No description available.

In this study the nature and extent of the sexual assault and rape of male sentenced offenders and awaiting-trial detainees in Pretoria Local Correctional Centre were investigated. Prison gangs, overcrowding of correctional centres, the involvement of correctional officials and the sexual orientation of the potential victim were highlighted as risk factors in the sexual assault and rape of male offenders and awaiting-trial detainees. As this study focused on both the victim and the offender of male-on-male sexual assault and rape, both victimological and criminological theories were used as a theoretical basis. Creswell’s dominant-less-dominant model of combination was used in this study, with the dominant model being the qualitative methodology, and the less-dominant model the quantitative methodology. Non-purposive sampling was used, as the researcher could not identify the victims and/or perpetrators of male-on-male sexual assault and rape individually. In order to obtain in-depth information on the research participants’ experiences of sexual activities and rape in the correctional centre, face-to-face structured interviews were conducted with one hundred research participants. After the analysis and interpretation of the data, it became evident that male-on-male sexual assault and rape, as well as consensual sexual activities, do occur in this correctional centre. Research participants highlighted four types of sexual engagements in this correctional centre, namely the need for emotional sex, survival sex, compliant sex and forced sexual acts. The reasons offered for the occurrence of rape in this correctional centre include that an agreement had not been reached between inmates and because of that the rape will take place, corruption by correctional officials, the involvement of prison gangs and the use of deception by the perpetrators. Six research participants revealed that they had been the victims of rape. All the victims were raped within days or weeks after their arrival at the correctional centre. Five of the victims did not receive medical treatment after the rape, and none of the victims received counselling or therapy after the rape. Five of the research participants reported that they had sexually assaulted and/or raped other inmates. Four of the perpetrators were awaiting trial for an aggressive offence (armed robbery) and one for a sexual offence (rape). The perpetrators forced their victims to engage in oral sex, inter-femoral sex and anal sex. The aims of the study were reached and recommendations for further research were also made. Emanating from the feedback of the participants as well as the literature review, the researcher developed an Offender Sexual Assault Protocol. The Department of Correctional Services can use this protocol to reduce and manage sexual assault and rape in male correctional facilities. / Thesis (DPhil)--University of Pretoria, 2009. / Social Work and Criminology / unrestricted

No description available.

Jean de Meun's continuation of the Roman de la rose (The Romance of the Rose), written in Paris in the 1270s, presents a vast amount of philosophy and natural science in vernacular poetry, while engaging thoroughly with contemporary, local philosophical and institutional debates. Taking this into consideration, this study investigates how the Rose depends for its meaning on questions around human nature, natural philosophy, and the philosophy of language that were being discussed and debated in the University of Paris at the time of its composition. It suggests a reading of the poem as a work of philosophy that uses Aristotelian ideas of nature and what is natural to present a moral framework – at times explicitly, at times implicitly – within which to assess and critique human behaviour. The concepts of the unnatural and the artificial are used to discuss sin and its effects on sexuality – a key concern of the Rose – and on language. The Rose is shown to present itself as artificial and compromised, yet nevertheless capable of leading imperfect and compromised humans to moral behaviour and towards knowledge which can only ever be imperfect. It is read as a presenting a rhetorical kind of philosophy that is sui generis and that appeals to human desire as well as to the intellect. The specific issue of usury and its relation to avarice is examined, studying contemporary theological and philosophical treatments of the question, in order to illustrate similarities and contrasts in the Rose's theoretical methodology to more orthodox modes of philosophical enquiry. Finally, the poem's valorisation of pleasure and of the perversity inherent in artificial productions is explored to show how poetry, though deviating from the strictures of dialectical language, is nevertheless productive and generative.

