.
10. Same-Sex Marriage. Vermont Supreme Court Holds State Must Extend Same-Sex Couples the Same Benefits as Married Opposite-Sex Couples. Baker v. State, 744A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999), Harvard Law Review 113 (2000).
11. Domestic Relations. Same-Sex Couples. Vermont Creates System of Civil Unions. Act Relating to Civil Unions, No. 91, 2000 Vt. Adv. Legis. Serv. 68 (LEXIS), Harvard Law Review 114(2001).
12. William Meezan, Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting, and America's Children, The Future of Children 15(2005).
13. William N. Eskridge, A History of Same-Sex Marriage, Virginia Law Review 79 (1993).
14. Christine Vestal, Gay Marriage Ripe for Decision in 3 Courts, http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=20695, Apr 17, 2007.
15. Margaret Denike, Religion, Rights, and Relationships: The Dream of Relational Equality,http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1166381381&sid=2&Fmt=3&clientId=26486&RQT=309&VName=PQD, Apr 21, 2007.
16. Mario Feit, Extinction Anxieties: Same-Sex Marriage and Modes of Citizenship, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/v008/8.3feit.html, May 20, 2007.
1.张文显:《法哲学范畴研究》(修订版),中国政法大学出版社2001年第1版。
2.张文显:《二十世纪西方法哲学思潮研究》,法律出版社2006年第1版。
3.滑明达:《文化超越与文化认知——美国社会文化研究》,中国社会科学出版社2006年第1版。
4.夏吟兰:《美国现代婚姻家庭制度》,中国政法大学出版社1999年第1版。
5.李银河:《同性恋亚文化》,中国友谊出版公司2002年第1版。
6.李银河:《福柯与性》,山东人民出版社2001年第1版。
7.李银河:《两性关系》,华东师范大学出版社2005年第1版。
8.李银河:《中国人的性爱与婚姻》,中国友谊出版公司2002年第1版。
9.王丽萍:《婚姻家庭法律制度研究》,山东人民出版社2004年第1版。
10.宋显忠主编:《部门法哲学讲座》(第一辑),高等教育出版社2005年第1版。
11.费孝通:《乡土中国——生育制度》,北京大学出版社1998年第1版。
12.董小川:《20世纪美国宗教与政治》,人民出版社2002年第1版。
13.魏章玲:《美国家庭模式和家庭社会学》,世界知识出版社1999年第1版。
14.汪波:《当代美国文化透视》,安徽大学出版社1997年第1版。
15.修义庭:《马克思主义法理学》,上海远东出版社1993年第1版。
16.邱小平:《法律的平等保护——美国宪法第十四修正案第一款研究》,北京大学出版社2005年第1版。
17.刘达临:《世界当代性文化》,上海三联出版社1999年第1版。
18.董小川:《美国文化概论》,北京出版社2006年第1版。
1.[美]理查德·A·波斯纳:《性与理性》,苏力译,中国政法大学出版社2002年第1版。
2.[英]安东尼·吉登斯:《亲密关系的变革》,陈永国等译,社会科学文献出版社2001年第1版。
3.[美]詹姆斯·P·斯特巴:《实践中的道德》,李曦等译,北京大学出版社2006年第1版。
4.[法]米歇尔·福柯:《性史》,张廷琛译, 上海科学技术文献出版社1989年第1版。
5.[美]Eric Marcus:《当代同性恋历史》,林贤修译,开心阳光出版公司1997年第1版。
6.[英]蔼理士:《性心理学》,潘光旦译,生活·读书·新知三联书店1987年第1版。
7.[美]伯尔曼:《法律与宗教》,梁治平译,中国政法大学出版2002年第1版。
8.[美]唐奈·威廉·杰欧:《美国婚姻与婚姻法》,顾培东等译,重庆出版社1986年第1版。
9.[美]哈里·D·格劳斯:《美国家庭法精要》,陈苇译,重庆西南政法大学外国家庭法及妇女理论研究中心2005年第1版。
10.[美]葛尔·洛宾等:《酷儿理论——西方90年代性思潮》,李银河译,时事出版社2000年第1版。
11.[法]托克维尔:《论美国的民主》,董果良译,商务印书馆1988年第1版。
12.[英]杰佛瑞·威克斯:《二十世纪的性理论和性观念》,宋文伟等译,江苏人民出版社2002年第1版。
13.[芬兰]韦斯特·马克著:《人类婚姻史》,李彬等译,商务印书馆1922年第4版。
1.Hull, Kathleen, Same-Sex Marriage:The Culture Politics of Love and Law, Cambridge University Press, 2006.
