- 期刊
- OpenAccess
婚姻平權與法律動員－釋字第748號解釋前之立法與訴訟行動
Marriage Equality and Legal Mobilization: The Litigation and Legislative Actions before Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 748
摘要
臺灣將在2019年成為亞洲第一個婚姻平權的國家。司法院大法官在2017年5月24日作成的釋字第748號解釋課予行政及立法機關在2019年5月前完成對於同性伴侶之合法化工作，若未在期限內完成立法，則同性伴侶得在期限屆至後直接至戶政機關進行婚姻登記。在立法、訴訟和公投等不同的法律改革形式中，臺灣以訴訟方式完成了婚姻平權的目標。究竟為什麼臺灣的婚姻平權運動選擇了司法訴訟，作為完成婚姻平權目標的手段？在婚姻平權訴訟的提出時，婚姻平權團體是如何考量選擇訴訟策略抑或立法策略？在婚姻平權運動所提起的釋憲行動中，運動團體又做了哪些努力及動員？本文在詳細觀察並分析臺灣的婚姻平權運動發展之後，發現婚姻平權運動採取了立法及訴訟策略併行的策略。臺灣的婚姻平權運動並不將立法和訴訟視為是相互排斥互相擠壓的策略，但兩者之間被視為具有立法為主、訴訟為輔的主副關係。在分析婚姻平權運動的法律動員過程及立法動員過程後，本文發現兩者之間具有一定的關連性。婚姻平權運動對於訴訟行動採取以及資源動用，是在立法遊說遭遇挫敗、停滯不前之後，才轉而採取法律動員。而在釋憲行動的評估之上，也是採取樂觀的態度，期待大法官的宣告結果能作為在立法遊說的槓桿和籌碼。婚姻平權運動團體對於採行訴訟或立法作為達成運動目的的手段之務實態度，可說是本文之重要發現，臺灣的婚姻平權團體並非一廂情願的以法律或運動菁英的態度提出訴訟，而是在評估時機點及立法遊說的成效之後進行的。運動團體也瞭解立法仍舊是最終的決戰場，而也評估釋憲行動不論結果如何，都能作為一種達成立法目標的槓桿工具。
並列摘要
On May 24, 2017, the world was impressed by the decision made by the justices of the Constitutional Court in Taiwan regarding the constitutionality of the legal ban on same-sex marriages. The decision of the Constitutional Court (hereinafter ＂the Court＂) concludes that denying two persons of the same sex the equal right to marry violates both their equality and the constitutional right to marry. At first glance, international observers may soon conclude that Taiwan's court victory on same- sex marriage is another example of marriage equality activism's adoption of litigation as a strategy to achieve social reform. Such observation will immediately trigger the debate that whether the court is a better place than the Legislative for radical social reform such as legalization of same- sex marriage. Both the opposing opinions in such debate have assumed that social activists view these two paths, the Legislative and the court, as contradictory to each other. By examining the process of Taiwan's marriage equality movement before the Court decision, this paper found out that social activists in the marriage equality movement in Taiwan adopted legal mobilization as a complementary strategy when the legislative action encountered obstacles. This paper thus argue that the marriage equality movement in Taiwan viewed these strategies, both legislation and litigation, as parallel, rather than mutually exclusive, paths to achieve its goal.