伸張人權或司法政變－Obergefell v. Hodges案的論辯

10.6509/TLM.2017.6805.01

賴英照

同性婚姻 ； 原意主義 ； 成長憲法 ； 正當法律程序 ； 解釋方法與價值判斷

法令月刊

68卷5期（2017 / 05 / 01）

1 - 22

繁體中文

同性伴侶依憲法有沒有結婚的權利？這個問題美國聯邦最高法院在2015年的Obergefell v. Hodges案有激烈的論辯。判決採取肯定的見解，但引發不同意見的強烈反駁。 判決認為，依聯邦憲法增修條文第14條正當法律程序的規定，及相關判決先例的意旨，同性伴侶有結婚的權利。禁止同性結婚的州法，理由欠缺正當性，同時也違反法律平等保護的意旨。判決是以成長憲法的理念，並對判決先例做創新的解讀，創設同性結婚的權利。判決同時認為，同性能否結婚，是人民基本權的問題，不應依投票決定。釐清憲法疑義，法院責無旁貸。不同意見認為，憲法對結婚的問題沒有規定。限制一男一女結婚的州法符合制憲原意，毫無違憲可言。法院依正當法律程序創設同性結婚的新權利，沒有憲法依據，缺乏先例支持，篡奪人民自主決定的權利。不同意見運用原意主義的方法，固守判決先例的意旨，並表現司法自制的原則。在這種高度爭議的案件，憲法的文本沒有答案，判決先例各自解讀。釋憲者的價值觀，成為判決的關鍵。

1. Cobb, Michael (2015), The Supreme Court's Lonely Hearts Club, The New York Times, https://nyti.ms/2mb9hW4 (last visited: 2017/4/8).
2. US Supreme Court (2015), Oral Arguments - - Oberge fell v. Hodges , http://interglacial.com/obergefell/transcript.html (last visited: 2017/4/8).
3. Thayer, James Bradley (1893), The origin and scope of the American doctrine of constitutional law, Harvard Law Review 7(3), pp. 129-156.
4. Duke Law News ( 2015) , Justice Ginsburg Addresses Alumni and Summer Institute in Wide-Ranging Conversation with Siegel, https://law.duke.edu/news/justice-ginsburgaddresses-alumni-and-summer-institute-wide-ranging-conversationsiegel/(last visited: 2017/4/8).
5. Barnett, Randy E.(2013).The gravitational force of originalism.Fordham Law Review,82(2),411-432.
6. Beye, Amberly N.(2016).The more, the marry-er? The future of polygamous marriage in the wake of Obergefell v. Hodges.Seton Hall Law Review,47(1),197-224.
7. Breyer, Stephen(2010).Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge's View.New York:Alfred A. Knopf.
8. Colby, Thomas B.(2013).Originalism and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.Northwestern University Law Review,107(4),1627-1688.
9. Cole, David(1986).Agon at Agora: Creative misreadings in the First Amendment tradition.The Yale Law Journal,95(5),857-905.
10. Cox, Barbara J.(2015).From one town's "alternative families" ordinance to marriage equality nationwide.California Western Law Review,52(1),65-78.
11. Cross, Frank B.(2009).Theory and Practice of Statutory Interpretation.Stanford:Stanford University Press.
12. Eskridge, William N., Jr.(2015).The marriage equality cases and constitutional theory.Cato Supreme Court Review,2014-2015,111-138.
13. Feldman, Stephen M.(2015).(Same) sex, lies, and democracy: Tradition, religion, and substantive due process (with an emphasis on Obergefell v. Hodges).William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal,24(2),341-368.
14. Fleming, James E.(2015).Fidelity to Our Imperfect Constitution: For Moral Readings and Against Originalisms.New York:Oxford University Press.
15. Gerken, Heather K.(2015).Windsor's mad genius: The interlocking gears of rights and structure.Boston University Law Review,95(2),587-613.
16. Goldberg, Suzanne B.(2015).Obergefell at the intersection of civil rights and social movements.California Law Review Circuit,6,157-165.
17. Gutmann, Amy(Ed.)(1997).A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law.Princeton:Princeton University Press.
18. Hermann, Donald H. J.(2016).Extending the fundamental right of marriage to same-sex couples: The United States Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.Indiana Law Review,49(2),367-396.
19. Huntington, Clare(2015).Obergefell's conservatism: Reifying familial fronts.Fordham Law Review,84(1),23-31.
20. Landau, Joseph(2015).Roberts, Kennedy, and the subtle differences that matter in Obergefell.Fordham Law Review,84(1),33-40.
21. McClain, Linda C.(2016).Reading DeBoer and Obergefell through the "moral readings versus originalism" debate: From constitutional "empty cupboards" to evolving understandings.Constitutional Commentary,31(3),441-477.
22. Murray, Melissa(2016).Obergefell v. Hodges and nonmarriage inequality.California Law Review,104(5),1207-1259.
23. Nicolas, Peter(2015).Obergefell's squandered potential.California Law Review Circuit,6,137-144.
24. Posner, Richard A.(2015).Eighteen years on: A re-review (reviewing William N. Eskridge, Jr., the case for samesex marriage: From sexual liberty to civilized commitment (1996)).The Yale Law Journal,125(2),533-542.
25. Powell, Catherine(2015).Up from marriage: Freedom, solitude, and individual autonomy in the shadow of marriage equality.Fordham Law Review,84(1),69-78.
26. Schacter, Jane S.(2016).Obergefell's audiences.Ohio State Law Journal,77(5),1011-1037.
27. Seidman, Louis Michael(2015).The triumph of gay marriage and the failure of constitutional law.The Supreme Court Review,2015,115-146.
28. Smith, Peter J.(2004).Sources of federalism: An empirical analysis of the court's quest for original meaning.University of California Los Angeles Law Review,52(1),217-288.
29. Sobel, Stacey L.(2015).When Windsor isn't enough: Why the court must clarify equal protection analysis for sexual orientation classifications.Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy,24(3),493-531.
30. Stevens, John Paul(2016).Two thoughts about Obergefell v. Hodges.Ohio State Law Journal,77(5),913-917.
31. Strauss, David A.(2010).The Living Constitution.New York:Oxford University Press.
32. Tribe, Laurence H.(2015).Equal dignity: Speaking its name.Harvard Law Review,129(1),16-32.
33. Tribe, Laurence H.(2004).Lawrence v. Texas: The "fundamental right" that dare not speak its name.Harvard Law Review,117(6),1893-1955.
34. Vermeule, Adrian(2006).Judging Under Uncertainty: An Institutional Theory of Legal Interpretation.Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
35. Widiss, Deborah A.(2014).Leveling up after DOMA.Indiana Law Journal,89(1),43-65.
36. Yoshino, Kenji(2011).The new equal protection.Harvard Law Review,124(3),747-803.
37. Yoshino, Kenji(2015).A new birth of freedom?: Obergefell v. Hodges.Harvard Law Review,129(1),147-179.

1. 蘇彥圖(2022)。基礎權利的憲法與政治：當代美國實體正當程序的司法理論爭議及其啟示。臺大法學論叢，51(4)，1385-1452。
2. 吳重禮,王羽綺(2023)。美國墮胎權的憲政爭議：Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization判決與影響評析。東吳政治學報，41(1)，1-37。
3. (2019)。同性婚姻與宗教自由保障的衝突及調和── Obergefell v. Hodges和Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission之啟示。憲政時代，44(4)，397-456。