P!Live2013年 Albie Sachs 與 Kenji Yoshino 對談同性婚姻 (2/3)

俗稱同婚法案的〈民法部分條文修正草案〉近日在立法院審議,引起朝野黨團,以及民間贊成、反對聲浪的高度爭辯。但這些爭辯並不缺乏他山之石可以為錯。

2013年12月11日,南非前大法官 Albie Sachs (奧比・薩克思),和紐約大學講座教授 Kenji Yoshino,在蔡瑞月舞蹈社就同性婚姻的議題進行對談。第二個影音,進入與觀眾座談的部分。薩克思大法官提到了南非憲法法院的大法官們,當年在同性婚姻案當中,為何沒有選擇自行在法條中加入「配偶」二字,讓「第二天問題就解決」,而是把婚姻平權的最後一哩路,交由國會鋪設的思考。Kenji Yoshino 則提到他對於將同性婚姻交付公投,以及「亞洲觀點」的看法。

 

相關報導:Albie Sachs: 我們要讓本來不被看見的族群被看見

中文

黃丞儀:我們預計有三輪的提問,每一輪我會請三到五位發言,各位可以先想好,舉手最快的獲得發言的權利,三輪之後看還有沒有時間,我們預計九點結束,還有時間的話,可以進行第四輪。剛才Albie Sachs大法官提到,可以在Q&A時間討論宗教的問題,針對這核心的議題作些討論,現在開放第一輪發問,在座很多人可能都看過Albie的書,也看過Yoshino教授的書Covering對他們剛剛講的內容,可能也有一定程度的熟悉,但針對台灣過去一個多月來的討論,也許大家可以提出一些跟兩位的書沒有直接關係的問題,也很歡迎。

 

capture-20161122-204559

 

2’05”
提問人一:兩位老師 ,大家好。我是一位基督徒,在過去一個多月的討論之中,我發現愈來愈難表現自己基督徒的身份,尤其在整個社會的氛圍之下,我特別想請教Albie大法官,您所提到宗教與同性戀間的問題,當整個社會的氛圍朝向敵視某個宗教的時候,兩者的關係如何平衡,或者,由憲法上而論,宗教自由與表現性傾向的自由之間,兩者有所衝突的時候,憲法上應如何處理?謝謝。

3’16”
提問人二:尊重、許可與事實在程度上有不同的差別,Sachs 大法官提到法律或憲法不能夠解決所有的問題,以法律人的角度,在國家其他的政策上有怎樣的配合,可以減緩衝突,而不是只針對法律應如何規定而爭執?比如社會福利、家庭政策或社會結構的改變,就這些方面,兩位有什麼意見,以社會其他的政策促使兩方都能夠更圓滿的被尊重?因為 Sachs 大法官提到法律不能解決所有問題,有什麼其他政策可以更圓滿的減緩問題?我雖然是基督徒,也願意客觀的來面對問題。兩方我都有很好的朋友,我比較關心問題的解決希望兩方都能夠被尊重。

5’09”
提問人三:我也是基督徒,但提問不是刻意喬的(眾笑)。我相信在今天的場合大家不會歧視基督徒,我可以比較放心的提出問題。我的問題跟宗教比較沒有關係,想請問兩位老師,在你們所處理的實務場合,異性戀與同性戀在生理上有許多不同的地方,是不是同樣適合一部法律?或者因為實務上面的區別會有不同的對待,在實務上是否碰到類似的問題 。

 

capture-20161122-210433

 

 06’05”
主持人黃丞儀尋求澄清:問題是關於異性戀與同性戀結合 在生理上的差異,例如在性生活方面,或婚生子女方面。我們先由 Albie 開始,可不可以?然後再請 Yoshino 教授。謝謝。

 

7’10’’
Albie Sachs: 很高興這些問題被提出來,因為這些是整個國家的問題,不是給兩位講者的問題,憲法法院給國會機會處理問題,確保了南非整個國家有機會討論這些議題,而不只是11位法官反覆酌量,11位法官說明憲法的要求,明確說到平等及人性尊嚴,是貫穿整部憲政工程的原則,意在將過去種族隔離下的國家,轉變為消弰種族與性別歧視的國度,法官們將這些原則闡明。

 

capture-20161122-205223

 

7’57’’
今天的討論中,這些問題被提出來非常的合宜,芙莉案的判決就是關於此,其中一個重大的問題是,在我的國家,有數以百萬計的人,信仰十分虔誠他們相信同性傾向是錯誤的,不合宜的,應被禁止,他們不願意看到法律對同性關係提供完全平等的承認,這是個必須正視的現實,有數以百萬計的基督徒,他們也有兄弟、姊妹、親人、女兒,是同性戀者,當他們看到他們的關係,也希望自己的親人快樂,能夠表達自己,能夠說上帝愛每一個人,有些基督徒也相信他們有權利經過法律手段這樣做。

因此,不因為我是個法官,我就可以依照個人的喜好,決定採取兩者間的哪一種態度,作為一個法官,我可以闡明憲法說什麼,我們面對兩難所採取的作法,以及我們的判決,明示這不是兩個互不相容的世界觀二擇一的問題,而是兩個世界觀在同一個國家共生的問題,以一種相互尊重的方式,而不是某一種看法獲勝,另一種失敗。例如同性人權獲勝、宗教信仰失敗,或者宗教信仰獲勝,同性人權失敗,這並不是互相置對方於死地的鬥爭,我們的判決說,引用早期有關同性人權的案例中,我同事的一段話。

9’58’’
說不接受同性行為的人都是冥頑不靈不是太有幫助,他們不是冥頑不靈,那只是他們了解世界的方式,將世界分為開明的「我們」和無知的「他們」,於事無補,而且法官的角色也不是,以文化或觀念的差異來分化人民,而是守護每個人的基本權利,

我們必須清楚闡明的,必須要說的是,正如 Kenji 如此優美地表達的,不讓同性戀者表達他們作為一個人的真實自我,是極度牴觸憲法的,這不僅是違憲;是極度牴觸憲法的

,是極度牴觸我們社會對於人作為道德公民的品質核心的,法律出了問題,如果法律迫使人自欺,對自己說謊,對家人說謊,向世人說謊,對人的尊嚴即構成極度的侵犯,根本性地違反人權憲章的概念,這是不對的。

但另一方面,強迫有信仰的人,對創造有信仰的人,對人與人的關係有定見的人,在他們的世界裡不能容許,同性關係的存在,拒絕他們在其社群中保有其信仰,同樣是不對的。強迫宗教領袖、主教、拉比、教長,廟宇住持等放棄,拒絕為同性婚姻證婚或祝福,拒絕承認同性婚姻的權利,因為與其教義不合,同樣是不對的。

在判決草擬中,很清楚的一件事是,同樣一部憲法,保障人的基本權利,表達愛、親密關係的權利,平等的,公開的,不論他們所愛的是異性或是同性。

同樣的一部憲法也保障有信仰人的權利,依自己的教義,保有其信仰純粹性的權利,在其自己的社群中,所必要的,是神聖與世俗的共存。

在同樣的穹蒼之下,而不是,世俗把神聖驅趕到角落,以致神聖必須進入櫃中,不需要這樣;人們可以各自維持自己的立場,正如提問者提到,您也保有您的立場,這是很正當的。

12’55”
這不僅是表意自由的問題,這是我們想要活在怎樣的世界的問題,寧可人們說出他們心裡想的,說出他們願意說的,只要他們不會傷害或壓迫他人,就可以如此表達。但法律,國家的法律,是另一回事,就我看來,南非的法律有義務,承認社會上愛與親密關係,並減少、消除促使他們隱藏起來的壓力,這麼多人的愛與親密關係。

這問題也成為,是否承認並保護多元的問題,因為在我們的國家,就人與人關係而言,存在許多不同的形式:印度教婚姻、回教婚姻、傳統非洲婚姻、單一家長制等,各色各樣,我們的社會現實是如此。我們的社會不是一夫一妻2 1/4 個小孩的社會,人人家中車庫有房車的社會,這樣的社會是限制了人的多樣性,這樣的家庭概念也是反憲法的,也是不符現實的。

14’02’’
生物性的論點經常被強力的提出,芙莉案的審判中,以一種非常有尊嚴的方式,代表天主教聯盟的 Smyth 生先就此作出陳述,說繁衍後代,是婚姻制度的核心,婚姻制度是為了管理後代的繁衍,以及繼承等,但是對於為何承認無法繁衍的婚姻,例如老年人間的婚姻,他卻無法提供答案,或者自願不生小孩的夫妻,為什麼婚姻必須限於能夠繁衍後代者?