Over the last few decades, there has been a significant increase in the political and public acceptance of gay men and lesbians. However, this trend of acceptance is not a global phenomenon. Currently over 70 countries still criminalise private consensual same-sex intimacy, among which are 11 of the 12 independent Commonwealth Caribbean states. It should be noted that the anti-gay laws of the Caribbean are rarely used to police consensual private sexual activities. Thus, if private same-sex conduct is rarely penalised, why keep the laws in place, especially in the age where such bans are considered a violation of basic human rights? Many policy makers in the region have cited public opinions about homosexuality as a significant barrier to law reform. However, while a common view is that these laws are anchored by public support, very few studies have emerged to test whether the attitudes and behaviours of the general population are in line with this view. Against this backdrop, this thesis analyses attitudes towards lesbians and gay men and their legal rights in the Commonwealth Caribbean. The thesis begins with an analysis of support for the anti-gay laws in Barbados, Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago. The analysis revealed that a majority of the sample supported the maintenance and enforcement of the laws, but did not want same-sex couples to be penalised for having sex in private. This suggests that attitudes may not be as stark as policy makers suggest. The descriptive statistics also show that a significant share of individuals think that the laws (1) reflect moral standards; (2) stop the spread of homosexuality; (3) are important from a public health perspective, and (4) protect young people from abuse. Support for the laws are thus related to beliefs that homosexuality is a 'threat' to the fabric of society. The empirical analysis of support for the laws revealed that religiousness, interpersonal contact and beliefs about the origin of homosexuality were the most reliable predictors of public support. However, age and education were only statistically significant in a few models, and there was no evidence that attitudes varied across religious denominations. This is a contrast to the findings of studies in the West. It was hypothesised that macro-level factors - such as the large share of Evangelicals, anti-gay laws and level of socioeconomic development - could be exerting an influence on attitudes that is stronger than that of these personal characteristics. As such, the study conducted a cross-national analysis of attitudes towards same-sex marriage in 28 countries in the Americas, 6 of which were members of the Commonwealth Caribbean. In general, countries with higher levels of development, smaller shares of Evangelicals and more liberal laws on homosexuality were more approving of same-sex marriage. The results also suggest that the impact of age and/or religion is less prominent in countries with restrictions on same-sex intimacy, lower levels of development and a strong Evangelical presence, confirming the hypothesis that contextual factors could mitigate the impact of some of the individual-level variables. Finally, to get a nuanced view of anti-gay prejudice in the region, a thematic analysis of anti-gay speech in dancehall and reggae - music originating from Jamaica but popular in the region - was presented. The thematic analysis revealed that homosexuality is presented as 'sinful', a 'violation of gendered norms', 'unnatural', a 'threat to society' and a 'foreign lifestyle'. The presentation of homosexuality as a 'foreign' lifestyle suggests that anti-gay prejudice could be related to fears of neo-imperialism and could be a means of rejecting ideological intrusions from the West. This is not surprising, as currently, the fight for the advancement of gay rights is being headed by activists in the West. Based on the thematic analysis, efforts to remove the anti-gay laws should be (or at least appear to be) home-grown to limit public backlash.

No description available.

There were many ways of bordering manliness during the historical period covered by my research. Borders have been metaphorically understood as those invisible, often non-enunciated limits that have safeguarded manliness. There were borders separating masculinity from femininity and from childishnes, but there is also a more distant border, separating masculinity from the bestial. The term un-manliness is a useful concept for this analysis, for it can be used to illuminate the different ways in which masculinity has been interrogated. The concept can also be used in comparative analyses of how tolerance towards men deviating from ideas of ideal masculinity has differed according to situation and culture. It has been my ambition to elucidate the particular attitudes, values, customs, knowledge and requirements that influenced the view of masculinity at both individual and the group level. The clearest-cut aspects of manliness and un-manliness expressed in court proceedings were those having to do with sexuality, relations within the household, and the subordinate and dominant masculinities displayed by different court-room actors. The latter, in turn, reflected contemporary social structures, including the social gap that divided the Livonian peasantry’s serfs or former serfs from the ruling Baltic-German elite. Records from the court proceedings have shown the subordinate masculinity of the defendants, subordinate not only to that of the officers of the court but to that of the witnesses. This subordination was an inevitable consequence of the nature of the accusations, regardless of whether they were deemed well-founded or false.  The defendants were placed in a situation where they were forced constantly to be on the alert, ready to defend themselves and show their best sides. As a result, they would often give extremely clear expression to their views of proper masculinity. Such actors stressed, consciously or unconsciously, certain manly traits and behaviour patterns that characterised themselves and others. Their arguments provide insights into what they thought of each other and how they conceived a man should generally be, behave and act in different situations. By the same token, they clearly showed what kinds of behaviours were considered undesirable or outright unmanly. The positioning of the borders of manliness was linked both to time and to space. Deviations have helped different societies set the borders for what they considered acceptable behaviour. There was a clear cultural and geographical border between Sweden as such, and the Swedish province Livonia. This emerges clearly when one compares Livonian results with earlier studies on bestiality in Sweden. This shows that the view of manliness and the tolerance towards certain kinds of behaviour changed as one moved East.