2.Rev. Anthony Emile Giampietro, The New Natural Law Theory and the Question of Same-Sex Marriage, Fordham University, 2002.
[2] 《同性婚姻》, http://www.smth.edu.cn/pc/pcarch.php?userid=souvent&y=2004&m=5,2008 年 3 月 19 日。
[3] See William N. Eskridge, A History of Same-Sex Marriage, Virginia Law Review 79 (1993), p.1420.
[4] 王菁:《同性婚姻立法比较研究》,武汉大学 2002 年硕士学位论文,第 2 页。
[5] 转引自赵庆寺、王启华:《20 世纪 60 年代美国同性恋运动兴起的历史考察》,《安徽史学》2003 年第 2 期,第 41 页。
[6] 董小川:《20 世纪美国宗教与政治》,人民出版社 2002 年第 1 版,第2 页。
[7] 参见董小川:《美国文化概论》,北京出版社 2006 年第 1 版,第 76-77页。
[8] 参见[美]卡普洛:《美国社会的发展趋势》,柳绪贻等译,商务印书馆1997 年第 1 版,第 51 页。
[9] 参见郭长刚、陈竞哲:《美国宗教多元主义历史与现实》,《兰州大学学报》(社会科学版)2007 年第 4 期,第 79 页。
[10] 参见李雯:《美国青年反主流文化运动滥觞的原因》,《青年研究》 2002 年第 8 期,第 41 页。
[11] 参见赵梅:《美国反文化运动探源》,《美国研究》2000 年第 1 期,第 69-70 页。
[12] See William N. Eskridge, A History of Same-Sex Marriage, Virginia Law Review 79(1993), p.1476.
[13] 参见黄兆群:《美国同性恋的历史考察》,《鲁东大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)2006 年 12 期,第 24-25 页。
[14] 事件发生于 1969 年 6 月 27 日, 地点是在纽约市的石墙酒吧, 因警察发现这里有同性恋活动便前往袭击,以达到驱散之目的。以往,警察这样的袭击都是以成功结束的,而这次却遭到了同性恋者的反抗,随即,同性恋者与警察之间发生了暴力冲突。参见房俐:《“神圣”的婚姻与公开化的同性恋———微观美国“文明”系列文章之八》,《新长征》2000 年第 8 期,第 42 页。
[15] 莎伦·史密斯:《错误的身份——身份政治可以消除压迫么?》,[美]葛尔·洛宾等:《酷儿理论——西方 90 年代性思潮》,李银河译,时事出版社 2000 年第 1 版,第 307 页。
[16] 莎伦·史密斯:《错误的身份——身份政治可以消除压迫么?》,[美]葛尔·洛宾等:《酷儿理论——西方 90 年代性思潮》,李银河译,时事出版社 2000 年第 1 版,第 310-311 页。
[17] 参见黄兆群:《美国同性恋的历史考察》,《鲁东大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)2006 年 12 期,第 26 页。
[18] See Christine Vestal, Gay Marriage Ripe for Decision in 3 Courts, http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=20695, Apr 17, 2007.
[19] 参见王丽萍:《同性婚姻:否定、接受还是对话?——法律、道德与伦理文化的审视》,《文史哲》2004 年第 4 期,第 152-153 页。
[20] See Kathleen E. Hull, The Political Limits of the Rights Frame: The Case of Same-Sex Marriage in Hawaii, Sociological Perspectives 44(2001), pp.212-213.
[21] Kathleen E. Hull, The Political Limits of the Rights Frame: The Case of Same-Sex Marriage in Hawaii, Sociological Perspectives 44(2001), p.214.
[22] 参见王丽萍:《同性婚姻:否定、接受还是对话?——法律、道德与伦理文化的审视》,《文史哲》2004 年第 4 期,第 154-155 页。
[23] 参见佛蒙特州最高法院:《贝克诉佛蒙特州案》,[美]詹姆斯·P·斯特巴:《实践中的道德》,李曦等译,北京大学出版社 2006 年第 1 版,第 481 页。
[24] See Same-Sex Marriage. Vermont Supreme Court Holds State Must Extend Same-Sex Couples the Same Benefits as Married Opposite-Sex Couples. Baker v. State, 744A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999), Harvard Law Review 113(2000), pp.1883-1884.