至於「分別但平等」的論點,我們記得「分別但平等」,曾在南非施行;在美國施行,當時黑人不能與白人結婚,美國的法官,在1960年代的案件中,對各位可能像拿破崙一樣時代久遠,但對我,是我年輕時的判決,我在60年代已經成年了,法官說,如果上帝的意思是,要黑人與白人結婚,祂不會將兩種人放在不同的大陸,也不會讓他們外表看起來不同,那是個生物性的論點,用來反對不同種族人間的婚姻,當時跨種族的通婚在美國是不合法的,直到最高法院將該禁令宣告違憲為止。

15’24’’
因此,此處追根究底,牽涉到所賦予人的價值,作為人,在某個意義上…,不只是,僅關乎抽象的人權而是關於愛,關於親密關係,關於非常個人的特質,對人,那是非常特別的,法律必須讓人們表達他們自己,這不僅是表意自由的問題,表達自己的意見,表達自己的真實自我,相對於他人的關係方面,這對我,對憲法法院的法官,無異議地,都是公共道德的核心問題,在憲法上。

此議題是一公共議題,若是交由法律決定,一旦國會通過,即成為法律。但誰來解釋法律?是法官,還是立法機關?我們覺得,大部分的大法官覺得,雖然O’Regan大法官認為,只要加入「配偶」一詞,第二天問題就解決了,這是很有力的論點,為什麼同性伴侶必須再等一年?為什麼他們公開結婚的能力,必須在焦慮中懸而未決?這一年當中,誰知道國會將如何決定?大眾會如何動員?

但大法官們認為,由全國民意共同決定,經公眾參與,至終允許完全的平等,而不是近似的平等,由法院賦予的平等,因此應給予立法機關參與的機會但立法機關的參與必須,符合法院所界定的自然原則。立法機關不得決定是否允許同性婚姻,只能決定以何種方式同性婚姻得以最佳地實現。我認為,其後的辯論對我們的國家來說,具有非常大的療癒性。

17’34’’
最終的結果是,將同性愛情與關係融入進我國的公眾生活中,以一種單純由法院規制,所無法達成的方式,我推測,以美國聯邦最高法院為例,如果推動的話,多數的法官會判決,同性婚姻是牽涉平等權的問題,不論是由自由權或平等權的角度,也許依據自由權比依據平等權更容易些。策略上而言,容許立法部門參與,也是明智的,應該一步一步來,讓聯邦最高法院在,大多數的州法院都已經向這個方向靠攏時,再作成決定,此會容許聯邦中最大的共識,此一過程的先驅者是我的朋友,麻州最高法院的首席法官Margaret Marshall,她在麻州踏出了平等保障勇敢的第一步,當時正逢選舉,她也因為該判決被怪罪,害 Kerry 失去了角逐總統大位的機會,但這勇敢的一步必須有人走,一旦踏出此步,後來的判決會跟著而來,實際上這是令人驚喜且相當了不起的,看到美國輿論的改變。

19’25’’
這也是非常美好的,對我而言,這是生命中重要的時刻,回顧過去,許多人說世界不會變得更好,但我認為,在某些方面,世界的確變得更好,我很欣慰,身為法官,我們能夠對此作出些許貢獻,但單單(single-handed)憑法官,是不夠的,但「單手」這個詞,在我的情況,也許不是最恰當的?

 

19’33’’
Kenji Yoshino: 我也要感謝各位,提出這些問題,那是非常有勇氣且真誠的舉動,我認為,唯有透過這些明理的論辯,我們才能在對話上有所推進,在發言之前,我想先說明,我對這些問題的許多回應,是以美國的觀點,這並非因為傲慢,出自美國的傲慢,反之,這是因為我確切知道自己知識的有限,而深感謙卑,因此,我只能就我所知的發言。

 

capture-20161122-205436

 

對於第一個問題,就是宗教信仰,是否會因為同性婚姻的合法化,而被邊緣化,我想,在這點上我與 Albie 的觀點略有不同,特別是,我認為在這個問題上,的確存在著零和的賽局,在對婚姻的世俗化看法,與傳統基督教對婚姻的看法之間,究竟何者能夠對美國的公民婚姻的定義,取得話語權,對我個人而言,就此最有啟發性的論辯,出現在一長達12 日的法庭辯論中,在Perry v. Schwarzenegger 案審理過程中,那是發生在2010 年 1月, 該案的審判過程,出現了美國就同性婚姻,最精彩且最深入的對話。

21’30”
我非常仰慕證據法的學者 John Wigmore,他說:「對於發現真實人從來不可靠,真正可靠的是經宣誓的交互詢問。」交互詢問並不完美,但它是在現行法律制度下,為發現真實最少不完美的方法,正如哈佛大學的歷史學者 Nancy Cott 所說,在過去十年研究婚姻制度之後,她可以有信心說的唯一一件事,就是在美國的歷史中,婚姻制度是由世俗法所定義的。

因此,任何宗教的宗派,是否願意依其信仰傳統以儀式證婚或承認某些特定的結合,是完全不同於,世俗法所承認的公民婚姻,一般公民的婚姻,不論他們是信仰基督教,其他信仰,或毫無信仰。

因此,我認為公民婚姻,與宗教婚姻間的區別,我們過去的討論中,未能充分的注意,我要請各位在討論中,特別注意此一區分,因為在美國的民意調查,如果問題是,「你是否認為同性伴侶得以公民婚姻結合?」贊成的人數,會比問「你是否認為同性伴侶得以結婚?」多得多,因為人們理解「公民」此一形容詞,指涉廣大的公共領域,在這點上,我與Albie 的看法略有不同。

當然,某些宗教人士會覺得信仰的立場被邊緣化了,因為過去他們掌握了定義婚姻的話語權,而公民婚姻的定義與傳統基督教對婚姻的定義,並無二致,但Nancy Cott的研究顯示,由美國的歷史來看,婚姻的定義向來是由世俗的法律說了算的,除非把美國界定為基督教的國家,否則不可能有別的看法,反之,如果美國堅持政教分離,我們不能允許任何教派,不論是基督教、印度教、回教、或主張複數伴侶制度的摩門基進者,為整體政治社群定義「公民婚姻」是什麼,我認為其研究非常有幫助,因此推薦各位去看Nancy Cott的論述,不只是她上述證詞中的看法,還有她的著作,「公開的誓約:美國婚姻史」。

24’21’’
有關第二個問題:法律的限制,我想,法律人對法律的限制,都有深切的認知,我進入法學院時,院長演講中說到,法律人生涯中所遇到的問題中,百分之99不會是由法律加以解決的,因此,為成為好的法律人所接受的教育,很重要的一部分,是了解法律的限制,所以,我非常同意剛才的討論,就是我們有關,就此議題,究竟應該由法院,或由立法者加以決定的討論,我對Albie 所精彩描述的,不擬再補充。

我想說的是,我對此問題的理解是,一方面法律存在,另方面法律以外的世界,有社會規範、道德、宗教、媒體、文化等規範,與法律互動,就改變的動能而言,法律能做的不多,如果這點是可以接受的,那麼法律如何維繫,面對其他的論述,法律應以怎樣的姿態出現,是值得考慮的。請原諒我由自己的傳統出發,這是我唯一所知道的,很不幸的,我不是個比較法學者。

26’00’’
美國聯邦最高法院的Ginsburg大法官說得很對,在現今一波同性婚姻的法律訴訟浮現檯面之前,Ginsburg大法官到全美各地演講,談到Roe v. Wade一案與其所引起的反彈。Roe v. Wade是關於墮胎的案子,在1973年作成判決,改變了40餘州的法律,在美國引燃了爭議與反彈,至今仍餘波盪漾,Ginsburg大法官談到,如果當時以漸進的方式,墮胎權會建立得較穩,就此點仍有爭論,尚未有定論。

但當我聽到她到全美各地,不斷重申這個觀點,我有點預測到她在同性婚姻的案子上,會如何投票,因為我感覺她似乎不是在談墮胎,而是在談同性婚姻。她說的是,我們應該謹慎的推進,正如Albie所說的,讓我們等到承認或合法化同性婚姻的州,達到一個臨界數字,如果達到了 則水到渠成,最高法院便可順理成章的如此判決,而不是由最高法院帶頭往前衝,反而引發反彈因為對話並未終結。

因此在上個庭期的,Hollingsworth v. Perry案中,最高法院拒絕就,美國五十個州是否應一體的保障同性婚姻權,給出答案,而僅就一州,即加州作成判決當然,加州是個大州,人口佔全美百分之11,但聯邦最高法院並未就其他州的情況作判決,而將此議題留待日後解決,我認為 最高法院這麼作,是非常明智的。

我要提出的一點,是有時法律,會為文化注入新概念,對話在兩者間進行著,而不是兩者間毫無對話,我最喜歡舉的例子是同樣出於美國法,即米蘭達警語,是在華倫首席大法官在任時形成的,但在2000年,米蘭達警語的問題重新出現,因為國會有意將其廢止。

28’29’’
而在一7比2的判決中,首席大法官Rehnquist所主筆的多數意見裡,題外話,Rehnquist大法官是個保守派人士,一向不支持米蘭達警語,但在他主筆的意見中,他說 現在即便國會欲摒棄米蘭達警語,我們也不能同意這麼做,因為那早已成為我們文化的一部份,這非常有趣  因為這不是由國會,或是議會來共同詮釋憲法,事實上,國會是想反對米蘭達警語,想將之摒除。

