隔離但平等？──從「收養同性伴侶養子女」一案檢討德國聯邦憲法法院對同性伴侶法制之立論

Separate but Equal? The Institution of Civil Partnership Reexamined in Context of the Reasoning of Federal Constitutional Court of Germany

從二○○二年宣告同性伴侶法合憲以來，德國聯邦憲法法院究竟是如何看待、又如何協助落實同性伴侶法的憲法保障？其根本立場到了二○一三年，有無改變或進化？為了釐清這個問題，並藉此檢討聯邦憲法法院的論證，本文將在簡述同性伴侶法制在德國、特別是德國憲法上的爭議背景之後，以二○一三年二月十九日，聯邦憲法法院針對「收養同性伴侶養子女」一案所作出的判決為討論對象，嘗試從中觀察並分析聯邦憲法法院在本案中與同性伴侶權益相關的主要論點，進而從德國基本法的角度，就聯邦憲法法院對於基本法相關規範的理解與詮釋方式，以及在證立同性伴侶收養權過程中的論述策略，提出質疑與批判。透過這些分析，本文將指出：儘管聯邦憲法法院在本案中作出對同性伴侶友善的結論，但是這樣的結論卻不是站在平等看待同性伴侶地位的基礎之上，而反倒是來自於認可「同性伴侶」和「異性婚姻」彼此之間的永久隔離。

While the recent decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany in 2013 are widely celebrated in the sense that they repeat-edly declared debated unequal treatments against civil partnerships as unconstitutional, whether they truly support the idea of equal protec-tion for homosexual partners deserves a closer observation. Through a critical analysis of the reasoning of the Court not only in the decision made on 9th February 2013, but also in earlier verdicts, this essay argues that the Court continues to abide by an entirely traditional and therefore content-fixed understanding of the definition of marriage as well as of the institutional guarantee for marriage. In this way, however, the Court fails to distance itself from the notorious separate-but-equal-ideology, which is neither progressive nor human rights-centered.