加州同性婚姻诉讼案昨日开庭

Two Californian men challenging a ban on same-sex marriage on Monday said they had been a couple for nine years and felt like third-class citizens, leading them to launch the federal case which could set a national precedent.

The men and a lesbian couple unable to marry in California hope to take their case against the state's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage all the way to the US Supreme Court and to overturn bans throughout the nation.

A loss in the top court, two ranks above the action in the case which began on Monday, would seriously undermine efforts to win gay marriage rights in state courts.

The United States is divided on same-sex marriage. It is legal in only five states, though most of those, and the District of Columbia, approved it last year.

Approval of Prop 8 in November 2008 was a sweet victory for social conservatives in a state with a liberal, trend-setting reputation, and maintained the steady success they have scored on the issue at the ballot box. Where it is legal, gay marriage has been championed by courts and legislatures, not voters.

"I don't think of myself as a bad person," said Paul Katami, describing the persecution he felt from a media campaign warning California parents to 'protect' their children by voting against same-sex unions in the 2008 poll.

He and his would-be husband, Jeffrey Zarrillo, described slights in gay life that ranged from being pelted with rocks and eggs in college to the awkwardness of checking into a hotel and not being able to clarify the relationship.

"Being able to call him my husband is so definitive," Katami said. "There is no subtlety to it. It is absolute."

Gays and lesbians have nearly equal rights under domestic partnership laws, but the two men said that left them feeling second- or third-class citizens and they wanted to be married to have kids.

"We hear a lot of 'What's the big deal?'. The big deal is it is creating a separate category for us," Katami said.

Gay rights lawyers in the case describe their battle as a continuation of the fight against racist laws stopping whites and blacks from marrying. Marriage is a fundamental Constitutional right, and in addition gays and lesbians deserve special protection from discrimination, they say.

美国加州一对同性恋男子就一项禁止同性婚姻的法案提起的诉讼案于本周一开庭，这项联邦诉讼有望开创全美先例。这对同性恋人称，他们在一起的九年里，一直觉得自己被视为“三等公民”。

这对无法在加州结婚的男同性恋人和另外一对女同性恋人希望将此诉讼案上诉至美国最高法院，抗议禁止同性婚姻的“八号提案”，并推翻全美有关禁止同性结婚的法案。

本案于本周一开庭审理，如果诉讼在高两个级别的最高法院遭驳回，那么在州法院争取同性婚姻权利的努力将付之东流。

美国国内对于同性婚姻的态度存在分歧，目前仅有五个州将其合法化，其中大多数州和哥伦比亚特区直到去年才批准。

2008年11月，加州通过了“八号提案”，这对于加州的社会保守势力来说是一场打胜仗，而且投票结果巩固了他们已经取得的胜利，而加利福尼亚一直是一个以自由和创新而著称的州。即便在同性婚姻合法化的地区，这种婚姻也只是受到法庭和立法机构的支持，而不是选民。

保罗．卡塔米说：“我不觉得自己是个坏人。”在2008年的“八号提案”公投中，媒体呼吁加州的家长们对同性婚姻投反对票，以“保护”自己的孩子。保罗．卡塔米称自己感觉受到了伤害。

他和自己未来的丈夫杰弗瑞．萨利洛描述了同性恋者在日常生活中所遭遇的种种困难，例如在大学校园里被扔石块和鸡蛋，在宾馆登记入住时的尴尬，以及无法公开关系的痛苦等。

卡塔米说：“能称他为我的丈夫是确定无疑的，没有丝毫含糊，千真万确。”

按照同性伴侣的各项法律，男女同性恋和他人享有几乎同等的权利，但卡塔米和他的伴侣称，事实上这让他们感到自己是二等或三等公民。他们想结婚，还想领养孩子。

卡塔米说：“我们听到很多人说‘这有什么大不了的’？ 其实‘大不了的’是同性恋群体受到了孤立。”

此案的同性恋权利律师称这场斗争是取缔禁止白人和黑人通婚的种族主义法律斗争的一个延续。他们称，婚姻是宪法赋予人们的最基本权利，而且男女同性恋应该得到特殊的反歧视保护。

Vocabulary:

trend-setting：establishing or influencing a new trend or fashion.（在思想、服装等方面创新风的，领导潮流的）

slight：an act or instance of slighting indifference or treatment（侮慢；冷落；轻视）

pelt：to strike blows; beat with force or violence（投掷）