[25] See Domestic Relations. Same-Sex Couples. Vermont Creates System of Civil Unions. Act Relating to Civil Unions, No. 91, 2000 Vt. Adv. Legis. Serv. 68 (LEXIS), Harvard Law Review 114(2001), p.1422.
[26] Domestic Relations. Same-Sex Couples. Vermont Creates System of Civil Unions. Act Relating to Civil Unions, No. 91, 2000 Vt. Adv. Legis. Serv. 68 (LEXIS), Harvard Law Review 114(2001), pp.1421-1422.
[27] 王菁:《同性婚姻立法比较研究》,武汉大学 2002 年硕士学位论文,第 30 页。
[28] Domestic Relations. Same-Sex Couples. Vermont Creates System of Civil Unions. Act Relating to Civil Unions, No. 91, 2000 Vt. Adv. Legis. Serv. 68 (LEXIS), Harvard Law Review 114(2001), pp.1423-1424.
[29] Hull Kathleen, Same-Sex Marriage:The Culture Politics of Love and Law, Cambridge University Press, 2006, p.10.
[30] Christine Vestal, Gay Marriage Ripe for Decision in 3 Courts,http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=20695, Apr 17, 2007.
[31] 马晓年:《现场见证——美国同性婚姻势不可挡》,《中国性科学》 2004 年第 7 期,第 40 页。
[32] 董小川:《20 世纪美国宗教与政治》,人民出版社 2002 年第 1 版,第 165-166 页。
[33] See Margaret Denike, Religion, Rights, and Relationships: The Dream of Relational Equality,http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1166381381&sid=2&Fmt=3&clientId=26486&RQT=309&VName=PQD, Apr 21, 2007.
[34] 参见邱小平:《法律的平等保护——美国宪法第十四修正案第一款研究》,北京大学出版社 2005 年第 1 版,第 501 页。
[35] 参见庄素娟:《欧洲国家同性婚姻立法的发展趋势》,《金陵法律评论》2006 年第 1 期,第 90 页。
[36] 参见孙建江、吴亚晖:《民事结合制度对传统婚姻家庭制度的冲击》,《法学》2005 年第 10 期,第 88 页。
[37] 参见张文显:《二十世纪西方法哲学思潮研究》,法律出版社 2006年第 1 版,第 36 页。
[38] Rev. Anthony Emile Giampietro, The New Natural Law Theory and the Question of Same-Sex Marriage, Fordham University, 2002, p.22.
[39] See Rev. Anthony Emile Giampietro, The New Natural Law Theory and the Question of Same-Sex Marriage, Fordham University, 2002,p.59.
[40] 参见约翰·菲尼斯:《同性恋行为的不正当性》,[美]詹姆斯·P·斯特巴:《实践中的道德》,李曦等译,北京大学出版社 2006 年第 1 版,第 443 页。
[41] See Rev. Anthony Emile Giampietro, The New Natural Law Theory andthe Question of Same-Sex Marriage, Fordham University, 2002,p.59.
[42] 参见约翰·菲尼斯:《同性恋行为的不正当性》,[美]詹姆斯·P·斯特巴:《实践中的道德》,李曦等译,北京大学出版社 2006 年第 1 版,第 443 页。
[43] 李拥军:《宽容与不容:现代社会法对性调整的特点与趋势——以性权利为视角的考察》,http://www.legaltheory.com.cn/info.asp?id=10384,2007 年 4 月 14 日。
[44] [美]伯尔曼:《法律与宗教》,梁治平译,中国政法大学出版 2002 年第 1 版,第 38 页。
[45] 参见[法]米歇尔·福柯:《性史》,张廷琛等译, 上海科学技术文献出版社 1989 年第 1 版,第 169-170 页。
[46] 参见[美]理查德·A·波斯纳:《性与理性》,苏力译,中国政法大学出版社 2002 年第 1 版,第 392-397 页。
[47] 参见何东平:《同性婚姻合理性的研究》,《乐山师范学院学报》2005年第 8 期,第 97 页。
[48] 参见约翰·菲尼斯:《同性恋行为的不正当性》,[美]詹姆斯·P·斯特巴:《实践中的道德》,李曦等译,北京大学出版社 2006 年第 1 版,第 447 页。
[49] 转引自斯蒂文·艾普斯坦:《酷儿的碰撞:社会学和性研究》,[美]葛尔·洛宾等:《酷儿理论——西方 90 年代性思潮》,李银河译,时事出版社 2000 年第 1 版,第 92 页。
[50] 转引自[英]杰佛瑞·威克斯:《二十世纪的性理论和性观念》,宋文伟等译,江苏人民出版社 2002 年第 1 版,第 73-74 页。
[51] 转引自[英]杰佛瑞·威克斯:《二十世纪的性理论和性观念》,宋文伟等译,江苏人民出版社 2002 年第 1 版,第 105-107 页。
[52] See William N. Eskridge, A History of Same-Sex Marriage, VirginiaLaw Review 79(1993), pp.1487-1491.
