[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"gxw-site-config":3,"\u002Finternal_link\u002Flist:{\"platform\":\"pc\",\"lang\":\"zh_tw\"}":19,"\u002Farticle\u002Fdetail:{\"id\":1000851,\"lang\":\"zh_tw\",\"type\":\"article\"}":58},{"code":4,"msg":5,"time":6,"data":7},1,"ok","1793100440",{"lang":8,"title":9,"keywords":10,"description":11,"backend_title":12,"maintenance":13,"mourning":13,"copyright":14,"logos":15,"app_launch_title_image":17,"stats_code":18},"zh_tw","LGBTQ News—讓多元被看見","同性,同志,酷兒,新聞,同性戀,雙性戀,跨性別,Gay,Lesbian,LGBT","LGBTQ News（創立於2025年3月），致力於 24 小時追蹤並報導全球 LGBTQ+ 動態，為全球多元人群提供最及時全面的專業資訊內容。","LGBTQ News",false,"© 2026 LGBTQ News",{"pc_header":16,"pc_footer":16,"h5":16},"\u002Fuploads\u002F20260731\u002Fda592237fc0c484ccfc69f81c30d4d5d.png","","\u003C!-- Google tag (gtag.js) -->\r\n\u003Cscript async src=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.googletagmanager.com\u002Fgtag\u002Fjs?id=G-C5JV1NRD6G\">\u003C\u002Fscript>\r\n\u003Cscript>\r\nwindow.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];\r\nfunction gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}\r\ngtag('js', new Date());\r\ngtag('config', 'G-C5JV1NRD6G');\r\n\u003C\u002Fscript>",{"list":20},[21,26,29,32,35,38,41,44,47,50,53,56],{"id":22,"keyword":23,"url":24,"target_platform":25},24,"LGBTQ","https:\u002F\u002Fgayxw.com","all",{"id":27,"keyword":28,"url":24,"target_platform":25},23,"多元時報",{"id":30,"keyword":31,"url":24,"target_platform":25},22,"LGBT",{"id":33,"keyword":34,"url":24,"target_platform":25},21,"Lesbian",{"id":36,"keyword":37,"url":24,"target_platform":25},7,"跨性別",{"id":39,"keyword":40,"url":24,"target_platform":25},8,"Gay",{"id":42,"keyword":43,"url":24,"target_platform":25},6,"雙性戀",{"id":45,"keyword":46,"url":24,"target_platform":25},5,"同性戀",{"id":48,"keyword":49,"url":24,"target_platform":25},4,"新聞",{"id":51,"keyword":52,"url":24,"target_platform":25},3,"酷兒",{"id":54,"keyword":55,"url":24,"target_platform":25},2,"同志",{"id":4,"keyword":57,"url":24,"target_platform":25},"同性",{"id":59,"lanmu_id":60,"tag_ids":61,"type":62,"title":63,"summary":64,"cover":65,"cover_alt":66,"og_image":17,"video_url":17,"video_poster":17,"duration":67,"author":17,"source":17,"source_url":17,"is_reprint":67,"view_count":54,"like_count":67,"publish_time":68,"seo":66,"attrs":69,"images":70,"requested_lang":8,"actual_lang":8,"fallback_used":13,"content":71,"voice":17,"lanmu_name":72,"lanmu_code":73,"tag_names":74},1000851,11,"2","article","美國最高法院駁回推翻同性婚姻裁決上訴","2026年，美國最高法院未予置評直接駁回肯塔基州前書記官金·戴維斯就同性婚姻合法化裁決提起的上訴，維持下級法院36萬美元賠償判令，捍衛全美婚姻平等先例。","\u002Fuploads\u002F20261025\u002Fd28bd71994371ad564a217024eb67ffa.webp",null,0,1792937433,{"voice":17,"share_cover_mobile":17},"[\"\u002Fuploads\u002F20261025\u002Fd28bd71994371ad564a217024eb67ffa.webp\"]","\u003Cp