We begin, though, tonight at the Supreme Court with signs that the so-called Defense of Marriage Act is in deep constitutional trouble. DOMA, you'll recall, is the 1996 federal law (defining) marriage as between, being solely between man and a woman. Tell that to an83-year-old widow named Edith Windsor who (braved) the crowds today and fought the fight to get her story and the case that bears her name, "United States v. Windsor," before the highest court in the land.
Edith Windsor married her wife in Canada. When her wife died, Windsor was forced to pay $360,000 in (inheritance) tax because her marriage, her legal marriage, was not (recognized) by the federal authorities under DOMA. Lower courts have ruled against DOMA. The Obama administration has refused to (defend) it. A lawyer for House Republicans speaking for it today drawing some (tough) questioning from six of the nine justices.
Well, is what happened in 1996, and I'm gonna quote from the House report here, is that Congress decided to (reflect) and honor a collective moral judgment and to express moral (disapproval) of homosexuality? Is that what happened in 1996? 英语口语培训
What gives the federal government the right to be concerned at all at what the (definition) of marriage is?
When it has 1100 laws, which in our society means that the federal government is (intertwined) with the citizens' daily life, you are at real risk of running in conflict with what has always been thought to be the essence of the state police power, which is to (regulate) marriage, divorce, custody.
As Justice Kennedy said, 1100 statutes, and it (affects) every area of life. And so you would be really (diminishing) what the state has said is marriage. You are saying, no, state said two kinds of marriages. The full marriage and then this sort of skim milk marriage.
Well, afterwards, Edith Windsor said it went beautifully and that her late spouse, The a Spire, would be pleased.
And I know that the spirit of my late (spouse), The Spire, OK, is right here who watching and listening, and would be very proud and happy of where we've come to.
Well, today's case came just a day after oral arguments on California's Proposition 8, a same-sex marriage ban. Now justices, both liberal and (conservative), seemed (reluctant) yesterday to use it as the basis for sweeping national change. This case, DOMA, on the other hand, could be just the (opposite).
Senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin was inside the court again today. He joins us tonight from just outside the court. 易说堂电话英语
So I know everything comes with the cave at that the Supreme Court could (surprise) us and it's hard to predict. But you say you think that DOMA is in trouble, that a majority of (justices) seem to be inclined to throw it out. What makes you say that?
Because of what Anthony Kennedy said.That's really what it comes down to. Because the four Democratic members of the Democratic nominees to the Supreme Court were all very clearly hostile to the Defense of Marriage Act. And so where were they going to get the fifth vote?
Well, Anthony Kennedy is the only really likely possibility, but (repeatedly) during the oral argument today, he expressed what (appeared) to be his view that the Defense of Marriage Act violated states rights. He did not talk about that it violated the rights of gay people. He said that it, it violates the state's ability to regulate and create the laws of marriage. And he said it over and over again. And that is a winning argument for the Defense of Marriage Act. Critics of Edith Windsor and company.
These are all taking place with public opinion with public (sentiment) shifting, as you know, in favor of accepting same sex marriage, not everywhere but the national polls. However, there remains some very high profile and big money bashes of silence on the subject in (professional) sports. A member of opening gay players in pro-baseball, basketball and football now stands at precisely zero. Now one active player.
电话英语口语免费体验
http://www.e-say.com.cn/apply7/