[53] 斯蒂文·赛德曼:《酷儿理论/社会学》引言,[美]葛尔·洛宾等:《酷儿理论——西方 90 年代性思潮》,李银河译,时事出版社 2000年第 1 版,第 117 页。
[54] 转引自李银河:《译者前言——关于酷儿理论》,[美]葛尔·洛宾等:《酷儿理论——西方 90 年代性思潮》,李银河译,时事出版社 2000年第 1 版,第 4-5 页。
[55] 李银河:《酷儿理论面面观》,《国外社会科学》2002 年第 2 期,第24 页。
[56] See Mario Feit, Extinction Anxieties: Same-Sex Marriage and Modes of Citizenship, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/v008/8.3feit.html, May 20, 2007.
[57] See Mario Feit, Extinction Anxieties: Same-Sex Marriage and Modes of Citizenship, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/v008/8.3feit.html, May 20, 2007.
[58] 卓施瓦·盖姆森:《身份运动非自我解体不可么?一个酷儿的两难问题》,[美]葛尔·洛宾等:《酷儿理论——西方 90 年代性思潮》,李银河译,时事出版社 2000 年第 1 版,第 282 页。
[59] 李银河:《中国人的性爱与婚姻》,中国友谊出版公司 2002 年第 1版,第 241 页。
[60] 参见[英]安东尼·吉登斯:《亲密关系的变革》,陈永国等译,社会科学文献出版社 2001 年第 1 版,第 35-38 页。
[61] 参见[英]杰佛瑞·威克斯:《二十世纪的性理论和性观念》,宋文伟等译,江苏人民出版社 2002 年第 1 版,第 211-223 页。
[62] 唐绿意:《美国的同性恋家庭》,《光明日报》2002 年 8 月 2 日第 4版。
[63] [美]理查德·A·波斯纳:《性与理性》,苏力译,中国政法大学出版社 2002 年第 1 版,第 82 页。
[64] 参见杨华:《论当代美国人的性爱观》,《中国性学》2001 年第 4 期,第 69-70 页。
[65] 刘达临:《世界当代性文化》,上海三联出版社 1999 年第 1 版,第614 页。
[66] 修义庭:《马克思主义法理学》,上海远东出版社 1993 年第 1 版,第254 页。
[67] 参见魏章玲:《美国家庭模式和家庭社会学》,世界知识出版社 1999年第 1 版,第 109 页。
[68] 参见李银河:《中国人的性爱与婚姻》,中国友谊出版公司 2002 年第1 版,第 135 页。
[69] See William Meezan, Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting, and America's Children , The Future of Children 15(2005), p.98.
[70] 唐绿意:《美国的同性恋家庭》,《光明日报》2002 年 8 月 2 日第 4版。
[71] William Meezan, Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting, and America's Children , The Future of Children 15(2005), p.98.