The general objective of the study is to assess the role of culture and traditions as stumbling blocks in the legal reform that would lead to the decriminalization of same-sex sexual intercourse. Focuses on the sodomy laws in Africa with specific reference to Uganda. Compares the Ugandan and South African legal regimes. Uganda is chosen because it represents one of the African countries where same-sex unions are specifically prohibited by the Constitution. / Thesis (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa)) -- University of Pretoria, 2007. / A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Law University of Pretoria, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Masters of Law (LLM in Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa). Prepared under the supervision of Prof Pierre de Vos of the Faculty of Law, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town South Africa. / http://www.chr.up.ac.za/ / Centre for Human Rights / LLM

This dissertation relates to treason and sodomy crimes that were fundamental in all pre-modern societies (also adultery but to a lesser extent). These laws, characterized by their biblical source, have met their demise in modern Western societies. The rise of individual rights led to significant changes in these crimes and eventually to their demise. As discussed below, the demise has become so substantial that the antiquated crime of sodomy, termed the crime against nature, is a modern source of pride, and actions like those of January 6, 2021, that would have been considered treason in prior generations are no longer charged as treason. Chapter One: Dying Criminal Laws: Sodomy and Adultery From the Bible toDemise analyzes the rise and fall of sodomy and adultery. The original legal basis for punishing sodomy and adultery was due to a breach in the duty of loyalty owed to God (i.e. sin) or the state. However, the loosening of the bonds of loyalty in present day Western criminal law has led to the demise of these crimes. Their demise has correlated with the rise of individual rights, especially the right to privacy. As such, the demise of sodomy and adultery laws is symbolic of the shift from a duty-based to a rights-based society. Chapter Two: The Genesis of Treason: The Creation of Equality and TheEstablishment of the Patriarchy analyzes the biblical source of treason. The roots of treason reach back to the Bible. Treason against God’s divine right kings was acrime because it was an assault against the heavenly order. Petit treason was also an attack on God’s order. The initial chapters of the book of Genesis contain the foundation of the law oftreason. The treasons of Adam and Eve, Cain, the Sons of God, Ham, and Nimrod each relate to different aspects of both high and petit treason. The dissertation also analyzes the place of treason during the reign of Saul and David as Kings of Israel. According to the Book of Samuel, neither Saul's indeterminate use of treason nor the virtually nonexistent use of treason by David is the right path. Rather, a determinant form of treason that punishes actual treason but does not punish all forms of opposition is appropriate. Chapter Three: The Rise and Fall of High Treason and The Correlation with PetitTreason Infallible Relationships: From Edward III to The Execution of Charles I And Lessons For Modern Treason in the Age of Charles III traces the roots of treason as a crime in Anglo-American law, the expansion of treason during Henry VIII’s reign, up to the conviction of King Charles I for high treason. Henry VIII enacted multiple amendments to the law of high treason and did nothesitate to utilize treason as a weapon in his battle for supremacy against the Pope in England. Compared with Henry and his children, James I endeavored to use the law of high treason sparingly. Treason underwent a fundamental transformation during Charles I’s reign thatultimately led to a civil war and Parliament transforming treason from a statute that protected the King into a law that protected the nation. This was done by rejecting the King’s special status and invoking the transformative idea of a social contractbetween the nation and the people. In short, a transformation from status to contract. The changes at the dawn of treason have continued to the present day, and treason,the crime that protects the hierarchy of society, has not been invoked in the US and UK since the end of World War II. The failed South African treason trial against Nelson Mandela and the Civil and Woman’s Rights Movements appear to have led to treason’s demise in cases that do not involve armed warfare. Despite the renewed interest in treason following the assault on the US Capital on January 6, 2021, there does not appear to be an appetite for reviving treason. In the age of Charles III, the most severe crime for a march like Charles I’s “warlike march” on Parliament is seditious conspiracy.

