字神帝國英語天地

今日主題：Gay marriage-- Ties that divide / 同性婚姻合法化--備受爭議

康康精選GRE&GMAT會考的主題，堅持每天精讀一定會進步的哦!!
MP3音檔 (按右鍵可下載聽)：喜歡的同學，幫忙推或按讚哦~~
http://xia2.kekenet.com/Sou…/2016/…/eco160907_1547920vyd.mp3

只有音檔怎夠，聽不懂地方，不用怕，康康幫你準備好中英文稿了：

中英文稿：
Gay marriage-- Ties that divide
同性婚姻合法化--備受爭議

A row over plans to let gay couples marry in church
同性伴侶可在教堂舉行婚禮這一法案爭議不斷

Pity the prime minister. With most news bleakly austere these days, changing the law to let gay couples marry must have seemed a sure way to spread crowd-pleasing sweetness and light. Countries around the world are giving homosexuals full marriage rights. More than half of British respondents usually tell pollsters they favour gay marriage. Besides, David Cameron truly believes in it, as he told the Conservative Party conference in October 2011.
英國最近都沒有什麼好消息。可憐了首相卡梅隆，但修改法律允許同性伴侶結婚似乎讓民眾心裡一暖。很多國家都在逐步給予同性戀完全婚姻權。民意調查顯示，英國超過一半的受訪者都支持同性婚姻合法化。此外，在2011年10月的保守黨大會上大衛•卡梅隆（David Cameron）也表示他本人是完全贊同同性婚姻合法化。

But government plans to let same-sex couples not only marry but marry in church, detailed on December 11th, have startled the ecclesiastical horses and divided the already fissiparous Conservatives. The Anglican and Catholic churches, along with the Muslim Council of Britain and Lord Sacks, the Chief Rabbi, oppose the move, which contravenes their belief that marriage is between a woman and a man. High-profile Tories including Michael Gove, the education secretary, and Boris Johnson, London’s mayor, are for the change, but over 100 Conservative MPs are believed to oppose it. That will not put the outcome in doubt, as Labour and the Liberal Democrats support the shift, but it guarantees a continuing row.
12月11日，英政府公佈了詳細條例——不僅允許同性伴侶結婚，也可在教堂舉行婚禮。這讓教會的那些老匹夫大吃一驚，使已出現分歧的保守黨更是爭論不斷。聖公會和天主教，以及英國穆斯林協會和首席拉比薩克斯勳爵（Lord Sacks）都反對這項提議，因為這和他們一男一女才能結婚的信仰相否。幾名高調的保守黨人，包括教育大臣邁克爾•戈夫（Michael Gove）和倫敦市長伯里斯•詹森（Boris Johnson），贊成此提議，估計過百的國會議員將會反對。由於工党和自由民主黨都支持這項提議，所以這些反對者對結果沒有什麼影響，但不可避免的會引起不斷的爭論。

At issue is how to balance competing rights—to freedom of religious expression and freedom from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. This clash last hit the headlines in 2007, when a Catholic adoption agency was required to consider gay couples as adoptive parents, and the religiously minded owners of a small hotel were told they could not refuse to rent a double bedroom to a gay couple. This time, the dispute is over core religious activities, not charitable or commercial services. But once same-sex marriages are permitted, and on religious premises at that, some fear that churches, mosques and temples could be forced into solemnising relationships of which they disapprove profoundly. Are they right to worry?
目前的問題是如何去平衡這兩種相對抗的權利——宗教表達自由權和性取向不受歧視的權利。此矛盾最近一次上頭條是在2007年，那一年，一條新聞報導了一對同性戀夫婦要求一個天主教收養機構允許他們收養孩子，還有一條新聞報導了一家小旅店虔誠的業主們被告知他們不得拒絕向同性戀伴侶出租雙人間。這次的爭議核心是宗教活動，而非慈善或商業服務。一些人擔心，一旦同性婚姻合法化允許在宗教處所舉辦婚禮的話，教堂、清真寺和寺廟都將被迫為其舉辦隆重的典禮，而這種同性婚姻他們根本不能接受。這樣的擔心難道毫無道理嗎？

