les voix: For/Getting｜Re/Membering

清晨意識到自己快睡著之前（都是Sense8步調變太慢，害我撐不下去），就設想到一醒來會被洗版，只是非常不確定是要打開或遠離臉書的結果。出乎意料地，起床就看到很多來自家人、朋友、愛人興奮的訊息；於是，我知道可以打開臉書了！

這兩天；是的，就這兩天，生活出現一些說大很大、說小也小的變化。我又換藥了。聽說是更好的藥，對肝和腸胃的負擔都更小。應該是件好事，但因為柏林之旅在即，我還不敢開始用，擔心有什麼突發狀況，在外處理不來。於是我又先擱著了，回來再說。

但它終究不是解藥，而我也不確定自己是不是在期待解藥。現在這樣其實挺好的，我還真沒有特別追求「痊癒」的慾望，也或許是因為太耽溺於現狀，有點悲傷卻又充滿正能量。那是樂觀嗎？倒也不一定，而是現在「也不差」。

研究多了新的選項。本來已經打定主意要放棄了的博士學位，因為休學的念頭，讓人產生了「延長戰線」的選項。本來以為這是最後了，沒想到一場突如其來、隨機發生的會議動搖了我。他說:”What you are good at or familiar with doesn’t mean what you like.”

社會系，著實，從來沒想過；或者應該說，不敢想，關於自己的專業背景、能力等等。他說，那只是缺乏自信。我想是的，我是個怕冒險的人，一直以來都是；不過幸好我還有一點時間可以思考、糾結、掙扎、猶豫、決定。

今天，沒錯，2017年5月24日，大法官會議作成「民法違憲」的解釋，捉襟見肘卻也皆大歡喜。快速瞄了一下解釋文，覺得不妙，似乎有很多沒說清楚的地方，但看到群組、臉書洗版，我還是激動的要命。那個「終於…」的心情很深刻，停不了的笑容和淚水。

於是我允許自己一天不批判，允許一日狂喜，告訴自己還要許多真實發生的生命故事，虛虛實實之間，終將受惠。或許，這個想像不一定為真，但這份情動非常真實，各方叫囂之中，我獨自地享受冷靜──冷靜地狂喜。

路還很長，很長，長到讓人不確定該不該期待終點。不管是與病毒共存、錯軌的生涯規劃。結婚，從沒好好想過，從來不曾預測同運的議程；告一段落，聽起來就跟重新開始沒兩樣。但其實不然，至少沒那麼絕對，於是我要記下這些訊號。

事實是，我可能太相信「不期不待，沒有傷害」了，這讓我少了很多衝刺的力量；而這，或許是一種懷疑式的樂觀主義。高估了期許與失望之間的因果關係，會讓人看不清楚自己的慾望，儘管「得過且過」也可能是種直覺。

決定賞賜自己暫時不憤世嫉俗的美好，不去煩惱不甚理想的文字細節…讓感動再飛一下。總之，我要好好享受這被《七四八》許諾的一日狂喜。就這一天，細細品嚐「直覺」的感動，剩下的過分理性和負面情緒，先擺著不理──半晌也好。

＊‧※‧＊‧※‧＊‧※‧＊‧※‧＊

然後我決定附上《司法院釋字第748號解釋》【同性二人婚姻自由案】（中華民國106年5月24日院台大二字第1060014008號）作為本篇網誌的附錄：

※　事實：
聲請人祁家威於102年向臺北市萬華區戶政事務所申請結婚登記被拒，經用盡審級救濟途徑後，於104年8月向本院聲請解釋，主張民法第972條、第973條、第980條及第982條規定，限制同性結婚，有牴觸憲法之疑義。另一聲請人臺北市政府於104年11月聲請解釋，主張民法婚姻章規定違憲。本院決定併案審理，並於106年3月24日舉行言詞辯論。

※　爭點：
民法親屬編婚姻章，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，是否違反憲法第22條保障婚姻自由及第7條保障平等權之意旨？

※　本文：
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。
The 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 committed purpose of managing a life together. The said provisions, to the extent of such failure, are in violation of both the people's freedom of marriage as protected by Article 22 and the people's right to equality as guaranteed by Article 7 of the Constitution.

