性別教育作為積極性平權措施之研究－以同志教育及家長教育權為討論中心

大法官釋字第748號解釋公布後，我國對於性少數的爭論也從婚姻平權轉向中小學同志教育的實施，反對者甚至提起公民投票希望藉由民意方式禁止同志教育，然教育部在公投後卻僅修改字面上之含義造成反對者的不滿。在同志教育的爭論中，不難發覺反對者逐漸從「宗教團體」轉移至「家長團體」的過程，希望藉由家長對於其未成年子女的教育權作為立論基礎反對同志教育的實施。本文先探討國家對性少數群體之保護在憲法上的法正當性基礎，提出在平等權之保護義務以及社會國原則的前提下，性少數群體作為憲法上的弱勢，國家應有保護的義務，同時本文認為我國現行對於積極性平權措施之理解過於限縮，即國家對於憲法上弱勢群體以達成實質平等為目標所採行的措施即為積極性平權措施，而後本文則嘗試類型化積極性平權措施的違憲審查方式。同志教育作為使性少數群體達成實質平等的方式自屬於積極性平權措施，本文分別從跨領域學科角度探討同志教育與達成社會上實質平等的關聯性，而後論同志教育應採行的違憲審查方式，認為應分別討論是否對性少數群體保障不足以及是否對第三人之自由權過度侵害。最後，本文嘗試推導所謂家長教育權係源於憲法第22條作為親權內涵的基本權，國家實施同志教育確實造成反同志教育家長的基本權限制，不過同志教育的實施一方面有助於未成年子女之利益，且我國所謂教育義務應有民主公民德性養成的內涵，同志教育作為民主教育的內涵之一應可作為限制家長教育權的合憲化事由。在比例原則的討論上，本文則討論單純改善環境、直至高中才實施同志教育、個別排除方式的問題。

關鍵字

同志教育；積極性平權措施；家長教育權；保護義務；社會國原則；民主教育；性別教育；教育權；教育義務；國家教育權；公民資格理論；實驗教育

並列摘要

After the J.Y. Interpretation No. 748, the debates of LGBTQ issues had moved toward LGBTQ-inclusive education in Taiwan. Opponents submitted a proposal for a referendum, resulting in the approval of not implementing LGBTQ-inclusive education. However, the Ministry of Education only revised the enforcement rule literally and dissatisfied the opponents. In the period of LGBTQ-inclusive debated, opponents presented a trend from” religious group” to ”parent group”, hoping to be rejected on the grounds of parents’ rights. Based on the protection duty of equality rights and the welfare states principle, the LGBTQ group as an underprivileged group should be protected by the state. In addition, the comprehension of affirmative action in Taiwan is limited. I argued that any method for the underprivileged group in the target of substantial equality could be understood as affirmative action, and I tried to categorize the method to mustard diverse kinds of affirmative action. LGBTQ- inclusive education as a method to obtain substantial equality for the LGBTQ group should be comprehended as affirmative action. From the perspectives of sociology, politics, and psychology, LGBTQ- inclusive education could exactly accomplish the target of substantial equality. Therefore, the mustard of the LGBTQ- inclusive education should focus on whether it is enough to protect LGBTQ groups and whether it is excessively infringed on the right of a third party. I argued that parents’ right is a fundamental right in the Constitution of R.O.C., and the implementation of LGBTQ- inclusive education infringed opponents’ right indeed. Whereas, because of the interest of the child, and the comprehension of education duty as democratic education, LGBTQ-inclusive education in force is constitutional.

並列關鍵字

LGBTQ Inclusive Education ； Affirmative Action ； Parents’ Right ； Democratic Education ； Gender Education ； Right to Education ； Compulsory Education ； Citizenship ； Alternative Education