style=\"text-align:center;\">\u003Cimg src=\"\u002Fuploads\u002F20261025\u002Fd28bd71994371ad564a217024eb67ffa.webp\" alt=\"美國最高法院大樓正面\" style=\"width:70%;\">\u003C\u002Fp>\r\n\u003Cp style=\"text-align:center;\">\u003Cspan style=\"color:#999999;\">該圖與本文無關，圖來源：\u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.pexels.com\u002Fphoto\u002Ffront-view-of-the-united-states-supreme-court-building-36984937\u002F\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" style=\"text-decoration:none;\">Mark Stebnicki\u003C\u002Fa>（Pexels）\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\r\n\u003Cp>美國聯邦最高法院正式駁回了一項要求推翻全美同性婚姻合法化歷史性裁決的上訴申請。全體大法官在未附帶任何評議意見的情況下，正式拒絕審理肯塔基州羅恩縣前法庭書記官金·戴維斯（Kim Davis）提出的調卷上訴。戴維斯此前因在2015年最高法院就「奧貝格費爾訴霍奇斯案」（Obergefell v. Hodges）作出憲法判決後蓄意拒絕向同性伴侶簽發結婚證書，被下級聯邦法院判令承擔36萬美元的民事侵權賠償金與律師訴訟費用。\u003C\u002Fp>\r\n\u003Cp>在漫長的上訴司法程序中，戴維斯的辯護律師反覆援引保守派大法官克拉倫斯·托馬斯（Clarence Thomas）的公開言論，後者是九位現任大法官中唯一公開呼籲廢除同性婚姻合法化判例的成員。然而，托馬斯的激進立場未能在當前最高法院保守派多數席位中形成合力。同屬2015年持異議者的首席大法官約翰·羅伯茨長期對此保持司法沉默，大法官薩繆爾·阿利托雖曾抨擊該判決，但已明確表示不主張予以推翻；而後入職的埃米·科尼·巴雷特大法官則強調，鑑於廣大公民已基於該判例組建家庭並撫育子女，其形成的深遠法律信賴利益與2022年推翻墮胎權的判決存在本質區別。\u003C\u002Fp>\r\n\u003Cp>最高法院拒絕介入的決定獲得了美國民權陣營的高度讚揚。美國最大性少數權益組織「人權戰線」（Human Rights Campaign）主席凱利·羅賓遜（Kelley Robinson）在聲明中指出，最高法院的這一司法裁定有力表明，任何公職人員企圖以個人宗教信仰為由踐踏他人憲法權利的行徑，都必須依法承擔切實的法律責任。回顧案件始末，戴維斯曾因藐視聯邦法院發證命令於2015年9月被直接收監羈押，直至其下屬代為發證後方獲釋放，肯塔基州議會隨後更專門通過法案將縣書記官姓名從全州結婚證書表格中完全刪除。\u003C\u002Fp>\r\n\u003Cp>法律界分析指出，最高法院此次駁回上訴為全美婚姻平等制度築牢了關鍵的司法確定性。這一裁定表明，即便在聯邦最高司法機構經歷深層次意識形態重構的背景下，支撐公民日常生活與家庭法制的實體性信賴利益依然受到憲法秩序的強力庇護。司法機關拒絕重新開啟憲法訴訟通道，不僅有效遏制了個別極端保守勢力企圖將宗教信條絕對化並凌駕於世俗公權力之上的法制倒退嘗試，更確立了公職人員依法履職、保障公民法定平等權不可動搖的法治底線。\u003C\u002Fp>\r\n\u003Cp style=\"text-align:right;\">北美洲編輯部：利亞姆·史密斯\u003C\u002Fp>\r\n\u003Cp style=\"text-align:left;\">來源：綜合美聯社（AP）華盛頓電訊報導\u003C\u002Fp>\r\n\u003Cp style=\"text-align:left;\">資料來源\u003C\u002Fp>\r\n\u003Cp style=\"text-align:left;\">\u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.supremecourt.gov\u002F\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" style=\"text-decoration:none;\">美國聯邦最高法院官方案卷門戶（Supreme Court of the United States）\u003C\u002Fa>\u003C\u002Fp>\r\n\u003Cp style=\"text-align:left;\">\u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.law.cornell.edu\u002F\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" style=\"text-decoration:none;\">康奈爾大學法律資訊學會憲法與判例資料庫（LII - Obergefell v. Hodges）\u003C\u002Fa>\u003C\u002Fp>\r\n\u003Cp style=\"text-align:left;\">\u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Flegislature.ky.gov\u002F\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" style=\"text-decoration:none;\">肯塔基州議會立法檔案官方網站（Kentucky General Assembly）\u003C\u002Fa>\u003C\u002Fp>","北美洲","lanmu_11",{"2":75},"頭條"]