但現在已經變成是由好萊塢,來共同詮釋憲法,只因好萊塢拍攝許多跟警察有關的電影,而米蘭達警語總出現在其中,導致現在即便是最高法院將之摒除,美國人民仍覺得他們擁有該權利。

故我想說的是,要將法律與文化二分很簡單,但通常法律可成為形塑文化的種子,而後文化再給予法律反饋,進而導致法律無法真正禁止某些已被形塑的文化,因此兩者總互相影響,不斷對話,而非由單一方影響另一方。

29’40’’
接下來關於生物學上的差異問題,我想直接聚焦這個問題,我想面對這個問題最好的處理方式,是Albie的方式,換言之,這是關於男人與女人間,在生物學上的差異,以及其生小孩的能力的問題嗎?顯然,兩個男人或兩個女人的結合,無法生下孩子。

面對這個問題最好的回答方式,以及最常出現的答案是,婚姻並不等於生殖,因此很多人已經過了生育年齡才結婚,而很多人結了婚並不急著生孩子,但這些人在步入婚姻時並不因此而受到阻礙,因此,為何我們要反對同性婚姻呢?我想這是該問題最好的回答方式。

但這個回答方式有必要加以補充,因為即便是這樣的回答,一些基督徒或某些人會說:「即便男人與女人選擇不想生孩子,即便他們無法生育,對於下一代來說,他們仍然扮演著行為榜樣的角色,至少他們在生物學上是能夠生育孩子的,然而同性間卻永遠不可能生下小孩。」這是人們最根深蒂固的想法。

31’17’’
而Albie的論點,完全無懈可擊,但有時並沒有觸及人們內心深處的疑惑,或是人們最根深蒂固的想法,因此我認為討論該議題是很重要的。

而在面對這樣的議題時,我會說:嗯,讓我們來仔細地分析,並看看同性與異性婚姻真正的差異為何,同性與異性伴侶,在孩子的生育與養育上有兩點差異,一是同性雙親,例如我的丈夫與我,不能夠兩人同時都與我們的小孩有直接的血緣聯繫,故這是有關生物學上的聯繫或基因上的聯繫的論點。

這是所謂「親屬利他主義」的論點,是說我們對待有血緣關係的人比較好,以及我們對於延續我們基因的孩子來說,是較佳的雙親,此為第一個論點。

32’17”
第二個論點是關於子女教養中的性別角色分工問題,換言之,如果兩人為同性,則他們無法在孩子面前示範男女間因不同性別所呈現的不同角色,例如,倘兩者皆為男性,我的丈夫與我便無法為我們的女兒或兒子,提供身為女性角色的示範,因此我們無法成為稱職的雙親,因為這個小孩會缺乏不同性別所帶來的示範功能,對於他們在形塑性別的認同上帶來影響。

對於上述兩種觀點我來依序回應,事實上,我之前援引的Perry v. Schwarzenegger的案子的辯論,在這個問題上的著墨十分精闢,因為在該辯論中,傳喚了一些兒童專家,並對於在同性雙親下的孩子如何成長有不同的看法與爭辯。

33’11”
這個案子在審判過程中,針對上述第一個觀點,最關鍵的是被告的證人反對同性婚姻,並主張上述親屬利他主義的論點。當該證人被問道根據研究,被領養的孩子,普遍較那些受有親屬關係的雙親扶養大的孩子,表現更佳,這個名叫 David Blankenhorn的證人回答,不是的,這種說法並不正確,此時, 訊問他的律師David Boies對於他的回答感到困惑,律師表示其手中握有的研究資料顯示與該證人的看法不同,接著,證人說:我的意思是指,在某種程度上,領養孩子的雙親 其表現較有血緣的雙親更好,那是因為他們並不是意外懷有孩子,他們已經做好擔任雙親的心理準備,他們極度地想為人父母,因此他們對於養育小孩這件事毫不猶豫。

接著,律師David Boies便說:對此,我沒有進一步的問題要問了,因此,我想強調的是,倘若一個孩子不是由,有血緣關係的雙親扶養長大,這並不代表這個孩子是被隨便託付給一組陌生人,或是隨便託付給一組同性伴侶,抑或是隨便託付給一組異性伴侶。這個孩子是被託付給經過仔細篩選過的伴侶,這對伴侶極其渴望能夠扮演雙親的角色,這對孩子童年時期的某些部份十分重要,事實上,研究資料已證明此點,這是關於第一個論點。

34’36’’
關於第二個論點,關於子女教養中的性別角色分工問題,就是男孩需要父親、女孩需要母親,或男孩需要父母,以及女孩需要父母 才能夠在,性、性別或性認同上健康地成長的觀點,我想先停下來想一想,至少在美國的法律體系中,我們是如何明確地反駁那些在除了家庭以外的各領域中,所存在的刻板印象。

在美國憲法中,有一個在1982年的案子,其中一所女子護理學校表示,男子不得申請入學,因為只有女性,才夠仁慈、溫和且有教養,以成為護士,而O’Connor法官在最高法院,將該論點駁回並表示,這是已經不合時宜的觀點 且對於男性整體有既定的成見,在1996年,相反的情況發生,女性不得申請就讀,一所軍事學校 理由是只有男性,才夠強壯 故才能成為國民兵,只有男性才有足夠的侵略性與分析能力,故才能通過美國維吉尼亞軍事學校的嚴厲訓練,Ruth Bader Ginsberg反駁這種說法,並認為這是不時宜的觀點,是對廣泛女性的一種刻板印象,他說我們不能夠假設某一群體都是一模一樣的,例如,一半的人類具有某種特質,而另一半的人類則完全沒有該特質。因此,我尤其認為:當我們在一些公共領域的議題上,我們也許會反對一些有關性別歧視的看法,但當我們又往家庭及私領域去思考時,我們就又會恢復那些對性別的刻板印象,即便我們在公共領域議題上明確地反對這種性別歧視。

36’32”
故我認為,當我們覺得 喔……這些在生物學上是很好的論點,這些在子女教養上,在教養上的性別分工是很好的論點,而這些論點會使得異性婚姻變成是不正常的,那麼我們就該反對這樣的論點,並且仔細地、嚴格地去思考 以美國法律體系為基礎去思考,也許台灣的法律體系與美國不同,所以我會聽聽台灣的律師對這個部份的看法。

37’00’’
最後一點我想說的是,剛才這三個問題都是由表明自己是基督徒的人所發問的,我非常尊重您的宗教信仰與信念。我想說兩件事,一是至少在我的國家有越來越多的,跟你們年紀相仿的基督徒,我是以我看到的現場觀眾大概評估的平均年齡,步入同性婚姻,他們在同性婚姻的觀點上,與他們的宗教信仰並沒有衝突。

之所以沒有衝突,我想其中一個原因是耶穌並沒有發表反對同性戀的言論,以及愛本身沒有分別的這個信念,以及耶穌相信愛等。我本身不是神學家,所以我不在這個領域多做說明,我只是想強調這是一個很普及的信念,即便在基督教界當中也是如此,因此,我想我們不能夠說所有基督徒都信仰一模一樣的事,特別是在這個議題上實際上有一些觀點,在基督徒界廣泛流傳。

最後,我想這些觀點之所以會廣泛流傳是因為基督教界,就我所知,今日已有許多主張都不再實施了,例如,女性生理期是不潔的,生理期間必須穿著特別的服裝,在聖經中有許多規定。

反對同性婚姻的基督徒,通常會選擇某些規定並主張採取禁止同性戀的作法,但卻不禁止其他行為。假設我們有一個針對犯罪的準則,而我們說,禁止所有犯罪行為,但我們卻只對其中一項犯罪行為進行執法,我想這是很有敵意的作法,對我來說,這不符合基督教對於愛的詮釋。

 

39’04’’
黃丞儀:OK,第二輪……等一下。

39’24’’
提問者:大家好 ,我是一個女同志也是一個前基督徒,我覺得離開教會就是我走出埃及的過程,謝謝兩位的演講,我的提問是薩克思大法官提到,不同的世界觀 造成彼此間的衝突,從9月到12月 在台灣 不同的世界觀,是造成基督徒與 LGBT族群衝突的原因之一,在這樣的過程中 我們是要保障部分宗教人士,無知但充滿歧視的語言,還是要以立限制仇恨言論,但是這樣的立法限制並無法壓抑他們的仇恨,也沒有辦法協助他們同理或接納,也不會幫助彼此的對話,在言論自由與限制傷害性言論之間,想請教兩位,謝謝。

承接上個問題,關於Yoshino教授剛才所提到的執行方面的問題,我有一些疑問,一直以來總是有個問題就是究竟應不應該,將同性婚姻的問題交付法院來審理,據我所知 南非有將這的問題交付法院審理,美國也有,但這樣的案子可能面臨的問題在於其步調可能太快以致於我們無法預測法院判決的結果法院的判決,使得我們必須承受敗訴的風險。