本文旨在探討於我國憲法架構下，同性戀者的權利保障議題。期以引介國外相關學說與法制，解決我國日漸浮現的相關爭議。 第一章，緒論。說明研究動機與研究範圍，並揭櫫科際整合的研究方法，兼採社會學等其他學門對於同性戀議題的既有研究成果，作為法學研究的背景。 第二章以憲法平等權保障為核心，從美國聯邦最高法院所建立的三重審查基準，討論其於「性傾向歧視」案件的適用。研究發現，對於同性戀者所為的差別待遇，基於「代表強化論」等政治程序參與保障、構成違憲「可疑分類」與根據從社會學等理論，同性戀者與異性戀者並無不同，應享有同等基本權利的憲法保障，除非政府所為分類具有一「優位」政府利益，且手段與目的緊密關連，否則應屬違憲。值得注意的是，美國聯邦最高法院於Romer v. Evans一案中揭示「本質原則」(per se rule)，於立法者「惡意」對「孤立的弱勢族群」，根據偏見予以全面性不利的差別待遇，法院即得直接認定違憲。本文認為此項平等權審查途徑的突破，仍有其適用上的爭議與缺陷，其影響有待進一步觀察。 其後，針對「同性性行為」的除罪化，與「同性婚姻」的合法化等兩個當前最具爭議性，與同性戀者生活關係密切的問題，本文嘗試以第二章所建立的理論基礎，檢視其正當性。第三章討論同性性行為的除罪化。首先以社會生物學反駁同性性行為的「不自然論據」。其次，基於「自由主義」的「傷害原則」，除非對第三人造成傷害，否則對性行為均不應加以管制。再者，針對管制同性性行為的「雞姦法」，論者雖謂該法並非僅就同性戀者加以處罰，然，實際上處罰者確均為同性戀者，況立法本意往往隱涵對同性戀者的偏見等，此即與憲法平等權保障相悖，應屬違憲。惟，美國聯邦最高法院於Bowers v. Hardwick一案中則肯定該法的合憲性，本文亦就該項判決予以批判。最後則就台灣同性性行為管制或相關立法與行政措施之現狀，提出修法建議。 第四章討論最具爭議的「同性婚姻」合法化問題。研究發現，同性婚姻於本文第二章所提出自由主義傷害原則，以及平等權理論之下應予合法。首先，駁斥反對者所提出的「滑坡理論」等諸項疑懼。其次，剖析美國司法實務就同性婚姻所提出的若干論據，發現，其於同性戀者的刻板印象，深受「同性戀恐懼症」所影響，均屬情緒性反應與理所當然的偏見，是項見解，亦於夏威夷州最高法院所為指標性判決得到回應。此外，比較全球各國對同性婚姻保障的制度，「準婚姻」及「登記伴侶」等制度雖然給予同性戀者若干保障，本文認為，此項制度仍凸顯同性戀者有異於異性戀者，婚姻的形式意義與實質保障均應爭取之。基於平等權理論，國家應該提供人民相同的法律保障，既然並無禁止異性戀者合法結婚，亦不應該禁止同性戀者結婚。 第五章則總結研究發現：一、從美國聯邦最高法院、歐洲人權法院、加拿大最高法院，乃至於聯合國人權委員會對於同性戀者權利保障議題的關注，而於「亞洲人權憲章」草案中，亦明白規定對於同性戀者的平等保障，對同性戀者的人權保障，已為全球逐漸形成的共識。以比較法的觀點而言，不同法律制度所形成的理論，亦在同性戀人權保障議題上，獲得相互引證與批判，有助於理論的成熟發展。二、本文提出同性戀者權利保障的理論基礎，雖然從不同學門理論、自由主義、政治哲學等出發，然而最終關注的焦點仍在於憲法平等權保障的理念。而相關理論於晚進各國司法實務上已見採納與實踐。三、雖然台灣社會目前對同性戀者權利保障議題，其問題意識形成與公眾討論仍未熱烈，關注議題與焦點亦較未全面性深入。本文認為，法律於社會改革具有其功能，從法律與平權運動的互動，呼籲有識者重視司法途徑以解決法律限制，並提出修法建議與審查基準，作為立法機關制訂法律與法院（包括大法官）審查相關議題的參考。 關鍵詞：同性戀、隱私權、平等權、審查基準、同性婚姻、自由主義、社會建構論、法律經濟學、同性性行為、防衛婚姻法。 目次 中文摘要 英文摘要 表次 第一章 緒論…………………………………………………………………………1 第二章 同性戀者權利保障的理論基礎…………………………………………27 第三章 同性性行為的除罪化……………………………………………………115 第四章 同性婚姻的合法化………………………………………………………164 第五章 結論：同性戀與憲法-兼論台灣同性戀者權利保障的未來…………240 參考書目……………………………………………………………………………247 附錄……………………………………………………………………………………I 詳目 第一章 緒論 1.1 研究動機………………………………………………………………………………………1 1.2 問題意識：同性戀議題的法學發問基礎……………………………………………………9 1.2.1 同性戀者在憲法基本權利主體的定位…………………………………………………14 1.2.2 同性戀者權利保障的議題取向與理論基礎……………………………………………15 1.2.3 憲法平等權審查基準的建立……………………………………………………………16 1.2.4 同性戀者權利保障的終極關懷：後續法律關係的確定與爭端解決…………………17 1.3 研究方法………………………………………………………………………………………18 1.3.1 科際整合的研究途徑……………………………………………………………………19 1.3.2 比較法的研究方法………………………………………………………………………21 1.4 本文架構：從理論到實用，從私領域到公領域……………………………………………24 第二章 同性戀者權利保障的理論基礎 2.1 理論前提：社會建構論的觀察………………………………………………………………27 2.1.1 同性戀：一個歷史的偶然？