[72] [美]理查德·A·波斯纳:《性与理性》,苏力译,中国政法大学出版社 2002 年第 1 版,第 391 页。
1.黄文艺:《婚姻正当性基础的法哲学追问》,宋显忠主编:《部门法哲学讲座》(第一辑),高等教育出版社2005年第1版。
2.黄兆群:《同性恋与美国社会风气》,《史学月刊》1998年第6期。
3.黄兆群:《美国同性恋的历史考察》,《鲁东大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)2006年第12期。
4.黎尔平:《同性恋权利:特殊人权还是普遍人权———兼论大赦国际对同性恋权利的保护》,《法学》2005年第10期。
5.黄秋月:《关于同性婚姻的法律思考》,《襄樊职业技术学院学报》2005年第6期。
6.孙建江、吴亚晖:《民事结合制度对传统婚姻家庭制度的冲击》,《法学》2005年第10期。
7.罗静:《试论特殊性别伴侣关系与婚姻》,《西南民族大学学报》(人文社科版)2003年第6期。
8.王丽萍:《同性婚姻:否定、接受还是对话?——法律、道德与伦理文化的审视》,《文史哲》2004年第4期。
9.[德]M?克斯特尔:《欧洲同性恋立法动态的比较考察》,《比较法研究》2004年第2期。
10.庄素娟:《欧洲国家同性婚姻立法的发展趋势》,《金陵法律评论》2006年第1期。
11.郭晓飞:《求同存异和求异存同:同性婚姻的宪法之维》,《环球法律评论》2005年第5期。
12.李银河:《酷儿理论面面观》,《国外社会科学》2002年第2期。
13.刘国生:《各国(地区)同性恋立法与司法概况》,《法律与医学杂志》2005年第4期。
14.何东平:《同性婚姻合理性的研究》,《乐山师范学院学报》2005年第8期。
15.朱靖江:《同性婚姻合法化激荡北美》,《新闻周刊》2003年第23期。
16.孙涉:《婚姻概念的法学解读》,《中共南京市委党校南京市行政学院学报》2006年第5期。
17.赵庆寺、王启华:《20世纪60年代美国同性恋运动兴起的历史考察》,《安徽史学》2003年第2期。
18.魏绪巧:《从婚姻的本质界定婚姻关系》,《十堰职业技术学院学报》2006年第6期。
19.张书义:《同性恋研究述要》,《天中学刊》2003年第1期。
20.白洁:《结婚制度若干问题的思考》,《新疆大学学报》(哲学·人文社会科学版)2006年第6期。
21.房俐:《“神圣”的婚姻与公开化的同性恋———微观美国“文明”系列文章之八》,《新长征》2000年第8期。
22.唐绿意:《美国的同性恋家庭》,《光明日报》2002年8月2日第4版。
23.李银河:《同性恋合法化的道路有多远?》,《中国社会导刊》2006年第4期。
24.马晓年:《现场见证——美国同性婚姻势不可挡》,《中国性科学》2004年第7期。
25.王菁:《同性婚姻立法比较研究》,武汉大学2002年硕士学位论文。
26.刘润仙:《论同性婚姻的合法性》,吉林大学2002年硕士学位论文。
27.李拥军:《宽容与不容:现代社会法对性调整的特点与趋势——以性权利为视角的考察》,http://www.legaltheory.com.cn/info.asp?id=10384,2007年4月14日。
28.《影响政坛“重磅炸弹” 美国同性婚姻再亮“绿灯》, http://news.163.com/06/1026/13/2UC5AGUP000120GU.html,2006 年 4月 7 日。
29.《同性婚姻》, http://www.smth.edu.cn/pc/pcarch.php?userid=souvent&y=2004&m=5,2008年3月19日。
1. Joe Rollins, Same-Sex Unions and the Spectacles of Recognition, Law & Society Review 39(2005).
2. Miriam Smith, The Politics of Same-Sex Marriage in Canada and the United States, Political Science& Politics 38(2005).
3. Kenyon Bunch, If Racial Desegregation, Then Same-Sex Marriage? Originalism and the Supreme Courts Fourteenth Amendment, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 28(2005).
4. Julie Goldscheid, State Anti-Marriage Amendments Threaten Domestic Violence Laws, National Now Times 37(2005).
5. Wolfson Evan, How to Win the Freedom to Marry, The Harvard Gay & Lesbian Review 4(1997).
6. Lawrence Hurley, ACLU Targets State's Ban on Same-Sex Marriage, The Daily Record, July 8, 2004.
7. Kathleen E. Hull, The Political Limits of the Rights Frame: The Case of Same-Sex Marriage in Hawaii, Sociological Perspectives 44 (2001).
8. Ann Parks, Same-Sex Marriage Proponents Get Their Day in Baltimore City Circuit Court, The Daily Record, August 31, 2005.
9. Robert D. Kalinoski, Commentary: Sense and Sensibility on Gay Marriage,The Daily Record, June 18, 2004.
10. Same-Sex Marriage. Vermont Supreme Court Holds State Must Extend Same-Sex Couples the Same Benefits as Married Opposite-Sex Couples. Baker v. State, 744A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999), Harvard Law Review 113 (2000).