有關機關應於本解釋公布之日起2年內，依本解釋意旨完成相關法律之修正或制定。至於以何種形式達成婚姻自由之平等保護，屬立法形成之範圍。
The authorities concerned shall amend or enact relevant laws, in accordance with the ruling of this Interpretation, within two years from the issuance of this Interpretation. It is within the discretion of the authorities concerned to determine the formality for achieving the equal protection of the freedom of marriage.

逾期未完成相關法律之修正或制定者，相同性別二人為成立上開永久結合關係，得依上開婚姻章規定，持二人以上證人簽名之書面，向戶政機關辦理結婚登記。
If relevant laws are not amended or enacted within the said two years, two persons of the same sex who intend to create the said permanent union shall be allowed to have their marriage registration effectuated at the authorities in charge of household registration, by submitting a written document signed by two or more witnesses in accordance with the said Marriage Chapter.

※　理由：
1. 聲請人祁家威向立法、行政、司法權責機關爭取同性婚姻權，已逾30年。立法院歷經10餘年，尚未能完成與同性婚姻相2關法案之立法程序。本件聲請涉及同性性傾向者是否具有自主選擇結婚對象之自由，並與異性性傾向者同受婚姻自由之平等保護，為極具爭議性之社會暨政治議題，民意機關本應體察民情，盱衡全局，折衝協調，適時妥為立（修）法因應。茲以立（修）法解決時程未可預料，而本件聲請事關人民重要基本權之保障，本院懍於憲法職責，參照本院釋字第585號及第601號解釋意旨，應就人民基本權利保障及自由民主憲政秩序等憲法基本價值之維護，及時作成有拘束力之司法判斷。
For more than three decades, Petitioner Chia-Wei Chi has been appealing to the legislative, executive, and judicial departments for the right to same-sex marriage. After more than a decade, the Legislative Yuan is still unable to complete its legislative process on those bills regarding same-sex marriage. This case involves the very controversial social and political issues of whether homosexuals shall enjoy the equal protection of the same freedom of marriage as heterosexuals. The representative body is to enact or revise the relevant laws in due time. Nevertheless, the timetable for such legislative solution is hardly predictable now and yet these petitions involve the protection of people's fundamental rights. It is the constitutional duty of this Court to render a binding judicial decision, in time, on issues concerning the safeguarding of constitutional basic values such as the protection of people's constitutional rights and the free democratic constitutional order.

2. 本院歷來提及「一夫一妻」、「一男一女」之相關解釋，就其原因事實觀之，均係於異性婚姻脈絡下所為之解釋。本院迄未就相同性別二人得否結婚作成解釋。
Those prior Judicial Yuan Interpretations mentioning “husband and wife” or “a man and a woman,” in terms of the factual backgrounds of the original cases from which they arose, were made within the context of opposite-sex marriage. Thus far, this Court has not made any Interpretation on the issue of whether two persons of the same sex are allowed to marry each other.

3. 婚姻章於第980條至第985條規定結婚之實質與形式要件，雖未重申婚姻應由男女當事人自行締結，然第972條既規定以當事人將來結婚為內容之婚約，限於一男一女始得訂定，則結婚當事人亦應作相同之解釋。再參酌婚姻章關於婚姻當事人稱謂、權利、義務所為「夫妻」之相對應規定，顯見該章規定認結婚限於不同性別之一男一女之結合關係，致相同性別二人迄未能成立法律上之婚姻關係。

4. 適婚人民而無配偶者，本有結婚自由，包含「是否結婚」暨「與何人結婚」之自由（本院釋字第362號解釋參照）。該項自主決定攸關人格健全發展與人性尊嚴之維護，為重要之基本權（a fundamental right），應受憲法第22條之保障。
Unspoused persons eligible to marry shall have their freedom to marry, which includes the freedom to decide “whether to marry” and “whom to marry” (see J.Y. Interpretation No. 362). Such decisional autonomy is vital to the sound development of personality and safeguarding of human dignity, and therefore is a fundamental right to be protected by Article 22 of the Constitution.