一旦敗訴,那麼極有可能會失去,再一次交付法庭的機會,或是失去日後交由國會或立法機關決議的機會,我了解Sachs法官所說的,從政治面來確立這個爭議十分重要,特別是有經過國會內部的辯論過程,但假如都沒有這樣子的案子出現,因此無法將這類爭議交付法院,那麼這個議題是否仍會在國會通過,該議題是否仍能受到保障 如您所言的 在法庭上將之視為人類所與生俱來的基本權利,希望了解您對這個問題的看法。

42’43’’
提問人:我叫做陸詩薇,我是一個公益律師,隸屬於某一非政府組織。目前我國立法院提倡婚姻平權、伴侶制度,以及家屬制度,我想提出兩個問題。首先,台灣許多人,包含我們的總統馬英九先生認為,台灣的環境還不夠成熟到能夠接納婚姻平權,請別跟我們說美國的例子,別跟我們提歐洲的例子,也別跟我們說南非的例子,我們想看看日本、韓國或菲律賓,我們有屬於我們的亞洲價值觀,我們還未準備好,未準備好接受婚姻平權,為什麼不能循序漸進,讓我們循序漸進,先從例如伴侶制度或民事結合作起 ,再等待並觀察社會是否能達到共識,最後再決定我們是否已準備好接受婚姻平權。這是我希望您能回答的問題,特別是關於亞洲價值觀的部份。

第二個問題是,有一些人,事實上是一些持反對意見的人,他們認為應該將這個議題交付公投,當然,我們認為,基本權利的問題不能交付公投,但根據最近的民調,超過百分之五十的人贊成同性婚姻,請問以您的觀點 婚姻平權的議題,是否應交付公投?

44’46’’
黃丞儀:由於時間有限,等會兒我會提醒您時間,您剛才聊的內容相當具有啟發性,但為了節省時間,您雙方各有十分鐘的時間針對剛才的問題做回答。

 

45’14’’
Kenji Yoshino: 我大概需要你們提醒我一下剛才所有的問題是什麼,但我聽到的第一個問題是如何在宗教自由與言論自由中取得平衡,或是其他價值,像是我們可以想到的 平等、自由、尊嚴,以及同性戀的權利等,與宗教自由的價值相衝撞。我了解您所說的許多個人的信仰、信念,是非常沒有妥協的餘地,或是非常固執的,而這些人的觀點事實上都是源自某些真理,或是信念 但他們的該些觀點,缺乏不斷地對話與探究原因 ,我認為這是造成我們很難彼此對話的主要原因之一,人們時常互相有講沒有聽我想法律與宗教的調和之所以面臨困難原因之一便在於,套用J. Austin’s的用語,法律是屬於行為表現的規範,而宗教則是屬於是非對錯的規範,當法律說 一切符合規範,那麼我們可以知道 有個規範存在,故法律概念的創設是由文字而來,而表現是非對錯的規範所用的語言,就像說,這裡有一個桌子,則是先有桌子,才有表示這個桌子的文字。所以當我們在談論信仰時,我們常會彼此沒有交集,那是因為對人們的信仰來說,婚姻的定義是男人與女人間的婚姻,這是由上帝規定的。它的概念先形成,而後才有語言來稱呼它為婚姻,故不論有沒有語言來稱呼它,事實就是事實。

 

capture-20161122-205640

 

47’19”
因此,倘法律規定同性婚姻亦為婚姻,持傳統信仰的人常會回應,就像我剛提到的,那不是真正的婚姻。因此,在美國,我們常可以看到形容同性婚姻時會在該名詞上加個引號,也會在例如同性戀者等名詞加上引號,因為他們認為同性戀應該是可以改變的,而婚姻的定義是不能改變的。然而同性戀權利的倡議人士則是持相反的看法,他們認為同性戀是不能改變的,而婚姻的定義則可以改變。

因此,我想說的是在某方面來說這是有點詼諧,但另一方面,這也是一個嚴肅的議題,我所能做的只是提出診斷,就是人們相互間,有在講沒在聽。因為一方的人將婚姻視為是,就像這是一張桌子一樣,是早在語言定義該辭彙之前便已存在的事實,人們無論如何都無法改變它。而倘若人們改變了它,他們只不過是意圖改變它,實際上在做的,是錯誤地描述它。

然而許多同性戀權利倡議人士,就像我本身是從不同的世界觀來看這件事。我們認為所謂的婚姻就是政府所定義的婚姻,故倘Albie Sachs法官判決說這是婚姻,而他獲得法院判決支持,那麼 這就是真正的婚姻,這不是所謂的解決方式,這是一項診斷,但我希望您們能稍微進一步諒解我們在辯論的過程中,彼此沒有交集的地方。

48’57”
我忘記第二個問題是什麼了。第二個問題是什麼?喔,將之交付法院的時機,我了解時間有限所以會試著簡短說明。我要說的是,我比較熟悉美國法制。美國法律中很重要的事件之一,就是我們都知道的,美國法律在2003 年便賦與同性婚姻的權利。但事實上 在訴訟之前,存在很長的時間來爭取這樣的權利,在1986年遭受重大挫敗,當時Bowers v. Hardwick的案子 我們敗訴了。那是關於挑戰同性非陰道性交的法條。該法條對於其中一項同性戀活動的行為,訂有二十年以下的刑責。但我們於1986年敗訴,之後我們花了十七年的時間才擺脫這個陰影。

我想第二個問題其實是要問這個,因為這個敗訴,許多同性戀權利倡議人士,都非常害怕將這樣的議題交付法院審理。因此1993年時,夏威夷好像非常樂於接受有關同性婚姻的訴訟,而Lambda Legal是我們主要的公益組織之一,竟然被迫無法參與這個案子時,我們便採取一個非常小心謹慎的策略。該策略十分聰明,事實上我目前正在寫有關這個策略的文章,基於要修改州憲法的難度高,而我們不只要思考是否能贏得訴訟,也要思考若贏得訴訟,該訴訟能否對抗得了公投?

另外 訴訟只要州的層級,故無法上訴到美國最高法院,因為在聯邦體系下,如果案件所涉及的只有州法律,則各州的最高法院就會是最終裁決機構。該案子不能上訴到美國最高法院,因此我們採取每個案子個別訴訟的方式達到臨界質量。

51’14”
然後採取我們所說的個別擊破的策略,援引聯邦法律的訴訟,將案子上訴到最高法院。我們花了很多年,採取個別擊破的策略,由於David Boise與Ted Olson,這兩個原告、律師加入,並決定援引聯邦法院的案子,在加州第八號提案公投中將這個案子交付最高法院,最後是一個好的結局。這在我的書裡有提到,但這是個非常非常冒險的方式。

在美國傳統上所有的案子,我有深入去研究Brown v. Board的案子,並不是在Plessy v. Ferguson案後立刻被提起,都沒有人去質疑所謂隔離而平等本身,而是不斷地圍繞在,隔離而平等的規定是什麼上面。故一開始他們都說,隔離而平等並不是,將某部份人送到只有黑人的學校。法院說對,這不符合憲法或這於法無據,之後他們將隔離而平等的規定事項縮小,而後又增加訴訟,直到Thurgood Marshall與Charles Hamilton Houstan就大約六件這類的案子,花了幾十年的時間在隔離而平等上爭訟。在上述兩個案子,我們可以看到增加訴訟的策略成功。

52’39”
我們不急著透過法院採取進一步行動,因為怕會重演Bowers案,那是一個敗訴的前例,導致我們17年無法擺脫那個陰影。17年對最高法院來說很短,但我們花了58年的時間才擺脫Plessy v. Ferguson案的陰影,那是漫長的等待時間。

53’01’’
針對您的問題,一是有關亞洲價值觀的問題,另一個是有關公投的問題,我很簡短地回應,在亞洲價值觀的問題方面,實際上我認為與大眾的看法不同,同性婚姻是符合亞洲價值觀的,婚姻與其他權利有很大的差異,那是像我同事Jeremy Waldron,他是個法理學家,他所說的是一種責任權,那不僅僅是說,我有權做這件事,還包括了說我對另一半有責任,我會保護我的另一半,我會像堡壘一樣成為另一半的依靠,所以希望我的丈夫不要變成殘障。但如果真有那一天,國家不一定會照顧他,但我一定會承擔這個責任,當我在法官與社群面前說,我願意與你結婚,不論未來是好是壞,我會承擔責任。因此這是很不同的觀念。這比較像服兵役,像是我願意付出些什麼,我承擔責任,而不是單單只說我有做某件事的權利,而是在許多方面限制我的權利,國家可以依此創造一個有秩序的社會。

