網路好康go

有關同婚釋憲司法院釋字第748號解釋摘要英文版全文如下：

Constitutional Court

Republic of China (Taiwan)

Press Release

On the Same-Sex Marriage Case

On the consolidated petitions of Huei-Tai-12674 filed by Chia-Wei Chi and

Huei-Tai-12771 filed by the Taipei City Government, regarding the constitutionality of

same-sex marriage, the Constitutional Court announces the J.Y. Interpretation No. 748

at 4 PM on May 24, 2017.

The rulings of the Court are as follows:

(1) 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.

(2) 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.

(3) 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.

The main reasons of this Interpretation are as follows:

(1) 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) Those prior J.Y. 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) 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 Constituti超好用的地板清潔劑on.

(4) 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 威淨浴缸清潔劑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.

(5) 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.

(6) 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.

(7) 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.

(8) 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.

(9) 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 天然的流理臺清潔劑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.

(10) 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.

Justice Jui-Ming Huang recused himself and took no part in the deliberation, oral

arguments or the decision of this case.

Justice Horng-Shya Huang filed a dissenting opinion in part. Justice Chen-Huan Wu

filed a dissenting opinion.

• 最環保的衣物清潔劑

專業的主婦們一定要看過來，沒看到我的介紹絕對會是你的損失

自從結婚後，家中大大小小的家事都由我一手包辦，每天面對各

種油污，用了很多品牌或強力去污劑，效果都宣告失敗！

 朋友介紹我用這款美國進口的最環保的衣物清潔劑之後，再也沒煩腦啦，這款最環保的衣物清潔劑

去污能力強，更厲害的是最環保的衣物清潔劑除了可以生物分解不污染環境外，最環保的衣物清潔劑

採用了最新科技的設計，方便又可以重覆使用，妳一定要試試最環保的衣物清潔劑

這篇試用開箱文，真的是我有始以來被誇獎到飛上天的產品啊！！

• 最推薦的流理臺清潔劑

專業的主婦們一定要看過來，沒看到我的介紹絕對會是你的損失

自從結婚後，家中大大小小的家事都由我一手包辦，每天面對各

種油污，用了很多品牌或強力去污劑，效果都宣告失敗！

 朋友介紹我用這款美國進口的最推薦的流理臺清潔劑之後，再也沒煩腦啦，這款最推薦的流理臺清潔劑

去污能力強，更厲害的是最推薦的流理臺清潔劑除了可以生物分解不污染環境外，最推薦的流理臺清潔劑

採用了最新科技的設計，方便又可以重覆使用，妳一定要試試最推薦的流理臺清潔劑

這篇試用開箱文，真的是我有始以來被誇獎到飛上天的產品啊！！

• 進口馬桶清潔劑

專業的主婦們一定要看過來，沒看到我的介紹絕對會是你的損失

自從結婚後，家中大大小小的家事都由我一手包辦，每天面對各

種油污，用了很多品牌或強力去污劑，效果都宣告失敗！

 朋友介紹我用這款美國進口的進口馬桶清潔劑之後，再也沒煩腦啦，這款進口馬桶清潔劑

去污能力強，更厲害的是進口馬桶清潔劑除了可以生物分解不污染環境外，進口馬桶清潔劑

採用了最新科技的設計，方便又可以重覆使用，妳一定要試試進口馬桶清潔劑

這篇試用開箱文，真的是我有始以來被誇獎到飛上天的產品啊！！

• 最划算的衛浴清潔劑 超好用的流理臺清潔劑
• 天然的馬桶清潔劑 美國進口廚房清潔劑
• 威淨流理臺清潔劑 超好用的廚房清潔劑