5. 按相同性別二人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，既不影響不同性別二人適用婚姻章，亦未改變既有異性婚姻所建構之社會秩序；且相同性別二人之婚姻自由，經法律正式承認後，更可與異性婚姻共同成為穩定社會之磐石。復鑑於婚姻自由，攸關人格健全發展與人性尊嚴之維護，就成立上述親密、排他之永久結合之需求、能力、意願、渴望等生理與心理因素而言，其不可或缺性，於同性性傾向者與異性性傾向者間並無二致，均應受憲法第22條婚姻自由之保障。現行婚姻章規定，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，顯屬立法上之重大瑕疵。於此範圍內，與憲法第22條保障人民婚姻自由之意旨有違。
Creation of a permanent union of intimate and exclusive nature for the committed purpose of managing a life together by two persons of the same sex will not affect the application of the Marriage Chapter to the union of two persons of the opposite sex. Nor will it alter the social order established upon the existing opposite-sex marriage. Furthermore, the freedom of marriage for two persons of the same sex, once legally recognized, will constitute the collective basis, together with opposite-sex marriage, for a stable society. The need, capability, willingness and longing, in both physical and psychological senses, for creating such permanent unions of intimate and exclusive nature are equally essential to homosexuals and heterosexuals, given the importance of the freedom of marriage to the sound development of personality and safeguarding of human dignity. Both types of union shall be protected by the freedom of marriage under Article 22 of the Constitution. The current provisions of the Marriage Chapter do not allow two persons of the same sex to create a permanent union of intimate and exclusive nature for the committed purpose of managing a life together. This is obviously a gross legislative flaw. To such extent, the provisions of the Marriage Chapter are incompatible with the spirit and meaning of the freedom of marriage as protected by Article 22 of the Constitution.

6. 憲法第7條規定：「中華民國人民，無分男女、宗教、種族、階級、黨派，在法律上一律平等。」本條明文揭示之五種禁止歧視事由，僅係例示，而非窮盡列舉。是如以其他事由，如身心障礙、性傾向等為分類標準，所為之差別待遇，亦屬本條平等權規範之範圍。
Article 7 of the Constitution provides, “All citizens of the Republic of China, irrespective of sex, religion, race, class, or party affiliation, shall be equal before the law.” The five classifications of impermissible discrimination set forth in the said Article are only exemplified, neither enumerated nor exhausted. Therefore, different treatment based on other classifications, such as disability or sexual orientation, shall also be governed by the right to equality under the said Article.

7. 性傾向屬難以改變之個人特徵（immutable characteristics），其成因可能包括生理與心理因素、生活經驗及社會環境等【註1】。目前世界衛生組織、泛美衛生組織（即世界衛生組織美洲區辦事處）【註2】與國內外重要醫學組織均已認為同性性傾向本身並非疾病【註3】。在我國，同性性傾向者過去因未能見容於社會傳統及習俗，致長期受禁錮於暗櫃內，受有各種事實上或法律上之排斥或歧視；又同性性傾向者因人口結構因素，為社會上孤立隔絕之少數，並因受刻板印象之影響，久為政治上之弱勢，難期經由一般民主程序扭轉其法律上劣勢地位。是以性傾向作為分類標準所為之差別待遇，應適用較為嚴格之審查標準，以判斷其合憲性，除其目的須為追求重要公共利益外，其手段與目的之達成間並須具有實質關聯，始符合憲法第7條保障平等權之意旨。
Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic that is resistant to change. The contributing factors to sexual orientation may include physical and psychological elements, living experience, and the social environment. Major medical associations have stated that homosexuality is not a disease. In our country, homosexuals were once denied by social tradition and custom in the past. As a result, they have long been locked in the closet and suffered various forms of de facto or de jure exclusion or discrimination. Besides, homosexuals, because of the demographic structure, have been a discrete and insular minority in the society. Impacted by stereotypes, they have been among those lacking political power for a long time, unable to overturn their legally disadvantaged status through ordinary democratic process. Accordingly, in determining the constitutionality of different treatment based on sexual orientation, a heightened standard shall be applied.

