婚姻平權及親密公民權的爭戰：一個眾多霸權論述共構的場域

The struggle for marriage equality and intimate citizenship: A field occupied by multiple hegemonic discourses

本文在同志運動的脈絡中，反思近幾年婚姻平權運動的發展對於親密公民權的內涵產生了什麼影響。2017年5月24日，大法官針對「同性二人婚姻自由」案作出第748號解釋，認定現行民法違憲！乍看下，婚姻平權運動達成任務，三十幾年同志運動彷彿開花結果??從同性性傾向去病化、同性性認同正常化、同性戀者歧視非法化，到同性伴侶親密公民權被憲法正式承認。本文從釋憲案回顧過去，並提問：是什麼造就了婚姻平權的有所可能或不能？大法官釋字內容又如何潛在地強化異性戀中心主義？平權之路看似光明，宗教保守勢力反撲力道愈加強大。2018年11月24日愛家（反同）公投結果讓人詫異，掀起一波反思民主、檢討社運的浪潮，而我們又能如何理解這場公民對決呢？本文在回應這些問題時所呈現的多元樣貌，正好突顯了親密公民權的爭戰，是一個法律、醫學、政治、文化等眾多霸權論述所共構之場域。在各路人馬爭搶婚家定義權的同時，不斷反省婚權的侷限並延續同運的初衷，則是本文最主要的關懷。 On 24 May 2017, the ROC Constitutional Court issued J.Y. Interpretation No. 748, declaring part of Taiwan’s Civil Code, which prohibits same-sex marriage, unconstitutional. Suddenly, it seems that the marriage equality campaign has won and the decades-long tongzhi social movement is close to a conclusion: from demedicalisation, normalisation, anti-discrimination, to constitutional recognition of homosexual intimate citizenship. Starting with the Same-Sex Marriage case in question, this article considers what has made the equalisation of same-sex partnership possible and/or impossible in Taiwan, by critically analysing the context and content of the Court’s decision, which potentially reinforced heterosexism. Thus, I propose to understand the process and outcome of the Pro- Family Referendums from an antagonistic perspective, arguing that, in this light, any attempt to ‘essentialise’ marriage/family and Taiwaneseness would harm Taiwan’s democracy. By representing a pluralistic picture of ‘marriage equality’, this article also demonstrates that the struggle for intimate citizenship is located in a field in which multiple hegemonic discourses (e.g. legal, medical, political, cultural) coexist and compete with each other for authority. In this respect, our agency and reflexivity, as right advocates as well as tongzhi members, is an ethical question in that struggle.