First Comes Marriage, Then Comes Baby, Then Comes What Exactly?

先是婚姻、然後是嬰兒，再來究竟是什麼？

臺灣將同性婚姻法制化之里程碑，對於LGBTQ+個人與伴侶之權利具有國際級之重要性。本次法制化更提供了一個澈底檢視臺灣與其他國家現行LGBTQ+平等情況之機會。本文通過理論與比較法之角度，討論對LGBTQ+而言，平等究竟意味著什麼，以及在婚姻合法之後，將發生哪些問題。本次合法化提供了關於同性婚姻及平等交往從過去、現在到未來之不同觀點。本文著眼於臺灣實現同性婚姻合法化之現況，認為臺灣之憲法法院一方面將同性婚姻合法化保障LGBTQ+ 人民之自由，另一方面卻限制了該群民眾組成家庭之自由。且在大法官解釋合法化後，執行該解釋之法律尤其在組成家庭的權利上加劇了對於LGBTQ+之歧視。不過此種於同性婚姻合法化之後，仍帶有父母身分歧視之情形並非臺灣所獨有。從歐洲法之發展情況來看，這種歧視於合法化雖仍然存在，但將隨著時間經過而逐漸消失。來自其他地區之經驗亦顯現，LGBTQ+想要爭取平等之父母與家庭權利可能困難重重，而關於LGBTQ+平等權之反對聲音則大多與涉及其家庭、育兒等權利以及種族歧視有關。最後，在探討於未來實現平等之道路上，本文認為由於上述之各種原因，婚姻不該成為LGBTQ+平等權之最後一站。要在臺灣落實實質性平等至少應廢除以通姦作為離婚以及民事補償之理由。若從更廣泛的平等與自治之角度出發，還必須採取相關之制度，在此種制度之下婚姻不該是一般人獲得與伴侶有關權利之唯一途徑。同樣的，必須為各種類型之人民，尤其是LGBTQ+，創建更多合法確認其關係之選擇。最後，本文認為對於LBGTQ+於父母、家庭方面之歧視將與其自由等權利密不可分。臺灣此次合法化的經驗可供世界各地與LGBTQ+有關之運動與學者借鏡。此經驗呼籲學界於建立符合自由與平等的體制應避免忽略各該國家的差異時，並重新將婚姻視為LGBTQ+平等權最重要之一環。

Taiwan’s legalization of same-sex marriage is an event of international importance concerning the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals and partners; further, it constitutes an opportunity to examine the state of LGBTQ+ equality in Taiwan and elsewhere. To this end, through theoretical and comparative lenses, this Article asks what equality for LGBTQ+ means and what comes after marriage. It offers perspectives on the past, present, and future of the intersection of same-sex marriage and equality. Looking at the path to same-sex marriage in Taiwan, the Article argues that the Taiwanese Constitutional Court’s ruling legalizing same-sex marriage maintained a line between domesticated liberty for LGBTQ+ people, on the one hand, and limits on that population’s liberty to form families, on the other. The law that implemented the ruling kept this tension; hence, it enfolds discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals, especially in the area of family formation. But Taiwan is not exceptional in holding onto parentage discrimination after legalization of same-sex marriage. The European perspective teaches that discrimination in parentage remains after legalization but disappears over time. Experience from elsewhere also clarifies that the fight for equal parental rights can be difficult, and that much opposition to LGBTQ+ equality is embedded in biases related to LGBTQ+ parenting and in racism. Finally, moving to explore future paths to parity, the Article contends that, for various reasons including those indicated above, marriage cannot serve as the final frontier of LGBTQ+ equality. Substantive equality in Taiwan requires, at the least, the repeal of adultery as a grounds for divorce and for civil remedies. A broader view of equality and autonomy also warrants adopting a regime in which marriage is not the only mechanism to access rights and benefits that are linked to relationships of interdependency. Likewise, creating more options for legal recognition of relationships is imperative for individuals in diverse types of relationships, and for LGBTQ+ individuals in particular. Lastly, the Article suggests that discrimination that currently exists in the area of obligations toward parents-in-law has a liberating aspect. The Taiwanese experience is a teaching moment for LGBTQ+ movements and scholars around the globe. It calls on other scholars to avoid generalizations in framing paths to liberty and equality by being sensitive to local differences, and to reconsider the place of marriage as the golden standard of LGBTQ+ equality.