8. 婚姻章並未規定異性二人結婚須以具有生育能力為要件；亦未規定結婚後不能生育或未生育為婚姻無效、得撤銷或裁判離婚之事由，是繁衍後代顯非婚姻不可或缺之要素。相同性別二人間不能自然生育子女之事實，與不同性別二人間客觀上不能生育或主觀上不為生育之結果相同。故以不能繁衍後代為由，未使相同性別二人得以結婚，顯非合理之差別待遇。
The Marriage Chapter does not set forth the capability to procreate as a requirement for concluding an opposite-sex marriage. Nor does it provide that a marriage is void or voidable, or a divorce decree may be issued, if either party is unable or unwilling to procreate after marriage. Accordingly, reproduction is obviously not an essential element of marriage. The fact that two persons of the same sex are incapable of natural procreation is the same as the result of two opposite-sex persons' inability, in an objective sense, or unwillingness, in a subjective sense, to procreate. Disallowing two persons of the same sex to marry, for the sake of their inability to reproduce, is a different treatment having no apparent rational basis.

9. 若容許相同性別二人得依婚姻章實質與形式要件規定，成立法律上婚姻關係，且要求其亦應遵守婚姻關係存續中及終止後之雙方權利義務規定，並不影響現行異性婚姻制度所建構之基本倫理秩序。是以維護基本倫理秩序為由，未使相同性別二人得以結婚，顯亦非合理之差別待遇。凡此均與憲法第7條保障平等權之意旨不符。
The basic ethical orders built upon the existing institution of opposite-sex marriage will remain unaffected, even if we allow two persons of the same sex to enter into a legally recognized marriage pursuant to the formal and substantive requirements of the Marriage Chapter, as long as they are subject to the rights and obligations of both parties during the marriage and after the marriage ends. Disallowing two persons of the same sex to marry, for the sake of safeguarding basic ethical orders, is a different treatment, also obviously having no rational basis. Such different treatment is incompatible with the spirit and meaning of the right to equality as protected by Article 7 of the Constitution.

10. 有關機關應自本解釋公布之日起2年內，依本解釋意旨完成相關法律之修正或制定。至以何種形式（例如修正婚姻章、於民法親屬編另立專章、制定特別法或其他形式），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，達成婚姻自由之平等保護，屬立法形成之範圍。
The authorities concerned shall complete the amendment or enactment of relevant laws in accordance with the ruling of this Interpretation, within two years after the announcement of this Interpretation. It is within the discretion of the authorities concerned to determine the formality (for example, revision of the Marriage Chapter, enactment of a special Chapter in Part IV on Family of the Civil Code, enactment of a special law, or other formality) for achieving the equal protection of the freedom of marriage for two persons of the same sex.

11. 逾期未完成法律之修正或制定者，相同性別二人為成立以經營共同生活為目的，具有親密性及排他性之永久結合關係，得依婚姻章規定，持二人以上證人簽名之書面，向戶政機關辦理結婚登記，並於登記二人間發生法律上配偶關係之效力，行使配偶之權利及負擔配偶之義務。12.現行婚姻章有關異性婚姻制度之當事人身分及相關權利、義務關係，不因本解釋而改變。
If the amendment or enactment of relevant laws is not completed within the said two-year timeframe, two persons of the same sex who intend to create a permanent union of intimate and exclusive nature for the committed purpose of managing a life together may, pursuant to the provisions of the Marriage Chapter, apply for marriage registration to the authorities in charge of household registration, by submitting a document signed by two or more witnesses. Any such two persons, once registered, shall be accorded the status of a legally recognized couple, and then enjoy the rights and bear the obligations arising on couples.