54’28”
因此 我想我會回家好好思考,亞洲的價值觀。我認為在這個議題上,台灣是走在日本前面的,我希望台灣可以成為亞洲第一個,將同性婚姻合法化的國家。

54’46’’
至於公投的問題,我知道時間有限,我很簡短回答,我對於公投很有疑慮,我想說幾件事。當你說民調超過百分之五十時,至少在美國以及其他地方,像是歐洲,民調結果可能會與事實不符。我們已經見識過所謂的Bradley效應。

Bradley效應是指一位名叫Bradley的非裔美國議員,要競選公職,他的民調非常高,但投票結果是他落敗了。故Bradley效應是,當人們對某一候選人存有偏見,相當不願意該候選人當選時,他們對民調公司所表達的投票喜好,與他們實際的投票行為是有很大差異的,所以民調會變得很不值得相信。

在美國,民調常會較實際投票要高出七或八的百分點,所以假設在同性婚姻上,你有百分之五十三的多數支持,這是民調顯示的結果,那麼可能在實際的結果會是會以百分之四十五對五十五輸掉,特別是在雙方意見緊繃的情況下更有可能如此。我認為這是公投可能面臨的危險。

另一個我不喜歡公投原因,我不喜歡的原因是因為人們對於他們所投的票不必負責。他們走進投票所,隨意地投下他們想投的,沒有人能夠質疑他們,因此他們的投票可以,基於宗教信仰,就像我之前所說的,而非基於制訂民法的概念;他們可以基於他們的偏見去投票,而不必有合理的對話,這是不透明的,未經深思熟慮,不必互助合作或相互妥協。

因此在我看,公投不是個好方法。在美國,我們終於贏了某些公投,因此我這樣講或許是可信的。我這樣講並不是「我不喜歡公投,因為我會輸」。事實上,我們開始贏了。我不喜歡公投,是因為公投不會促進民主思辯過程,對我們以公民身分面對彼此、對彼此在公共場域充分說理,是不鼓勵的。

英文字幕校訂版

capture-20161122-204559

黃丞儀:
We should be able to have 3 rounds of Q&A
In each round I plan to have 3 to 5 questions
Please prepare your questions. First come first serve.
We’ll see whether there’s still time after 3 rounds
We plan to close at 9 PM
Albie just mentioned we can discuss the interface with religion in Q&A
which is a central issue
Are we ready for the first round?
Many of us today have read the books by Albie, and “Covering” by Prof. Yoshino
and are familiar with what they’ve already covered
You may want to direct your questions
to reflections on the discussions in Taiwan in the past several months

2’05”
Speaker 1:
Hello everyone
I’m a Christian
In the past months I found it more and more difficult to acknowledge that identity
under the current surroundings in Taiwan
On the interface between religion and sexual orientation
when the whole society holds general hostility toward a particular religious view
how do we balance the two
Or, from constitutional point of view
how do we balance free exercise of religion, and
free exercise of sexual orientation. Thank you.

3’16”
Speaker 2:
Respect, tolerance, and acknowledgment are possibilities of different degrees
As Justice Sachs mentioned, law cannot provide answer to everything
I’m wondering whether there are other policies
that can work with law
to ease the tension
such as social welfare, family policies
or modification of social structures
so that two sides in tension can be more fully respected
in light that it is not only what is provided in law
that is at issue
Although I am a Christian myself
I’m willing to see things objectively
to ensure respect for both sides

5’09”
Speaker 3
It’s not arranged, but I’m also a Christian! (laughter)
I believe a Christian will not be discriminated against in this audience
so I raise my question
My question is not related to religion however
It is to ask the two speakers
in the cases you’ve dealt with —
as we understand there are physical differences
in the way of union between heterosexuals and homosexuals
Is it appropriate to apply a set of law to the two groups?
Or the two groups should be considered differently in law?

06’05”
(Seeking clarifications)
The question is about the differences in the ways of union
such as in the couple’s sexual lives, or in terms of procreation

6’57’’
黃丞儀:
We will start from Albie, is that okay?
And Professor Yoshino you will be the next one, thank you.

 

capture-20161122-205223

7’10’’
Albie Sachs:
I’m very pleased these questions were asked
Because these are questions for the nation
They’re not just questions for the two speakers
And by referring the matter to Parliament

We ensured that the nation in South Africa discussed those issues
It wasn’t just a group of 11 judges flipping through something
It was 11 judges saying what the constitution required
And breaking out very sharply and firmly principles of equality and human dignity
That underline our whole constitutional project
And the transformation from a country of apartheid
To a country of non racialism and a country of non sexualism
We had to bring all that out

7’57’’
And it’s quite appropriate at a discussion like this
That we have those very very questions asked
Because they’re all in the judgment
And a big question that emerged is
There are millions of people in my country who are deeply religious
Who believe that somehow homosexuality
Is forbidden or wrong, inappropriate
And who certainly don’t want to see the law
Doing something that provides full equal recognition to homosexual relationships
That’s a fact That’s a reality in our country
There are millions of people who are Christians
Who have a brother a cousin a sister a daughter
Who is gay And they see that they are in love with somebody else
And they want their brother daughter sister to be happy
And to be able to express themselves
And to say that God loves everybody equally
And we as Christians believe that they ought to be able to do so through the law
Now it’s not for me sitting up there as a judge
To choose between those two, where does my personal affection lie?
It’s for me as a judge to say what does the constitution require?
And I think the big difference the way the big question was put
And the way our decision goes
It’s not a conflict between two world views
It’s to enable two world views to co-exist in the same country
In a mutually respectful way
And it’s not for the one to triumph, the other one must be defeated
So for gay rights to live, religious beliefs must die
For religious beliefs to live, gay rights must die
It’s not that kind of fight to the death
And the judgment actually says
And I quote from a colleague of mine in an earlier gay rights case

9’58’’
It’s not useful to say that people who don’t accept homosexual conduct
Are automatically bigots To use the term bigots
It’s just the way they see the world
And to divide the world between us who are enlightened
And they who are benighted
Is not useful And it’s not the role of the judges to divide
The world on cultural lines in that way
It’s to uphold the fundamental rights of everybody
What we can say very very clearly
And we have to say that
To compel people as Kenji has so memorably
So beautifully expressed To deny themselves as human beings
To be who they are is profoundly anti constitutional
It’s not just un-constitutional. It’s anti-constitutional
It’s anti the very idea of moral citizenship of the quality of all human beings in our society
The law cannot be right if the law force people
Into deception and lies Lies to themselves
To their families, to the world
That’s a profound repudiation of human dignity
That goes against the very notion of a Bill of Rights
That can’t be right

11’17”
At the same time to compel people
Who have beliefs in terms of existence
Their relationship to creation
How they see themselves connecting with others
They just don’t find a place for that
For homosexuals, same-sex relationships
To deny them the right to maintain their own beliefs
Within their own community is also wrong

11’39’’
To compel religious, prelates, and rabbis and imams,
And temple masters and others the right to say
We refuse to perform and celebrate same sex marriages
As marriages because they don’t fit within the tenants of our religion
That would also be wrong

12’00”
And what became very clear in the course of writing the judgment
Was the very same constitution that protects the rights
The fundamental rights of human beings
As human beings to express their love and intimacy and relationships
In a public manner on an equal basis
Whether they loved somebody of the opposite sex
Or the same sex

12’19”
That same constitution protects the rights of believers
To maintain the integrity of their beliefs in terms of their own faith
Within their own community
And what we require then is the co-existence of the sacred and the secular

12’34”
In one universe So it’s not as though the secular
Is driving the sacred into a corner
So that as it were, the sacred has to go into the closet
That’s not required. People can maintain their positions
As you’ve maintained your positions in the questions you’ve
put to us. And quite appropriately

12’55”
And it’s not just freedom of speech
That’s the world we want to live in
Rather that people speak their minds
Speak out what they will
Provided that they are not endangering harming and oppressing others
They can do that

13’05’’
But the law, the law which is the law of the state
In our view, is absolutely obliged in South Africa
To acknowledge and recognize
And reduce and demolish the invisibility of the love and intimacy
Of large numbers of our people

13’24”
And it came to the whole question of
Also recognizing diversity
Because we have so many different forms of interpersonal relationships in our country
Hindu marriages, Muslim marriages, traditional African marriages
We have single-headed families, we have all
That’s the nature of our society

13’46”
Our society isn’t simply one man, one woman, two and a quarter children
You aspire to get a nice car in the garage
That is imprisoning people
In a vision of family that also is anti-constitutional
And anti any kind of reality

14’02’’
The biological arguments were raised quite strongly
And mainly it comes down to the argument which was addressed
To us in a very dignified way
By Mr. Smyth representing Catholic Alliance
And saying that a procreation really is
Central to the very notion of marriage
And marriage is there to regulate procreation
And succession and so on
And yet he couldn’t answer the question of what about elderly people
Not going to procreate
What about people who choose not to have children
Why should marriage be restricted in that way