……………………………………………………………28 2.1.1.1 古代西方文化中的同性戀………………………………………………………28 2.1.1.2 古代西方文化以外的同性戀……………………………………………………30 2.1.1.3 近代文化中的同性戀……………………………………………………………32 2.1.1.4 中國傳統文化中的同性戀………………………………………………………33 2.1.1.5 同性戀醫學定義的歷史演變……………………………………………………36 2.1.2 同性戀的釋疑：同性戀（者）的刻板印象及現代科學的解釋………………………37 2.1.2.1 對同性戀（者）的刻板印象……………………………………………………38 2.1.2.1.1 同性戀危害社會………………………………………………………38 2.1.2.1.2 同性戀者無法生殖，對人類繁衍構成威脅…………………………39 2.1.2.1.3 同性戀者對兒童與青少年構成威脅…………………………………40 2.1.2.1.4 同性戀者的生活方式並不幸福………………………………………41 2.1.2.1.5 同性戀者性關係複雜…………………………………………………42 2.1.2.1.6 同性戀等同愛滋病……………………………………………………43 2.1.2.1.7 同性戀破壞宗教道德，影響社會安定………………………………44 2.1.2.1.8 同性戀者要求特殊權利………………………………………………44 2.1.2.1.9 同性戀對家庭構成威脅………………………………………………45 2.1.2.1.10 小結…………………………………………………………………46 2.1.2.2 現代科學的正面回應……………………………………………………………46 2.1.2.2.1 同性戀並非病態………………………………………………………46 2.1.2.2.2 同性戀作為一種精神疾病﹕從歷史的角度來看……………………48 2.1.2.2.3 同性戀從精神疾病除名………………………………………………50 2.1.2.2.4 同性戀的成因…………………………………………………………53 2.1.2.2.4.1 x染色體上的發現………………………………………55 2.1.2.2.4.2 生物醫學的研究：荷爾蒙與腦部構造變異……………56 2.1.2.2.4.3 後天環境論………………………………………………56 2.1.3 社會建構論對於同性戀的意義…………………………………………………………57 2.1.3.1 異性戀主義：同性戀刻板印象的形成與同性戀恐懼症………………………57 2.1.3.2 Foucault的社會建構理論………………………………………………………58 2.1.3.2.1 現代概念下的同性戀：一個性文化的興起…………………………58 2.1.3.2.2 Foucault的性理論……………………………………………………59 2.1.3.2.2.1 坦白是性之根本…………………………………………59 2.1.3.2.2.2 性科學……………………………………………………60 2.1.3.2.2.3 權力關係…………………………………………………61 2.1.3.2.2.4 建構主義…………………………………………………62 2.1.3.2.3 Foucault對性概念的重建……………………………………………62 2.1.3.2.3.1 性是否已成為一個不夠用的概念﹖……………………62 2.1.3.2.3.2 快感與慾望………………………………………………63 2.1.3.2.4 Foucault的性與同性戀政治觀………………………………………63 2.1.3.2.5 Foucault對同性戀關係的詮釋：友誼…………………………………64 2.2 自由主義的哲學基礎與隱私權保障…………………………………………………………65 2.2.1 同性戀者自由的界限：「俄芬登報告」的論爭………………………………………66 2.2.2 白紙上的墨漬：傷害與容忍的法的詮釋………………………………………………68 2.2.2.1 憲法上保障基本權利的性質及其界限…………………………………………69 2.2.2.2 傷害原則的具體化：憲法第二十三條的適用…………………………………69 2.2.2.3 基本權利的「容忍」義務？……………………………………………………70 2.2.2.4 同性戀的傷害性？………………………………………………………………70 2.2.2.4.1 破壞社會？回應社會解構論…………………………………………70 2.2.2.4.2 破壞家庭生活幸福……………………………………………………71 2.2.2.4.3 同性性行為容易傳染疾病……………………………………………72 2.2.2.4.4 小結……………………………………………………………………73 2.2.3 當代自由主義者的理論對於同性戀議題的實用………………………………………73 2.2.3.1 John Rawls的「政治自由主義」：權利的道德基礎與優先性…………………73 2.2.3.2 Ronald Dworkin的「倫理的自由平等」…………………………………………75 2.2.3.3 Joseph Raz的「至善論者自由主義」……………………………………………76 2.2.3.4 法律道德主義的「圍城」：德國戰後「新自然法」浪潮……………………77 2.2.3.5 自由主義法典範下對於同性戀者權利保障的危機……………………………79 2.2.4 理性與自治：自由主義下隱私權的保障目的…………………………………………80 2.2.4.1 理性的人：一個古老的哲學問題………………………………………………80 2.2.4.2 同性戀者是否為理性的人？……………………………………………………82 2.2.5. Richard Posner的「法律經濟分析」……………………………………………………84 2.2.5.1 功效主義與同性戀………………………………………………………………84 2.2.5.2 Posner的法律經濟分析與同性戀者權利保障…………………………………87 2.2.5.2.1 Posner的性理論與同性戀……………………………………………87 2.2.5.2.2 Posner理論的適用……………………………………………………89 2.2.6 小結………………………………………………………………………………………90 2.3 平等權保障……………………………………………………………………………………90 2.3.1 一個新歷史的開始：Romer v. Evans……………………………………………………91 2.3.1.1 背景事實與纏訟經過……………………………………………………………91 2.3.1.2 多數意見…………………………………………………………………………94 2.3.1.3 不同意見…………………………………………………………………………95 2.3.1.4 Romer案的評析及其影響………………………………………………………97 2.3.1.4.1 本質原則對於平等權審查基準的定位………………………………98 2.3.1.4.2 同性戀者在憲法上的定位不明………………………………………98 2.3.1.4.3 Hardwick案於Romer案的關係懸而未決……………………………99 2.3.1.4.4 民主價值與憲法基本權利保障……………………………………100 2.3.2 同性戀者平等權審查基準的選擇……………………………………………………101 2.3.2.1 平等權審查基準的概說………………………………………………………101 2.3.2.2 從「性別歧視」主張同性戀者平等權：中度審查基準的適用………………102 2.3.2.2.1 性別歧視審查基準的早期見解……………………………………102 2.3.2.2.2 性別歧視的新視點…………………………………………………103 2.3.2.2.3 中度審查基準的形成………………………………………………104 2.3.2.2.4 「性傾向歧視」是「性別歧視」？