婚姻平權釋憲
聲請人祁家威及伴侶盟聯合聲明 （中英文版） 2017/5/24
Petitioner Mr. Chi Chia-Wei and TAPCPR Statement
re: Marriage Equality case
針對大法官今天 (2017/5/24)下午四點公告的748號解釋，聲請人祁家威及伴侶盟在此表達以下意見：
In response to the ruling in Case 748 made today (2017/5/24) at 4pm by the Grand Justices, Petitioner Mr. Chi Chia-Wei and TAPCPR have the following comments to make:
一、我們肯定「限制同性結婚」違憲的結論，認為這不僅是聲請人的勝利，更是全體公民的勝利：
大法官對於現行民法限制同性結婚明確做成違憲宣告，認定現行民法牴觸了憲法第22條及第7條規定，並且給了立法機關至多兩年緩衝期，要求立（修）法平等保障同志婚姻自由。大法官表示，婚姻自由是人民重大基本權利，這回應了法務部以及反對意見主張婚姻僅是一種制度的說法。
1) We are without doubt, that this ruling affirms the position that prohibiting same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. The ruling is not just a victory for the Petitioner, but for all citizens:
The Grand Justices made a clear decision today that the Civil Code in its current form is unconstitutional; that it contravenes Articles 22 and 7 of the Constitution; and prescribed a timeframe of 2 years for the legislative to amend the law to guarantee the equal protection for same-sex couples’ freedom to marry. The Grand Justices affirmed that the freedom to marry is one of the most important freedoms we have, and in this responded to the opinions of the Ministry of Justice and the anti-marriage equality camp’s insistence that marriage is merely an ‘institution’.
二、大法官在關鍵的時刻，勇敢地扮演了憲法守護者角色：
大法官清楚指陳同性伴侶因為被剝奪了婚姻自由的保護，遭受歷史性壓迫，並且認為長久以來的立法程序過於拖沓緩慢，且基於立（修）法時程的不可預料，而此將對於同志伴侶造成重要基本權利的侵害，因此有必要在此時刻對人民重大基本權利做決定。
2) At a critical juncture, the Grand Justices played an important role in protecting the Constitution:
The Grand Justices are clear that the historical injustices and affront to their basic human rights suffered by the LGBT community because they do not fall under the protection of freedom to marry, and because of the unpredictably long process of legislative action on this issue, required them to act in protection of people’s most fundamental human rights.
三、大法官已明確排除同性伴侶法：因為大法官已經清楚肯定同志有平等的結婚自由，可見大法官並不認為同性伴侶法是一個符合平等、實現婚姻自由的立法方式。
3) The Grand Justices have rejected discriminatory legislation for same-sex couples such as “same-sex partnership act”:
Because they have affirmed that LGBT citizens should enjoy equal protection for the freedom to marry, it could be perceived that the Grand Justices believe that any special legislation like a “same-sex partnership act” (which is not “marriage”) would not adhere to the concept of equality, and therefore would not be the correct way to legislate for the freedom of marriage.
四、我們呼籲立法院及行政機關應儘速立法還給同志結婚權利：民進黨已經完全執政了，蔡總統在選前選後，都明確表示支持婚姻平權，立法院應該在大法官給的兩年內，儘速立法，不要在兩年時間快屆期了，才交卷。因為每一天都很重要，每一天都有許多同志朋友遭受因不平等而來的苦難。
4) We call on the Legislative Yuan and all organs of government to grant the LGBT community their right to marriage:
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) controls the Presidency, the Legislative and the Executive. President Tsai Ing-wen, in her election campaign, clearly stated her support for marriage equality. We call on the Legislative Yuan, which have been given two years by the Grand Justices to amend the law; not to wait until the last minute before the deadline falls. Because every day counts, every day is important, so many LGBT friends are caught up in trouble and strife caused by this inequality.
五、大法官明確指出在本件解釋以前，從未就相同性別二人得否結婚做成解釋：過往所做的一夫一妻、一男一女的解釋，是在異性戀脈絡下所做的解釋。
5) The Grand Justices explained that before this ruling, no interpretations regarding marriage between same sex partners had ever been made; all previous interpretations were on the basis of one husband, one wife, one man, one woman, and explained that these interpretations occurred entirely within the context of heterosexuality.
六、生育並非可以進行差別待遇的理由，允許同性結婚並不影響現行異性婚姻及家庭、配偶。
6) Procreation is not a reason for differential treatment, allowing for homosexual marriage does not negatively affect heterosexual marriage, the ‘traditional’ family unit or the rights of heterosexual spouses.
七、大法官看到了活生生的同志公民存在，尤其花了大篇幅敘述聲請人祁家威爭取婚姻平權的歷程，以及民間團體在立法上的持續努力。
7) The Grand Justices have seen that LGBT citizens exist, and have seen first hand the lengthy process that Mr. Chi Chia-Wei has continued on in his fight for marriage equality, and they have also seen the hard work by civil society in this regard.
八、大法官明確指出憲法第七條為例示規定，不僅無分「男女、宗教、種族、階級、黨派，在法律上一律平等」，也包括，例如身心障礙歧視之禁止，或本件性傾向的差別待遇，均屬於平等權（禁止歧視）規範的範圍。
8) The Grand Justices have affirmed that Article 7 of the Constitution protects not only against discrimination based on “sex, religion, race, class, or party affiliation“ as are mentioned in its text, but also “physical, mental or other disabilities”, and, in our case sexual orientation.