14’39’’
Then when it came to the implication of separate but equal
We just remembered separate but equal
In our country. We remember it in the United States
When black and whites couldn’t marry each other
And the judge there said in that case
And that was the 1960s in the United States
Which for you is as old a Napoléon Bonaparte
But for me I was growing up
I was growing up in the 1960s already
He said if god had intended black and white
To marry each other
He wouldn’t have placed them in separate continents
And made them different in appearance
And that was a biological argument given
Against what was called inter-racial marriage
Which was illegal
Until the Supreme Court struck that down

15’24’’
So really what is at stake here
Is the value you give to human beings
As human beings
And in a sense, uh…it’s not even just
About human rights in abstract
It’s about love
It’s about an intimacy
It’s about features that are so personal
So special to human beings
That for the law to allow some people to express themselves
It’s not just like freedom of expressions
Expressing your views
It’s expressing yourself AS yourself
In relation to somebody else
This raises to my mind and the mind of our court unanimously
A very profound question of fundamental public morality
As understood by our constitution

16’17’’
The issues raised about policy issues like this
Should they be left to the law
Well parliament passes laws
It is the law

16’27’’
So who articulates the law?
Is it the judges, or is it the legislature
And we felt, the majority of us
My colleague Kate O’Regan said tomorrow
Write in the word spouse
And she had a very powerful argument
Why should same sex couples have to wait a year?
Why should their future capacity to marry publicly
Be in the balance and have the anxiety
For that whole period And who knows
What Parliament will do and how people will mobilize
But we felt to bring the nation behind the project
To get that public involvement
To get that final imprimatur which gives full equality
And not as it seems to be
Might have seemed to be a court imposed equality
That the legislature should be involved
But it should be involved in a way
Where the instructions are being given as natural principle by the court
They weren’t allowed to decide whether but they could decide how it should best be done
And I think that that debate was enormously healing for our country

17’34’’
And the final result has been to integrate
Same sex love and relationships into the public life of our nation
In a way that wouldn’t have come about
If it had come simply from the court itself
And I suspect that the United States Supreme Court
If pushed, there might be a majority who would say
Same sex marriage now as a question of fundamental equality
Whether it’s on liberty grounds or whether it’s on equality grounds
Maybe more easily on liberty grounds than equality grounds
But there would also be a strategic sense
That let the legislature become involved
Let it be step by step
Let the Supreme Court pronounce at a stage when
Maybe the majority of states have already moved in that direction
And that would create a greatest ability for the relationships in the unions
The early pioneers happened to be my friend
Margaret Marshall who was the chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
She took that bold first step of equal protection in Massachusetts
A time when there was an election
She was accused of costing Kerry the Presidential election and so on
But somebody had to take that bold first step
And having taken that first step
It’s been followed up followed up followed up
And I find it actually amazing and spectacular
To see how American opinion has changed

19’25’’
And quite wonderful
For me it’s one of the big moments of my life
Looking back When people say the world is not getting any better
I say in some respects
It’s clearly getting better
I feel very proud as a judge
That we have been able to make a contribution to it
But that we’re not going to have to do it single-handedly
Maybe that’s not the best word for me to use in my circumstances

 

capture-20161122-205436

19’33’’
Kenji Yoshino:
So I too want to thank you for those questions
Which I think are very courageous and heartfelt
And I think it’s only by having these civil debates that we advance the conversation
I’m going to enter a caveat at the beginning of my remarks
Which is to say that a lot of my responses to these questions
Are going to be United States-centric
And that is not because I feel arrogant
About the United States
It is because I feel humble about the limitations of my own knowledge
So I am reasoning from what I know
So with regard to the first question about the extent to which
Religion is going to be marginalized
If same sex marriage is legalized
I think that I take a slightly different view from Albie in this regard
In that, I do think that there is this sense that

20’45’’
There is a zero sum game with regard to whether or not
Secular vision of marriage or a
More traditionally Christian view of marriage
Is going to capture the definition of civil marriage in the United States
For me the most illuminating remark on this subject
Was actually given in trial, a 12 day trial
That was held in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case
Which was held in Jan. of 2010
This trial was the best and the most robust conversation
I think we have ever had in the United States on same sex marriage

21’30”
I am a great fan now of the great evidence scholar John Wigmore
Who said that: “The human beings have never discovered
A greater device for ascertaining the truth
Than cross examination under oath.”
It’s not perfect But it’s the least imperfect way
That our legal system has devised for getting out the truth
And Nancy Cott the Harvard historian said
That after studying marriage for basically the last decade
The one thing that she could say with confidence
Was that in the history of the United States
The secular law had remained supreme
In defining what marriage was

22’13’’
And so regardless of whether or not religious denominations
Would solemnize or recognize particular marriages within their own
Faith traditions, that was a very different matter
That was a very different matter from what the civil law would define marriage
To be for everybody
Regardless of whether they belonged to the Christian faith
Another faith, or no faith at all

22’38”
And so I think this division between civil marriage
And religious marriage
Is something that has been under-examined in our discourse
And I would really urge you to think about
That distinction in your own debates
Because in America I can tell you that
If you poll and say
Do you think civil marriage should be open to same sex couples
The numbers will be much higher than if you simply say
Do you think marriage should be open to same sex couples
Because people understand with the adjective “civil”
That something about the broad public sphere is in plays
Of course, now this is where I am pushing slightly against Albie’s

23’22’’
Of course, some religionists are going to feel marginalized
Because previously they had been able to capture that definition
And there’s been no divergence between the civil definition of marriage
And the traditional Christian definition of marriage
But what Nancy Cott’s testimony illuminates is that
In our nation’s history
The secular law has always been supreme in defining marriage
And of course we couldn’t see it any other way
Unless we defined ourselves as a Christian nation
If we believe in the separation of church and state
We couldn’t allow any sect
Whether that be Christian, Hindu or Muslim or Mormon Fundamentalists
With polygamy to define what civil marriage was for the entire polity
So I find that testimony very useful
I would refer you to her
And to that testimony and also to her fine book
“Public Vows: A History of Marriage in America”

24’21’’
With respect to the 2nd question about the limits of the law
I think that one thing that we as lawyers are very acutely aware of
Is the limits of the law
The great speech that my law school dean gave
When I came to the law school
Was 99% of the problems you encounter in life as lawyers
Will not be resolvable by law
So part of your education to become good lawyers
Is to understand the limitations of the law
So I’m very deeply sympathetic to it
Albie eloquently described the intra kind of legal debates that we have
About whether it should be the courts
Or whether it should be the legislatures
I’m not going to add to his fine remarks there
What I wanna say is that I took the question to be
There is law, and then there is the entire extra-legal world
Of social norms, of morality, of religion, of the media, of culture
That the law interacts with
But the law is very limited in its capacity to change
And given that we understand that to be the case
How should law uphold itself
What posture should the law take
In relation to those other discourses

25’48”
I actually think that again
Forgive me for reasoning from my own tradition
Cause it’s the only one I really know
I’m not a comparativist unfortunately

26’00’’
I think Ruth Bader Ginsburg got it exactly right
Prior to this last round of same sex marriage cases
She went around the country talking about
RowRoe v. Wade and the backlash that

RowRoe v. Wade had created This is the abortion decision

In the 1973 that changed the law in over 40 states
In the U.S.
And ignited a controversy that is still
Created a backlash that is still present today
Her argument is that if we had proceeded more incrementally
That the abortion right would have been on firmer footing
Now there is a big debate about this
This is by no means settled

26’42”
But when I heard her going around the country
Saying this over and over again
I predicted what her vote would be in the same sex marriage cases
Because I felt like she was not talking about abortion
She was talking about same-sex marriage

26’56”
And what she was saying was
Let’s proceed carefully
And just exactly what Albie said
Let’s wait until a critical mass of states
Has created or legalized same-sex marriage
And if they do that, it’ll wash out the outliers
Because that is within the legal province of the court to do
Rather than getting 10 steps ahead of the country
And stimulating a backlash that doesn’t end the conversation

27’23’’
So what happened in this case last term
In Hollingsworth v. Perry is the court refused to answer the question
Of whether or not same sex marriage is guaranteed in all 50 states
It resolved the issue only for one state, California
Which admittedly is a large state
With 11% of the population
But it stayed it’s hand in regard to the other states
And left the issue for another day
And I think that was a very wise course for the court to pursue

27’55”
I think one thing I can’t resist mentioning is that sometimes the law
Will feed an idea to the culture
So this really is a dialogue
So that it’s not as if they’re not in conversation with each other
So my favorite example of this is
And again in the United States jurisprudence is the Miranda Warning
Which gets articulated by the Warren court
And then in the year 2000, the Miranda Warning comes back
Because Congress wants to get rid of it

28’29’’
And in a 7-2 opinion written by then Chief Justice Rehnquist
Who was a conservative and no friend of the Miranda Warning
Rehnquist says We can’t get rid of the Miranda Warning now
Even if Congress wants to
Because this has become so much of a part of our national culture
Now this is very interesting Because it’s not Congress
As a co-equal or Parliament as a co-equal constitutional interpreter
In fact, Congress wants exactly the opposite
To get rid of the Miranda Warning