性別角色的迷思………………106 2.3.2.3 同性戀作為「可疑分類」︰適用「嚴格審查基準」的坦途？………………108 2.3.2.3.1 缺乏政治力量………………………………………………………110 2.3.2.3.2 「隔離但平等」與「不同但平等」…………………………………111 2.3.2.3.3 與生俱來、不可改變的特徵…………………………………………112 2.3.2.3.4 小結…………………………………………………………………113 第三章 同性性行為的除罪化 3.1 從社會生物學看同性戀與同性性行為……………………………………………………115 3.1.1 社會生物學概說………………………………………………………………………115 3.1.2 社會生物學與同性戀…………………………………………………………………117 3.1.3 同性性行為是「不自然」？……………………………………………………………121 3.1.3.1 描述性的自然法則……………………………………………………………121 3.1.3.2 「人為的」就是不自然…………………………………………………………122 3.1.3.3 凡是不常見或不正常的東西不自然…………………………………………123 3.1.3.4 與一個器官或工具的主要目的或功能相反的使用方式不自然……………124 3.1.3.5 凡是不自然的就是不好的……………………………………………………125 3.2 各國管制現況與除罪化趨勢………………………………………………………………126 3.2.1 美國雞姦法在憲法上的爭議…………………………………………………………126 3.2.1.1 性行為管制的憲法爭議：隱私權的保障範圍…………………………………127 3.2.1.2 隱私權保障的負面教材：Bowers v. Hardwick…………………………………129 3.2.1.2.1 一個不存在的事實：事實與判決經過………………………………129 3.2.1.2.2 多數意見……………………………………………………………131 3.2.1.2.3 協同意見……………………………………………………………133 3.2.1.2.4 不同意見……………………………………………………………134 3.2.1.3 Hardwick案的評析及其對同性戀者平權運動的影響………………………138 3.2.1.3.1 本案應不應該受理？………………………………………………138 3.2.1.3.2 隱私權保障的目的…………………………………………………140 3.2.1.3.3 性行為受隱私權保障的範圍：滑坡論證的疑慮……………………141 3.2.1.3.4 創設基本權利類型的理由：歷史傳統？……………………………142 3.2.1.3.5 法律與道德的界限…………………………………………………142 3.2.1.3.6 Hardwick案對同性戀者權利保障的影響…………………………142 3.2.1.3.6.1 行為與地位的混淆……………………………………142 3.2.1.3.6.2 公領域與私領域的切割………………………………143 3.2.2 美國經驗的對照：歐洲國家與全球同性性行為除罪化的努力………………………143 3.2.2.1 歐洲同性性行為的管制歷史…………………………………………………144 3.2.2.2 歐洲人權法院的判決分析……………………………………………………144 3.2.2.2.1 保障範圍……………………………………………………………145 3.2.2.2.2 侵害類型與干涉程度………………………………………………146 3.2.2.2.3 比例原則……………………………………………………………149 3.2.2.2.4 「歐洲共識」…………………………………………………………151 3.2.2.3 同性性行為作為一種普遍人權………………………………………………152 3.3 我國關於同性性行為與刑法管制的可能議題……………………………………………154 3.3.1 刑法「性別意識」與「姦淫」、「猥褻」的定義……………………………………154 3.3.1.1 同性戀及其性行為的刑法評價………………………………………………154 3.3.1.2 刑法的性別意識………………………………………………………………155 3.3.2 合法性行為同意年齡…………………………………………………………………160 3.3.3 後天免疫症候群防治條例與性行為告知義務………………………………………162 第四章 同性婚姻的合法化 4.1 同性婚姻的歷史與正反意見的陳述………………………………………………………166 4.1.1 婚姻的意義及其對同性戀者的重要性………………………………………………166 4.1.1.1 不只是「婚姻」…………………………………………………………………166 4.1.1.2 同性戀社群內部對婚姻的爭論………………………………………………168 4.1.2 同性婚姻的歷史………………………………………………………………………170 4.1.3 反對同性婚姻的主要理由及其反駁…………………………………………………171 4.2 同性婚姻在各國的憲法爭議與法律實踐…………………………………………………173 4.2.1 美國同性婚姻的憲法爭議……………………………………………………………173 4.2.1.1 同性婚姻的爭訟………………………………………………………………173 4.2.1.1.1 Baker