Abstract:Who makes constitutional claims? This article argues that on both sides of the Atlantic a multiplicity of constitutional actors outside the courts participate in the elaboration of constitutional principles. I map out these constitutional actors by using as a case study the legal recognition of same-sex marriage in the United States, Spain, the United Kingdom, and Ireland. In all four country cases, there are common functional demands for democratic involvement in shaping constitutional meaning. Even though these demands may take various institutional and procedural forms owing to diverse political, institutional, and cultural contexts, I argue that the same overarching hydraulics effect is at play across jurisdictions. When social movements are shut out of one forum, they channel their constitutional claims through different institutional avenues. The four systems represent distinctive models of formal recognition of same-sex marriage, with different actors taking the lead and appearing to have the final say on this contested issue. However, I explain that in all four cases we can detect the voices of multiple actors, including, notably, the people themselves, in a process of legal contestation around the interpretation of fundamental constitutional principles. These voices can take different forms, and the article proposes institutional, historical, political, and cultural factors that may account for this. Thus, the article tells a story of legal development arising from inclusive interpretive communities in the context of a democratic constitutional theory. This framework facilitates dynamic constitutional interpretation that reflects evolving political and social demands instead of top-down delivery of constitutional meaning.

中文翻译：

---

宪法主张的液压学：宪法解释中的多重参与者

摘要：谁提出宪法主张？本文认为，在大西洋两岸，法院以外的宪法行为者的多样性参与了宪法原则的制定。我以美国、西班牙、英国和爱尔兰对同性婚姻的法律承认为案例研究，描绘了这些宪法行为者。在所有四个国家案例中，民主参与塑造宪法意义都有共同的功能需求。尽管由于不同的政治、制度和文化背景，这些要求可能采取各种制度和程序形式，但我认为相同的总体水力学效应在各个司法管辖区都发挥着作用。当社会运动被排除在一个论坛之外时，他们通过不同的制度途径表达他们的宪法诉求。这四个系统代表了正式承认同性婚姻的独特模式，不同的行为者起带头作用，似乎对这个有争议的问题拥有最终决定权。然而，我解释说，在所有四个案例中，我们都可以在围绕基本宪法原则的解释进行法律争论的过程中发现多个参与者的声音，尤其是人民本身。这些声音可以采取不同的形式，本文提出了可能解释这一点的制度、历史、政治和文化因素。因此，本文讲述了一个在民主宪政理论背景下由包容性解释社区产生的法律发展故事。