關鍵字：#同性婚姻權、#親密性及排他性之永久結合關係、#婚姻自由、#性傾向、#生育能力、#倫理秩序、#非合理之差別待遇、#法律上婚姻關係、#立法形成

附註：
【註1】例如世界精神醫學會（World Psychiatric Association，WPA）2016年發布之「性別認同與同性性傾向、吸引與行為立場聲明」（WPA Position Statement on Gender Identity and Same-Sex Orientation, Attraction, and Behaviours）：性傾向係與生俱來，並由生物、心理、發展與社會因素等所決定（innate and determined by biological, psychological, developmental, and social factors）。美國聯邦最高法院於Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)一案中亦肯認近年來精神科醫師及其他專家已承認性傾向為人類的正常性表現，且難以改變（Only in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable.）。

【註2】世界衛生組織於1992年出版之「疾病和有關健康問題的國際統計分類」第10版（The Tenth Revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems，ICD-10）2016年修正版第5章雖仍保留「F66與性發展和性傾向相關聯之心理和行為異常」（Psychological and behavioural disorders associated with sexual development and orientation）疾病分類，但明確指出「性傾向本身不應被認為異常」（Sexual orientation by itself is not to be regarded as a disorder.）。泛美衛生組織即世界衛生組織美洲辦事處（Pan American Health Organization, Regional Office of the WHO）所發布之「對不存在之疾病給予治療」（”CURES” FOR AN ILLNESS THAT DOES NOT EXIST）文件亦載明：「目前專業上共識認為，同性戀是人類性行為的一種自然的不同型態表現……」（There is a professional consensus that homosexuality represents a natural variation of human sexuality…），且同性戀之任何個別表徵均不構成異常或疾病，故無治療之必要（In none of its individual manifestations does homosexuality constitute a disorder or an illness, and therefore it requires no cure.）。

【註3】國外醫學組織部分，除前揭註1所列WPA發布之「性別認同與同性性傾向、吸引與行為立場聲明」外，美國心理學會（American Psychological Association，APA）於2004年發布，並於2010年再確認之「性傾向與婚姻」（Sexual Orientation and Marriage），亦表示自1975年以來心理學家、精神醫學專家均認為同性性傾向非精神疾病，亦非精神疾病之徵狀。國內醫學組織部分，台灣精神醫學會於2016年12月發表「支持多元性別／性傾向族群權益平等和同性婚姻平權之立場聲明」，認為非異性戀之性傾向、性行為、性別認同以及伴侶關係，既非精神疾病亦非人格發展缺陷，而是人類發展多樣性之正常展現，且同性性傾向本身並不會造成心理功能的障礙，無治療的必要。台灣兒童青少年精神醫學會於2017年1月發表「性別平權立場聲明」，認為任何性傾向都是正常的，不是病態或偏差。

其他：
黃瑞明大法官迴避而未參與本號解釋之審理及決議；黃虹霞大法官發表部分不同意見書，吳陳鐶大法官發表不同意見書。

＊‧※‧＊‧※‧＊‧※‧＊‧※‧＊

雖然大法官還留了一場最後的征戰（final battle）給我們，也是一直以來最難的部分──立法形成婚姻自由平等保護的方式──但至少定調了：在台灣，「結婚」是動詞（to marry），是進入排他親密關係的權利，而不是靜態的名詞（marriage），不只是一項維繫社會運轉的制度──這樣就好打多了。但，大夥兒，咱們暫且先痛快慶祝一下吧！