v. Nelson………………………………………………………173 4.2.1.1.2 Jones v. Hallahan……………………………………………………175 4.2.1.1.3 Singer v. Hara………………………………………………………176 4.2.1.1.4 Adams v. Howerton…………………………………………………179 4.2.1.1.5 Dean v.District of Columbia(Barry)…………………………………181 4.2.1.1.6 小結：結婚權的憲法意義……………………………………………182 4.2.1.1.6.1 隱私權與結婚權………………………………………182 4.2.1.1.6.2 結婚權與婚姻的社會意義……………………………183 4.2.1.2 Baehr v. Lewin(Baehr I)…………………………………………………………185 4.2.1.2.1 事實及爭訟經過……………………………………………………185 4.2.1.2.2 多數意見……………………………………………………………185 4.2.1.2.3 協同意見……………………………………………………………187 4.2.1.2.4 不同意見……………………………………………………………187 4.2.1.3 Baehr v. Miike(Baehr II)………………………………………………………190 4.2.1.3.1 事實及爭訟經過……………………………………………………190 4.2.1.3.2 法院意見……………………………………………………………191 4.2.1.4 Baehr二案的評析及其影響……………………………………………………193 4.2.1.5 「防衛婚姻法」的合憲性………………………………………………………194 4.2.1.5.1 「防衛婚姻法」的制定與其內容……………………………………195 4.2.1.5.2 「防衛婚姻法」的合憲性：Romer一案的適用……………………196 4.2.1.6 平等的極致：「滑坡論證」的失序挑戰………………………………………199 4.2.1.6.1 禁止童婚與同性婚姻………………………………………………200 4.2.1.6.2 禁止一夫多妻與同性婚姻…………………………………………201 4.2.1.6.3 禁止亂倫與同性婚姻………………………………………………202 4.2.1.6.4 小結…………………………………………………………………204 4.2.2 歐洲人權公約對於同性婚姻的保障…………………………………………………204 4.2.2.1 家庭關係的隱私權保障………………………………………………………205 4.2.2.2 婚姻權的保障…………………………………………………………………206 4.2.2.3 「禁止歧視」條款與同性婚姻…………………………………………………208 4.2.2.3.1 適用範圍及其限制…………………………………………………208 4.2.2.3.2 合理審查基準………………………………………………………209 4.2.2.3.3 「比例原則」審查基準………………………………………………211 4.2.3 「婚姻」定義的突破：加拿大最高法院M v. H判決…………………………………212 4.2.3.1 背景事實………………………………………………………………………212 4.2.3.2 多數意見………………………………………………………………………213 4.2.3.3 不同意見………………………………………………………………………214 4.2.3.4 本案評析及其影響……………………………………………………………214 4.2.4 同性婚姻在全球各國的制度實現……………………………………………………215 4.2.4.1 實質法律保障：伴侶登記或認可法……………………………………………216 4.2.4.1.1 從契約到身分………………………………………………………216 4.2.4.1.2 從身分到契約………………………………………………………218 4.2.4.2 現行制度的適用與評估………………………………………………………219 4.2.4.2.1 北歐國家對於同性婚姻態度開放的原因…………………………219 4.2.4.2.2 異性戀婚姻適用於同性戀者的評估………………………………220 4.3 我國同性婚姻合法性的憲法挑戰…………………………………………………………220 4.3.1 中國傳統下對婚姻的看法……………………………………………………………221 4.3.2 現行民法下同性婚姻的合法性及其衍生議題………………………………………221 4.3.3 同性婚姻合法化在我國的可能性：大法官解釋的評估………………………………224 4.3.3.1 性別歧視下的平等：我國大法官對於「男女平等」的解釋…………………224 4.3.3.1.1 釋字第三六五號解釋/男女「合理」差別待遇︰多合理？…………224 4.3.3.1.2 釋字第二四二號解釋/「婚姻」作為「制度性保障」………………229 4.3.3.1.3 小結…………………………………………………………………235 4.3.3.2 我國憲法第七條「男女平等」與同性戀平等權保障…………………………235 4.3.3.2.1 憲法文本的詮釋……………………………………………………235 4.3.3.2.2 性解放下的男女平等………………………………………………237 4.3.3.3 小結……………………………………………………………………………239 第五章 結論：同性戀與憲法-兼論台灣同性戀者權利保障的未來 5.1 平權運動策略建言…………………………………………………………………………240 5.1.1 建立共識，尋求認同…………………………………………………………………240 5.1.2 具體可行的目標………………………………………………………………………241 5.1.2.1 組織化…………………………………………………………………………241 5.1.2.2 持續化…………………………………………………………………………242 5.1.2.3 議題化…………………………………………………………………………242 5.1.2.4 司法化…………………………………………………………………………243 5.2 法律修正方向與司法審查基準……………………………………………………………243 5.2.1 國際人權公約與內國法律……………………………………………………………243 5.2.2 制定反歧視法？