若隱若現的立法形成自由：婚姻自由的保證抑或障礙？─評司法院釋字第748號解釋─

司法院大法官在第748號解釋中，宣告民法第4編親屬第2章婚姻規定「未使相同性別二人，得為經營共同生活之目的，成立具有親密性及排他性之永久結合關係，於此範圍內，與憲法第22條保障人民婚姻自由及第7條保障人民平等權之意旨有違」。儘管如此，無論是面對與立法者之間的權限分際問題，或是攸關婚姻自由之平等保護如何獲得實現的「『修法』與『專法』之爭」，本號解釋都沒有提供明確的解套線索，反而遺留了巨大的想像空間。本文將分析指出：本號解釋既沒有選擇對現行民法採合憲解釋，讓現行法律在最小的變動下順應憲法對婚姻之平等保護，也沒有指出民法婚姻章之價值預設之所以違憲之理由。更進一步而言，本號解釋站在維護既有社會秩序與基本倫理秩序之立場前提下，解釋拒絕挑明本案所涉及不同價值立場間之利益衝突，使得各種方案得以合憲之姿繼續存在，反而為婚姻自由的具體實踐投下變數。以此而論，透過本號解釋，我國看似省去了德國婚姻平權提倡者走過的那段艱辛而曲折的路途，但事實上，婚姻平權的戰場才正要展開。

關鍵字

婚姻平權；同性婚姻；婚姻自由；平等權；立法形成自由；社會秩序

並列摘要

In its Interpretation No. 748, the Taiwanese Constitutional Court held that ＂[t]he provisions of Chapter 2 on Marriage of Part IV on Family of the Civil Code do not allow two persons of the same sex to create a permanent union of intimate and exclusive nature for the purpose of living a common life. The said provisions, to the extent of such failure, are in violation of constitution's guarantees of both the people's freedom of marriage under Article 22 and the people's right to equality under Article 7.＂ Nevertheless, this paper argues that the Constitutional Court not only failed to clarify the issues of separation of powers between legislature and judiciary, but also avoided controversies with regard to the way marriage equality is to be realized. Furthermore, since the Constitutional Court was reluctant to deal with the fundamental value conflicts in this case on constitutional grounds, it remains unclear why the said provisions violate the Constitution, and to what extent the legislators are free to amend the law or to enact new laws. Observed this way, marriage equality in Taiwan still has a long way to go.