The government assures them they need not. All same-sex couples will be entitled to civil marriage, not just the civil partnership they have been allowed since 2005. Those who wish to marry religiously may do so, if a church is willing. A “quadruple lock” has been designed to protect churches that are not against suits for discrimination or breaching human rights.
政府承諾這樣的擔心沒必要。2005年，英國允許同性伴侶有民事伴侶關係權，現所有同性伴侶將享有民事婚姻權。如果某個教堂願意，同性伴侶可去教堂舉行婚禮。政府還制定了一個“四重法律鎖”來保護那些不願意為其主持婚禮的教堂免於歧視和侵犯人權的訴訟。

The new law (which should be on the statute books in 2015) will state that no religious organisation or minister can be compelled to marry same-sex couples. There will be a formal “opt-in” system for those that are interested. The Equality Act of 2010 will be amended. The Church of England, whose canon law is intertwined with the law of the land and normally has a duty to marry people, will not, at its own request, splice same-sex couples, unless canon law and legislation are changed.
新法（預計2015年實施）規定，不強迫任何宗教組織和牧師給同性伴侶舉行婚禮。屆時會為那些有興趣的宗教組織和牧師提供正式的“自由選擇”流程。2010年的《平等法》將會修訂。英國國教會的教會法與當地法律關係緊密，通常還肩負為公民舉辦婚禮的義務。但在它的要求下，英國國教會不會為同性伴侶舉辦婚禮，除非教會法和法律改變。

That still leaves Strasbourg, which has cheerfully overlooked Parliament’s declared wish and told Britain to let at least some convicted prisoners vote. “There’s no way you can stop a couple going to the European Court of Human Rights and arguing that the fact British law does not oblige religious organisations to marry them is a violation of their rights,” says Robert Wintamute, a barrister who teaches at Kings College London. But they won’t get far, he reckons. Others agree. The European Convention is a touch ambiguous. The court does not require governments to let gay couples marry, still less churches.
斯特拉斯堡（歐洲人權法庭的所在地），跟英國政府在囚犯是否享有選舉權問題上有分歧。在倫敦國王學院教書的大律師羅伯特（Robert Wintamute）說：“你沒法阻止一對伴侶跑到歐洲人權法庭去控告英國法律——宗教組織可不為同性伴侶舉辦婚禮——是對他們的侵權。”但他們也不會成功。其他人也同意這樣的說法。歐洲人權公約對此有點模糊不清。法庭不會要求國家政府允許同性婚姻，更不用說教堂了。

But debate over the limits of religious freedom is lively. The hotel owners lost in the Court of Appeals in February, but Lady Justice Rafferty had this to say: “It would be unfortunate to replace legal oppression of one community (homosexual couples) with legal oppression of another (those sharing the Appellants’ beliefs)” The Supreme Court has accepted their case.
但關於宗教自由限度的討論熱烈了起來。之前提到的旅館業主2月份在上訴法庭又敗訴了，但是女大法官Rafferty補充說道，“如果把一部分人（同性伴侶）的自由建立在另一部分人（那些和上訴人有著同樣信仰的人）身上，這也是不幸的。”最高法庭已經受理了此案件。

Strasbourg too has seen action. Four British people who say their employers denied them religious expression—including Nadia Eweida, initially refused permission by British Airways to wear a visible cross—were heard by the court there in September. A judgment may emerge in January. All of which suggests that politicians may enact as many “locks” as they please, but in the end courts hold the keys.
斯特拉斯堡也有過類似情況。四名英國人稱其雇主不顧自己的宗教信仰，其中納迪亞•艾薇達（Nadia Eweida）首當其衝，她所在的英國航空公司不允許她帶的十字架露在外面。他們四位9月已經接受歐洲人權法庭聆訊。判決結果也許在1月份公佈。這一切都告訴我們，政客們可以隨意頒佈各種“保護鎖”，但法庭有最終解釋權。