臺灣同性婚姻倡議途徑與其政策論證之分析

Abstract

自古以來即有各種形式的伴侶、婚姻、家庭組合，不斷地隨著社會變遷與文化發展產生差異與變動。臺灣九零年代風起雲湧的改革運動啟蒙了性少數群體，同運之路就此開展，社會大眾對於同性婚姻合法的支持度逐年提高。2016年時民調顯示贊同同性婚姻者超過半數，2017年5月24日迎來了臺灣人權史上一個重要的里程碑《司法院釋字第748號解釋》，宣告民法未使相同性別二人結婚違憲。然而，2018年11月24日的公投結果卻呈現反對同性婚姻的人數大幅上升，是甚麼原因造成民意的轉變？在同婚支持者眼中的普世人權，面對的是怎樣的反對意見？本研究透過觀察網站與社群媒體，分析在釋憲過程及挺/反同婚公投發生期間，支持與反對同性婚姻的代表性組織「臺灣伴侶權益推動聯盟」與「下一代幸福聯盟」，雙方運用之政策倡導與社會行銷方式為何；亦透過歸納支持與反對同性婚姻之論述，呈現以同性婚姻合法作為政策主張之William N. Dunn政策論證結構。 研究發現伴侶盟與下福盟採取的政策倡導方式相當多元，網路與社群媒體的推波助瀾，提高了公民參與的意願與能力、有助於非營利組織進行政策倡議與社會行銷，但也同時面臨經營網站與社群媒體的諸多挑戰。 同婚支持方的論述不提及過往對於婚姻制度的批判，而多從普世人權的角度，強調同性戀伴侶之間的愛情與異性戀伴侶無異、爭取同婚即代表認同婚姻制度…，乃在為了獲得社會大眾的認同、降低對於同婚可能破壞婚姻制度之恐懼所採取之階段性策略。同婚反對方則多從倫理道德的角度，並運用極為有效的語藝策略，成功影響了許多民眾。在反同婚人數眾多的情勢中，立法院於2019年5月17日通過了《司法院釋字第七四八號解釋施行法》，自同年5月24日施行。釋字第748號解釋基於其憲法位階的優位性引領了社會變革，可以預見未來政策倡導者將會更看重透過大法官釋憲的司法途徑。 立法雖已完成，社會上對同性婚姻的爭論仍未停歇，期望本研究能作為後續研究之基礎，從不同觀點中發現溝通的新契機。

Since ancient times various forms and definitions of intimate partnerships, such as marriage and family units have existed while human societies and cultures kept evolving. The social movements in Taiwan in the 1990s also inspired the gay rights movement. Same-sex marriage has slowly gained more acceptance in the last years. In 2016 the opinion poll showed that more than half of the Taiwan people found same-sex marriage acceptable. On the 24th May in 2017 a milestone in the Taiwan history of human rights was set – The Constitutional Court announced the Interpretation No. 748 and declared that the existing law which doesn’t allow marriage between persons of same sex - was unconstitutional. However, the result of the referendum on the 24th November 2018, one and half year later, showed a sharp rise in the number of people opposing same-sex marriage. What caused the prompt shift in public opinion? What kind of obstacles have the universal human rights and supporters of the same-sex marriage been facing? By observing the media and on-line presence the study analyzes two NPOs which acted as major participants and counterparts in the debate of same-sex marriage: The supporter and promoter of same-sex marriage "Taiwan Alliance to Promote Civil Partnership Rights" (TAPCPR) and the "Next Generation Happiness Alliance" as the firm opponent. What are the advocacy policy and strategies pursued by the supporting and opposing parties? The study focuses on the 2-year period from 2017 until end of 2018, marked by the major key events: the interpretation of the constitutional court in favor of same-sex marriage and the referendum followed one and half year later which resulted in a victory of the conservatives against same-sex marriage. Further the study analyzes the arguments of the supporters and opponents with regard to legalization of same-sex marriage as policy claim in the sense of William N. Dunn’s policy arguments structure. The study found that the advocacy policies and social marketing strategies of the supporter and counterpart are quite diverse. Internet and social media have effectively gained the attention of the majority and empowered citizens to participate, which supported the NPOs to carry out their policy initiatives and social marketing strategies. At the same time the NPOs also faced various challenges in managing their on-line presence, specifically in social media. In the TAPCPR has not mentioned much criticism about the marriage system itself, but stretched out that love between same sex is inherently equal in the perspective of human rights. This can be interpreted as a transitional strategy in order to dampen fear and anxieties about the existing marriage system being challenged and undermined by allowing same-sex marriage. On the other hand the opponent utilized an effective language strategy focusing on tradition and moral values. Despite of loud voices of controversies the act of same-sex marriage came into force on 24th May 2019, as ruled by the constitutional court. Based on the supremacy of the constitution, the Interpretation No. 748 can be seen as progressive in leading change in Taiwan society. Future policy advocates may take this as example and pay more attention to this judicial channel through the interpretation of the Constitutional court. Though same-sex marriage has been legalized, the controversies still exist. This study can be a basis for future studies on this issue to explore opportunities of communication.