平等保障下的同性親密關係—論「同志」作為「嫌疑分類」的局限性

Abstract

在美國的平等保障下，如果受到差別待遇的團體具有嫌疑分類（suspect class）的資格，那麼司法就會對這項歧視措施提高審查的標準。國內有關同志平等保障的碩士論文，也都不約而同的主張同志為（準）嫌疑分類。不過，近年來有學者指出由於嫌疑分類的保障方式有擴大司法權力之疑慮，而且法院也不再賦予新的團體嫌疑分類的資格。因此，究竟在美國的平等保障下，法院是否已放棄嫌疑分類的保障方式？如果法院不再採取這樣的保障方式，那麼什麼樣的保護論述可以化解嫌疑分類的疑慮？而這就本文所主要探討的重點。 本文先就美國同性親密關係的案例出發，介紹近年來同志平權運動的相關訴訟，例如同性性行為的合法化、同性親密關係的法律承認及同性婚姻的開放，並詳細介紹法院在平等保障的原則下，承認同性親密關係的相關理由。其次，本文將指出在這些訴訟上，只要法院使用較嚴格的合理審查標準，那麼任何性傾向歧視的措施將無法通過憲法的檢驗。因此，最重要的問題就回到同志平權訴訟上應該提起什麼樣的理由以要求司法提高審查的標準。對此，本文將分析嫌疑的分類標準（suspect classification）與嫌疑分類（suspect class）的不同，並主張性傾向為嫌疑的分類標準為較佳的保護論述。另外，美國在討論同志的平等保障部分，也經常主張性傾向的歧視就是一種性/別歧視，因此本文也將探討這部份的論述，並指出這樣的論述比較能指出性歧視背後所隱藏的意涵。 除此之外，本文將分析我國的大法官這幾年來與平等原則相關的幾個解釋。透過這樣的分析，可以發現大法官在平等原則下並沒有發展出一套可供操作的模式。另外，由於林子儀大法官在釋字第584號的不同意見書裡曾援引美國法的嫌疑分類保障方式。因此，本文認為如果大法官將來有意使用嫌疑分類的保障方式，那麼勢必也要考慮這個理論的缺陷。最後，由於我國國會已經在2004年6月公布「性別平等教育法」，並在2008年1月修正公布「性別工作平等法」。而這兩項法案都明文禁止公、私立學校與工作場所的性傾向歧視。由此可知，國會已經逐漸意識到尊重不同性傾向之重要性，並朝著尊重多元性別與性傾向的路邁進。那麼若司法不在性傾向的歧視案件上提高審查的標準，似乎也難以對新的民意交代。

Under the equal protection clause of United States, when a law discriminates against a politically powerless group, the class is entitled to heightened standard of review. In Taiwan, there are also some master thesis argues that Gay and Lesbian are a kind of suspect class. However, using suspect class theory will cause some defect; in particular, it will violate the doctrine of separate of power. Moreover, recently the U.S. Supreme Court has never produced new suspect classes. Therefore, the point of my thesis is to see what kind of theory under equal protection of law can avoid the defects that suspect class theory produce. This thesis will discuss some equal protection cases about Gay and Lesbian in U.S. courts, including Bowers v. Hardwick, Lawrence v. Texas, Baker v. State of Vermont, and Goodridge v. Department of Public Heath. And we will find the reasons why the court should protect Same-Sex intimate relationship against government intrusions. Additionally, the thesis will point out that as long as the court refuse to use traditional rational basis review in these cases, the law which discriminates against Gays and Lesbians won’t be upheld. (Actually it did.) Therefore, the most important thing is to find what kind of reasons can ask the court to use heightened standard of review. To achieve this goal, I will distinguish the difference between suspect class theory and suspect classification theory, and argue that suspect classification theory won’t produce the defect that suspect class theory does. Then, I will suggest that to claim sex orientation is a kind of suspect classification is a better strategy to ask the court to raise the standard of review. Moreover, I also prefer the strategy that sex orientation discrimination is a kind of sex/ gender discrimination. As we use this sex/gender equal argument, we will find the meanings behind the sex orientation discrimination. Finally, this thesis will discuss the Constitution Interpretations in Taiwan. As the Honorable Justice Tzu-Yi Lin has mentioned the suspect class theory in his dissent in Interpretation No. 584, I suggest that the Justices of Constitution Court must consider the defect suspect class theory cause. And as the Legislation Yuan has pass some law to forbid the discrimination based on sex orientation, I suggest that the Justices of Constitution Court must conform to the new public will, and raise the level of judicial review in sex orientation discrimination case.