論婚姻之憲法保障內涵－以同性婚姻為探討中心

Abstract

本文希望在研究同性婚姻是否合憲的這個熱門問題上，回顧過去的討論後，尋找一條不同於傳統上在討論同性婚姻時從平等權之論述切入之方法，故採取研究歷史上的婚姻內涵變遷，以及當代社會背景對婚姻意涵的影響，來看待同性婚姻是否合憲這個議題。 本文的問題意識為：「憲法是否保障婚姻？又其所保障的婚姻是否有預設價值？」，在本論文所欲討論的同性婚姻議題中，預設價值即憲法上是否已將婚姻受憲法保障之前提限制為為一夫一妻，並且限定由一男一女結合。本文進一步認為：「憲法的確保障婚姻，但是對於婚姻的內涵以及模式並沒有預設價值，故婚姻並無憲法上之前提限制。法律若欲規制並且給予婚姻要件以及法律效果，藉由要件而排除另一種生活方式，則需要強烈的公益理由。」目前國家拒絕給予同性伴侶婚姻制度，是否違反了憲法上對於婚姻的保護？若是憲法上並未預設婚姻的模式，則法律禁止同性婚姻之締結並且獲得憲法上的權利以及各種法律上之權利以及義務，即違反了憲法對於基本權利的保障而應予修改。 於研究方法上，本文擬先回顧比較法上有關同性婚姻之判決及台灣關於同性婚姻之討論，觀察其論述模式，是否已足以證立在憲法上保障婚姻但對其內涵並無預設價值。再者，婚姻係一先於法律以及憲法所發展出之社會制度，在成為現在法制的一環之前，婚姻曾經有過許多不同型態，但當婚姻被納入成文法規範之後，多數規範中只有具有一男一女之結合的婚姻受到法律之保障。為什麼憲法、法律以及司法解釋，會將法律上之婚姻解釋成一男一女之結合，為什麼現代社會的婚姻以此種價值作為進入婚姻之要件？故本文擬觀察在台灣以及西方基督教社會之下，歷史上婚姻如何發展其內涵，希望透過歷史上的觀察，對於婚姻的內涵以及人類的共同生活模式有進一步的認識，並且證立婚姻的內涵並非固定，而是隨著時代以及社會需求變動，所以憲法沒有辦法保障特定的婚姻型態，憲法所能做的就是保障婚姻的地位。本文期望從婚姻這個角度切入，並且結合憲法上之觀察，作為立論同性婚姻合憲之新路徑。 接著回到婚姻在憲法上之意義觀察，觀察我國大法官解釋。首先為婚姻是否受到憲法之保障，繼續往下推論，若導出婚姻的確受到憲法之保障，則憲法在保障婚姻的地位之時，是否將特定要件作為憲法婚姻權之前提？本文認為，若將婚姻提升至憲法上之權利，則憲法在婚姻這個由社會所形成的制度之下，應作為權利之守護者，而非塑造者，因為婚姻此一制度並非法律所創設，而是先於法律、因應各個時代之不同需求而有所調整之制度，並且係作為人類發展自我所不可或缺之社會關係，應開放給所有人擁有選擇其所希望與之共度將來之伴侶，立法者除非有重大公益事由，否則無權將婚姻固定為某種生活型態。 而討論婚姻在歷史上的展現以及憲法上的地位之後，期望結合這兩者，導出婚姻受憲法上之保障，但憲法並沒有預設其前提，而是繫於歷史上婚姻內涵的變遷以及當代婚姻的意涵。希望透過這些歷史上所提供的材料，作為法律論述的思考資源，希望透過這個不同路徑的嘗試，為同性婚姻是否合憲的討論帶來不同觀點的思維。

The issue of same-sex marriage has been debated in recently years, This thesis tries to find another way to look into the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, When I discuss the issue concerning whether the same-sex marriage should be constitutional or not, I researched on the change of the meaning of marriage in history, and the impact of the meaning of marriage from social context. So the thesis of this essay is “Is marriage protected by the constitution? if the answer is yes, is the constitution also predetermined the value and query in marriage?” As I address the issue concerning same-sex marriage, the predetermined values means that our constitution, which requires only heterosexual marriage, is protected under the constitutional meaning of marriage. However, this thesis wants to demonstrate that marriage has no prerequisite on the constitutional protection, that is, the marriage in constitutional context does not restrict to one man and one woman. As the result, if there is a regulation restricts marriage within one man and one woman, it may infringe the constitutional protection without having strong government interests. On research method, this thesis first refers to the judgements from the U.S and the discussions concerning same-sex marriage in Taiwan, finding that marriage is preexisted before the law and the constitution. Therefore, I look into the history in western cultural and in Taiwan, hoping to learn the meaning of marriage and the model which people live together. Try to illustrate the meaning of marriage is flexible and fluid. After historical analysis of the meaning of marriage, I look back to the legal practice in Taiwan to analyze the constitutionality of same-sex marriage in legal context. When we look into the interpretations concerning marriage by Justices of The Constitutional Court, we can know that the court suggests that one man and one woman is the prerequisite to the marriage under the constitutional protection. In the conclusion, under the analysis from the historical meaning and social context of marriage, my opinion is that under constitutional protection, there is no prerequisite to the marriage. Constitution should prevent the right of marriage from infringe, and should not set restriction for the marriage. However, legislator could somehow restrict constitutional right by the law, but there should be a compelling interests for the purpose of restriction.