11. Domestic Relations. Same-Sex Couples. Vermont Creates System of Civil Unions. Act Relating to Civil Unions, No. 91, 2000 Vt. Adv. Legis. Serv. 68 (LEXIS), Harvard Law Review 114(2001).
12. William Meezan, Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting, and America's Children, The Future of Children 15(2005).
13. William N. Eskridge, A History of Same-Sex Marriage, Virginia Law Review 79 (1993).
14. Christine Vestal, Gay Marriage Ripe for Decision in 3 Courts, http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=20695, Apr 17, 2007.
15. Margaret Denike, Religion, Rights, and Relationships: The Dream of Relational Equality,http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1166381381&sid=2&Fmt=3&clientId=26486&RQT=309&VName=PQD, Apr 21, 2007.
16. Mario Feit, Extinction Anxieties: Same-Sex Marriage and Modes of Citizenship, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/v008/8.3feit.html, May 20, 2007.
1.张文显:《法哲学范畴研究》(修订版),中国政法大学出版社2001年第1版。
2.张文显:《二十世纪西方法哲学思潮研究》,法律出版社2006年第1版。
3.滑明达:《文化超越与文化认知——美国社会文化研究》,中国社会科学出版社2006年第1版。
4.夏吟兰:《美国现代婚姻家庭制度》,中国政法大学出版社1999年第1版。
5.李银河:《同性恋亚文化》,中国友谊出版公司2002年第1版。
6.李银河:《福柯与性》,山东人民出版社2001年第1版。
7.李银河:《两性关系》,华东师范大学出版社2005年第1版。
8.李银河:《中国人的性爱与婚姻》,中国友谊出版公司2002年第1版。
9.王丽萍:《婚姻家庭法律制度研究》,山东人民出版社2004年第1版。
10.宋显忠主编:《部门法哲学讲座》(第一辑),高等教育出版社2005年第1版。
11.费孝通:《乡土中国——生育制度》,北京大学出版社1998年第1版。
12.董小川:《20世纪美国宗教与政治》,人民出版社2002年第1版。
13.魏章玲:《美国家庭模式和家庭社会学》,世界知识出版社1999年第1版。
14.汪波:《当代美国文化透视》,安徽大学出版社1997年第1版。
15.修义庭:《马克思主义法理学》,上海远东出版社1993年第1版。
16.邱小平:《法律的平等保护——美国宪法第十四修正案第一款研究》,北京大学出版社2005年第1版。
17.刘达临:《世界当代性文化》,上海三联出版社1999年第1版。
18.董小川:《美国文化概论》,北京出版社2006年第1版。
1.[美]理查德·A·波斯纳:《性与理性》,苏力译,中国政法大学出版社2002年第1版。
2.[英]安东尼·吉登斯:《亲密关系的变革》,陈永国等译,社会科学文献出版社2001年第1版。
3.[美]詹姆斯·P·斯特巴:《实践中的道德》,李曦等译,北京大学出版社2006年第1版。
4.[法]米歇尔·福柯:《性史》,张廷琛译, 上海科学技术文献出版社1989年第1版。
5.[美]Eric Marcus:《当代同性恋历史》,林贤修译,开心阳光出版公司1997年第1版。
6.[英]蔼理士:《性心理学》,潘光旦译,生活·读书·新知三联书店1987年第1版。
7.[美]伯尔曼:《法律与宗教》,梁治平译,中国政法大学出版2002年第1版。
8.[美]唐奈·威廉·杰欧:《美国婚姻与婚姻法》,顾培东等译,重庆出版社1986年第1版。
9.[美]哈里·D·格劳斯:《美国家庭法精要》,陈苇译,重庆西南政法大学外国家庭法及妇女理论研究中心2005年第1版。
10.[美]葛尔·洛宾等:《酷儿理论——西方90年代性思潮》,李银河译,时事出版社2000年第1版。
11.[法]托克维尔:《论美国的民主》,董果良译,商务印书馆1988年第1版。
12.[英]杰佛瑞·威克斯:《二十世纪的性理论和性观念》,宋文伟等译,江苏人民出版社2002年第1版。
13.[芬兰]韦斯特·马克著:《人类婚姻史》,李彬等译,商务印书馆1922年第4版。
1.Hull, Kathleen, Same-Sex Marriage:The Culture Politics of Love and Law, Cambridge University Press, 2006.
2.Rev. Anthony Emile Giampietro, The New Natural Law Theory and the Question of Same-Sex Marriage, Fordham University, 2002.