美国报刊阅读(一).ppt

1、美国报刊阅读（一）,洛阳师范学院外国语学院 步国峥 2010-2011第一学期,纽约时报The New York Times,纽约时报（The New York Times）有时简称为“时报”（The Times）。是一份在美国纽约出版的日报，在全世界发行，有相当的影响力，美国高级报纸/严肃刊物的代表，长期以来拥有良好的公信力和权威性。由于风格古典严肃，它有时也被戏称为“灰色女士”（The Gray Lady）。它最初的名字是纽约每日时报（The New-York Daily Times），创始人是亨利J雷蒙德和乔治琼斯。,在美国有档案记录报的美称（ a paper of record）,这是

2、因为它能比较充分和详尽地报道国内国际大事，尤其是国际新闻，并刊登一些重要演说及文件的全文（其他报纸一般只摘要报道）。它还定期编印全部文章索引， 为学者进行研究工作提供了方便。该报订户包括美国各政府机关、大垄断公司、高等院校、图书馆和高级知识分子等，也是历届美国总统每天必读的报纸。而且，美国历届总统和内阁成员常为该报提供内幕消息。,Marriage Is a Constitutional Right,Published: August 4, 2010,Until Wednesday, the thousands of same-sex couples who have married did s

3、o because a state judge or Legislature allowed them to. The nations most fundamental guarantees of freedom, set out in the Constitution, were not part of the equation. That has changed with the historic decision by a federal judge in California, Vaughn Walker, that said his states ban on same-sex ma

4、rriage violated the 14th Amendments rights to equal protection and due process of law.,The decision, though an instant landmark in American legal history, is more than that. It also is a stirring and eloquently reasoned denunciation of all forms of irrational discrimination, the latest link in a cha

5、in of pathbreaking decisions that permitted interracial marriages and decriminalized gay sex between consenting adults.,As the case heads toward appeals at the circuit level and probably the Supreme Court, Judge Walkers opinion will provide a firm legal foundation that will be difficult for appellat

6、e judges to assail.,The case was brought by two gay couples who said Californias Proposition 8, which passed in 2008 with 52 percent of the vote, discriminated against them by prohibiting same-sex marriage and relegating them to domestic partnerships. The judge easily dismissed the idea that discrim

7、ination is permissible if a majority of voters approve it; the referendums outcome was “irrelevant,” he said, quoting a 1943 case, because “fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote.”,He then dismantled, brick by crumbling brick, the weak case made by supporters of Proposition 8 and laid out

8、 the facts presented in testimony. The two witnesses called by the supporters (the state having bowed out of the case) had no credibility, he said, and presented no evidence that same-sex marriage harmed society or the institution of marriage.,Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples i

9、n their ability to form successful marital unions and raise children, he said. Though procreation is not a necessary goal of marriage, children of same-sex couples will benefit from the stability provided by marriage, as will the state and society. Domestic partnerships confer a second-class status.

10、,The discrimination inherent in that second-class status is harmful to gay men and lesbians. These findings of fact will be highly significant as the case winds its way through years of appeals.,One of Judge Walkers strongest points was that traditional notions of marriage can no longer be used to j

11、ustify discrimination, just as gender roles in opposite-sex marriage have changed dramatically over the decades.,All marriages are now unions of equals, he wrote, and there is no reason to restrict that equality to straight couples. The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage “exists as an artif

12、act of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage,” he wrote. “That time has passed.”,To justify the propositions inherent discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation, he wrote, there would have to be a compelling state interest in banning sam

13、e-sex marriage. But no rational basis for discrimination was presented at the two-and-a-half-week trial in January, he said. The real reason for Proposition 8, he wrote, is a moral view “that there is something wrong with same-sex couples,” and that is not a permissible reason for legislation.,“Mora

14、l disapproval alone,” he wrote, in words that could someday help change history, “is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and women.”,The ideological odd couple who led the case Ted Olson and David Boies, who fought against each other in the Supreme Court battle over the 2000 electio

15、n were criticized by some supporters of same-sex marriage for moving too quickly to the federal courts. Certainly, there is no guarantee that the current Supreme Court would uphold Judge Walkers ruling. But there are times when legal opinions help lead public opinions.,Just as they did for racial equality in previous decades, the moment has arrive