29’00”
What he is really saying is that Hollywood
Is a co-equal constitutional interpreter
Because there have simply been too many cop shows
You know, with the Miranda Warning embedded into them
That even if the Supreme Court got rid of the right
The American people would still think they had the right

29’15’’
So I want to suggest that
It’s very easy to dichotomize law and culture
But often times law can seed the culture with an idea
That then the culture serves back to the law
In a way that the law can no longer refuse
So it’s always this bricolage
There’s always this dialogue
Rather than a uni directional influence one way or another

29’40’’
And then with respect to the biological differences
I want to focus on this question head on
I think that the most attractive way to deal with this question
Is the way that Albie dealt with it
Which is to say
Is it relevant to bring in issues about real biological differences
Between men and women
And child-bearing capacity
Which obviously it’s the case that two men two women cannot bear a child together
Out of that union

30’15”
The most attractive way to answer that
And in a way that’s often been answered is to say
Well marriage is severable from procreation
So many people who are past child-bearing years get married
Many people without the intent to have children get married
And nobody puts a block on their marriages
So why would we exclude homosexual couples or same-sex couples from getting married
I think that’s the most attractive answer
But I think there needs to be an addendum
Because even if you say that there’s a kind of response
On the part of many Christian and other individuals

30’57”
Even if men and women do not choose to have children
Even if they cannot have children
They are role models to the younger generation
They are at least biologically ordered to create a child
Whereas no same-sex couple can ever create a child
So this concern is in the back of people’s minds

31’17’’
And the argument that Albie made
While completely air-tight
Often doesn’t meet that reaction in the heart
Or the back of the mind that people have
So I think it’s important to address that issue
And the way that I address the issue is to say that

31’34”
Well, let’s analyze this carefully
And let’s look at what the real differences are
So there are really two differences between same sex couples
And opposite sex couples with regards to child bearing and child rearing
One is that both parents in a same sex couple
My husband and I
Cannot be related to our children
So there’s a biological tie or genetic tie argument

32’02”
And there are arguments about kinship altruism
About how we are kinder to people we are related to
And so therefore we will be better parents to individuals
To whom we have a genetic tie
So that’s the first argument

32’17”
The second argument is that there’s gender differentiated parenting
So if two people are of the same sex
Then they can’t be role models of each sex for the child
So if there are two men
My husband and I cannot provide a female role model for our daughter
Or for our son
And so therefore we will not be as good parents
Because the child will not have familiar role models to think about
As they formulate their gender identity

32’52’’
So let me take up each of those arguments in turn
Actually, again this trial that I was referencing the 12-day Perry v. Schwarzenegger
Was brilliant in this regard
Because it really put the child experts on the stand
And there was a battle of the experts with regard
How children of same sex couples fare

33’11”
The key moment in the trial with respect to the first point was the defenses witness
Who opposed same sex marriage
And who argued for kin altruism
Was asked
Well, actually according to the studies don’t children who are adopted
Do better than children who on average are genetically related to their parents
And David Blankenhorn, a witness said
No that’s not true
And David Boies the lawyer who was cross-examining him was very puzzled
And said well I have this study that says something different
And David Blankenhorn says no

33’49”
What I mean is, on some measures adopted parents do better than genetic parents
Because they don’t procreate by accident
And they have such a will to be parents
They desperately want to be parents
So they have no ambivalence about parenting

34’04”
And so David Boies said: No further questions to that
So I just want to underscore that when a child is not being
Raised by his/her genetic parents
That doesn’t mean that it’s being handed over to a random set of strangers

34’21”
Or a random same-sex couple
Or a random opposite sex couple
It’s being handed over to a very carefully screened couple
That desperately want to be parents
And that has to count for something in the childhood calculus
And in fact, the studies bear that out
So that’s the first point

34’36’’
With effect to the second point in gender differentiated parenting
And the idea that boys need fathers and girls need mothers
Or boys need both fathers and mothers
And vice versa in order to grow into a healthy
Either sex based or gender based or sexual identity
I want to just pause and think about
How at least, again in the US jurisprudence
We’ve categorically rejected that
Grossly overbroad stereotyping in every domain
Except for the family

35’14”
So that if you look at constitutional law in the US
We have a 1982 case where an all female nursing school said
Men cannot be admitted because only women
Are kind enough and gentle enough and nurturing enough
To be nurses And the Supreme Court per Justice O’Connor
Struck it down and said
This is archaic and overbroad stereotyping about men
In 1996, the reverse happened
Where a women was barred from entering
A military academy on the ground that only men
Were tough enough to be citizen soldiers
And aggressive and analytical enough to survive the adversive training of the US Virginia Military Institute
Ruth Bader Ginsberg struck that down saying this is archaic
And broad stereotyping about women
Saying that you cannot postulate that an entire group
Half the human species has all of these attributes
And the other half of the human species doesn’t
So what’s so peculiar to me is that

36’13”
Once we look in the public sphere we reject these assumptions
About gender out of hand
But when we move into the realm of the family and the private
We reinstate those gender based stereotypes
That we have rejected categorically in the public sphere

36’32”
So I think that there are
When we think about, oh…there are good arguments for biological
Child rearing And there are good arguments for gender differentiated parenting
That would make opposite sex marriage couples different
We really have to break down the arguments
And to think about them analytically and rigorously
Based on the jurisprudence that we have at least in the US
Maybe you don’t have it in Taiwan so I will defer to the Taiwanese lawyers here on that

37’00’’
The final point I want to make
All three of these questions were asked by
Individuals who have self-identified as Christians
And of course I deeply respect your faith
And your belief
I guess I would say two things
One is that increasingly
In my country at least
The majority of Christians who are your age
You know the average age that I see in this audience
Are for same sex marriages
And see no conflict in between same sex marriage
And their religious beliefs
And I think one of the reasons that they see no conflict is
Not only because Jesus doesn’t speak against homosexuality
The belief that love is love
And that Jesus would have believed in love
I’m not a theologian so I won’t try and tread into those waters
I just want to argue that there is a wide spread of belief
Even internal to the Christian faith
And so I think that it’s a mistake to say
All Christian’s believe one thing
When there’s actually a spread of views even on this issue
Within the Christian faith
And then finally
I think one of the reasons that there is such spread
Is because the Christian faith
As I understand it has many tenets that are not enforced today
Right? So being unclean because you’re a menstruating women
Wearing certain kinds of cloth against each other
There are a broad set of prescriptions within the Bible

38’28”
Among which Christians who are against same sex marriage
Often pick and choose and say we’re going to enforce
The prohibition on homosexuality
But not all of these other prohibitions

38’39”
If we had a criminal code
And we said
There are all these criminal prohibitions
But we’re only going to enforce this one
I think that would give rise to a sense of animus
That I think to me is inconsistent with the notion of Christian love

39’04’’
OK, second round
Wait a moment …

39’24’’
Hello, everyone
I’m a lesbian, and a “former” Christian
I view my departure from the church my journey out of Egypt
I thank both speakers for your talks
My question is about what Justice Sachs mentioned
that different world views are the sources of tensions
This was what happened in Taiwan, from September to now, December
between the Christians and the LGBT communities
Amidst such tensions, should we protect the freedom of expression
even though the expressions are full of stereotypes and discrimination
Or should we legislate to limit the hate speech
even though such law cannot contain their hate
nor can the laws facilitate growth in empathy or tolerance
or dialogue between those in differences
So my question is about how we balance
between the freedom of speech and curtailment of hate speech

 

capture-20161122-210433

40’41’’
Question:
I have a follow-up question
About the implementality Professor Yoshino just mentioned
There is always a question A key question and decision
About whether or not taking the case to court
The same sex marriage case to court
And I know from the South Africa they take it to court
And in the US they take it to court
But there is always fear that
It is too progressive to take it
And that we cannot predict the outcome
The justice may make from this case
And they have to face the risk of failing
And if it is failed…then maybe there won’t be another chance
For taking the case again
Or in the Parliament or Congress
I know from Justice Sachs said that
It is very important for the political entrenchment
During the process for debate in the Parliament
But what if there is no case
There is no same sex marriage case taken to court
Will it be passed in the Parliament that gives the same
Protection that you vow that human beings should have in the court in the case
I like to hear your analysis on this issue

 

42’43’’
Question 2:
My name is 陸詩薇
I am a public interest lawyer who belongs to
One of the leading NGO
Now during the advocacy in our Legislative Yuan promoting marriage equality
As well as civil partnerships as well as multi person families
I have two questions
The first is that many people in Taiwan including
Our President Ma Ying Jou say that
Well, Taiwan is not ready for marriage equality
Don’t tell us about the US
Don’t tell us about the case of Europe
Don’t tell us about South Africa
We will take a look at Japan or Korea or Philippines
We have our own Asian values
So we aren’t ready
We aren’t ready for marriage equality
Why not do it step by step
Let us do it step by step
Let us do the for example civil partnership or civil union first
And let us wait and see whether our society can reach a consensus
That we are ready for marriage equality
And what is your response to this
Especially the part of Asia Value
And the second is that
Well, some people, some opponents actually
Say that let’s put it into referendum
Well of course we are saying that
Well fundamental human rights cannot be put into referendum
But according to a recent poll
Over 50% of people are for gay marriage
What is your view on this whether or not marriage equality issues
Should be put into referendum

 

44’46’’
黃丞儀:
Before that owing to the time limit, I will time you.
Although the talk you just gave are really inspiring but for the sake of time
Each of you will have 10 minutes to respond to these questions

 

capture-20161122-205640

45’14’’
Kenji Yoshino:
So I may need some reminders about what the questions were
But the first question I heard was
The question about how to balance the free exercise rights of religion
Against free speech Or really other values because we can think of
Equality or liberty or dignity as also being gay rights values
Being pitted against free exercise values
And I think I understood you to say that
Many individuals of faith that you have encountered
Have been very intransigent or hard edged
Or intractable in responding to your arguments
And their arguments are really made from revealed truths
Or from faith, their rendition of the argument
Rather than an engagement in dialogue and reason
And I think that this is one of the great
Difficulties that we have in talking to each other
Because I think we often talk past each other
I think that one of the reasons that law has such
A difficult time in engaging with religion

46’30”
Is that, to use a speech act theorist J. Austin’s terms
Law is classically performative
Whereas religion is constative
By which I mean, law says it is so ordered
And then there is an order
So it thinks about words as creating legal constructs
Whereas constative languages there is a table
Where the table precedes the words
So I think oftentimes where we miss each other
When we talk to people of faith
Is that for people of faith
Marriage just is a marriage between a man and a woman
It was ordained by God to be that way
And that pre exists language
So language can describe or mis-describe it
But the reality is a reality

47’19”
So when law says same sex marriage is a marriage
Oftentimes a response from people of faith who belong to the tradition
That I just described is
That’s not a real marriage
So in the US you often hear same sex marriage put in quotation marks

47’38”
And then you also see words like homosexual put in quotation marks
Because you know homosexuality is supposed to be changeable
And marriage is supposed to be unchangeable
Whereas gay rights activists think the opposite
We think homosexuality is unchangeable
And that marriage is changeable, right?

47’56”
And so, I don’t actually
I mean that to be humorous in part
But I also mean that to be quite serious
To mean that I can’t really do better for you
Then simply to diagnose that that’s what is going on
That we’re talking past each other
Because one side regards marriage as

48’14”
Like this is the table
This is the reality that pre-exists language
And that there is nothing that human beings can do to change it
And if they change it
They’re only purporting to change it
And they’re actually mis describing it

48’28”
Whereas gay rights activists like myself
Operate from a very different world view

48’34”
Which says that a marriage is whatever the government says a marriage is
So that if Albie Sachs says it is so ordered that it is a marriage
And he gets a majority of his court to agree with him
Then that is a marriage
So, that’s not a solution
It’s a diagnosis
But I hope that gets you a little bit further into understanding where we’re missing each other in the debate

48’57”
Now I lost the second question
What was the 2nd question

49’02’’
Oh, when to take the case to court
I’ll try to be brief here understanding the time limit
One of the things that, I think, again
The US context is a context I know best
One of the things that is really important about the US context
Is that I think that we understand
The US context as immediately having granted same sex marriage
In 2003 But as a matter of fact there was a long
History before that with regard to litigation
So the gay rights community had been burned in 1986
With a case called Bowers v. Hardwick in which we lost a case
That challenged same sex sodomy statutes that
Had really harsh criminal penalties of up to 20 years
For one act of a same sex sexual activity
And we lost that in 1986
And it was 17 years before we got rid of it
I think the question was actually asked in the back
And so it was against that background that gay rights activists
Were very very skittish about bringing these cases

50’13”
So therefore 1993, when Hawaii looked like it was very receptive
To a same sex marriage suit
Lambda Legal which is one of our major public interest organizations
Was precluded from even entering that case
And so what happened in the wake of that was a very very careful strategy
This is really brilliant and I’m actually writing about this strategy now
Of looking at states that had very difficult to amend constitutions
And so not only thinking about whether you could win a victory in court
But whether you could hang on to that victory against the state referendum
And also litigating only on state grounds
So that it could not reach the US Supreme Court
Because in our Federal system if you bring
A case on state law grounds only
Then the states Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of
That case and it can never reach the US Supreme Court
So the idea was to litigate case by case
Get a critical mass

51’14”
And then use what we call the nuclear option
Of bringing the Federal law suit
That would result in the Supreme Court case

51’22”
We were actually years away from bringing that
Using that nuclear option
It was because David Boise and Ted Olson
Two kind of rogue plaintiffs or lawyers came in
And decided that it was time to bring the Federal case
In the wake of the California Prop 8 Referendum
That this case went to the Supreme Court
And the outcome was a happy one in my book
But it was a very very risky solution
So all of these cases in the US tradition
I’ve studied this very deeply
In the Brown v. Board, they didn’t go immediately
From Plessy v. Ferguson to Brown v. Board
They didn’t challenge separate but equal
But kept challenging the circumference within which
Separate but equal would be required
So first of all they said
It’s not separate but equal
To ship somebody out of state to go to an all black school
And the court said you’re right

52’16”
That’s not constitutional
Or that’s not statutorily that doesn’t meet the requirements of the Statute
And then they shrunk it and shrunk it
And brought it incrementally
And only finally after Thurgood Marshall and Charles Hamilton Houstan
Had litigated about a half dozen of these cases
Did they strike decades later at separate but equal
In both cases we see an incremental strategy that succeeded

52’39”
So we didn’t immediately run onto the court house steps
And the danger of running to the court house steps is the danger of Bowers
Where you get a negative precedent
And you can’t get rid of it for 17 years
And that was fast for the Supreme Court
We didn’t get rid of Plessy v. Ferguson for 58 years
So that’s an extraordinary amount of time to wait

53’01’’
To your question
One question was the Asian values question
The other was the referendum question
So just very quickly
On the Asian values question
I actually think of the same sex marriage
And I realize that I’m contrarian in this
As a deeply Asian value
I view marriage to be very different from other rights
Because it’s what my colleague Jeremy Waldron the legal philosopher
Calls a responsibility right
It’s not just I have a right to do this
It is also I have responsibilities to this other person

53’37”
And I will protect this other person
I will be a bulwark between this other person’s dependency and the state
So God forbid if my husband became physically disabled
The state wouldn’t have to take care of him
I would have to take care of him
So I bear that responsibility
When I stand up before a judge and our community and say
I’m married to you
For better or for worse
So that’s very different
It’s more like military service
It’s more like I am willing to give something
I assume responsibilities
It’s not just I have the freedom to do something
It’s that I constrain my freedom in various ways
That the state can use as a way of creating an orderly society

54’28”
So I guess my take home point there is
I do think of this as an Asian value
I think that Japan is behind Taiwan
I would love Taiwan to be the first Asian country to
Lead on this issue and to legalize same sex marriage

54’46’’
On the referendum issue
Just very briefly given that I see that my time is out
I am very leery of referendum
So let me say a couple of things about that
When you say that over 50% in polling
At least in the US context and in some other contexts
Scattershot in Europe now
So this may not translate
We’ve seen what we call the Bradley effect
And the Bradley effect is there is an
African American congress person named Bradley
Who was running for office
And he was sky high on the polls
But then when the actual election came
He lost
And so the Bradley effect is that
People are very unwilling to seem bigoted to pollsters
And so what they say to the pollster and what they do in the ballot booth
Is very different
So be very distrustful of polls
They usually run 7 or 8 points above what people do in the ballot booth in the US
And so simply because you have a 53% majority winning on same sex marriage
In a poll
Means that you’re probably going to lose a 45% to 55% when
Push actually comes to shove
I think that the danger of the referendum
And the reason I don’t like referenda across the board
And the reason I don’t like them is because

56’00”
People are not accountable for their votes
They go into the ballot booth
And they vote whatever they want
And nobody can question them on that
So they can vote on
The basis of religion
Which I feel as I’ve said earlier
Is not the basis of formulating civil law
They can vote based on prejudice
They don’t have to engage in reasoned dialogue
There is no transparency
There is no deliberation
There is no log rolling or compromise

And so referenda are bad in my view
In the United States we finally began to, once, win some referenda
So I think I can say this with credibility
It’s not that “I don’t like them because we lose them”
We actually are starting to win them
I don’t like them because they are bad for the democratic deliberative process
I think they are bad in the way we face each other as citizens
and give reasons to each other in the public sphere

  • 責任翻譯:宋承恩
  • 前階段協助: 陳盈廷 李柏翰 彭承偉
  • 英文逐字稿: David Chen

 

  • 對談內容不代表公共電視立場。
您可以 留言回應, 或 追蹤

留言