………………………………………………………………………244 5.2.3 司法審查基準…………………………………………………………………………245 表次 表1-1：同性戀者權利保障議題一覽表 ………………………………………………………………11 表2-1：Romer v. Evans案判決意見一覽表……………………………………………………………96 表2-2：美國最高法院三重審查基準一覽表…………………………………………………………106 表3-1：Bowers v. Hardwick案判決意見一覽表………………………………………………………136 表4-1：Baehr v. Lewin案判決意見一覽表……………………………………………………………189 表4-2：Baehr v. Miike案判決意見一覽表……………………………………………………………193 表4-3：種族、性別與性傾向歧視之類推過程一覽表………………………………………………194 表4-4：司法院大法官有關性別平等解釋案要旨……………………………………………………232 / "Lesbian and gay rights are human rights!" Is this just a political slogan to be chanted outsides legislatures? Is this just a fairytale, or are there legal arguments to support the claim that the right to be free from sexual orientation discrimination is a human right? In particular, can national constitutions and international human right treaties be interpreted as prohibiting discrimination against same-sex sexual activity ("sodomy"), gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual individuals, and same-sex couples? In this thesis, the author attempts to answer these questions by examining of these most commonly used arguments in favour of such an interpretation: sexual orientation is an "immutable status", sexual orientation is a "fundamental choice" or part of "privacy", sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination and "sexual orientation discrimination". However, the core argument is always "Equal Protection". Chapter I explains the motives of research, the goals to be achieved, the methods to be used, and the structure of this thesis. Chapter II investigates what and how to build the basic theories to justify the claim that lesbians and gay men, as well as heterosexuals, shall be equally protected under the constitution. Because this issue is largely invisible or marginalised in academic debate, the author first provides an invaluable exploration of sociology, sociobiology, and sexual science, in order to break up the stereotypes of lesbians and gay men. According to the theory of Equal Protection, the author concluded that "sexual orientation discrimination" deserved the strict or heightened scrutiny, i.e., either the discrimination achieves the compelling or overriding governmental interest, necessarily and narrowly tailored, or it should be hold unconstitutional. Applying the basic theories, then the author devoted two chapters to specific issues, particularly, and focused on sodomy law and same-sex marriage. Chapter III examines the constitutionality of sodomy law. According to the "Harm Principle", the author doesn't think that sexual activities between consenting adults should be criminalized. Although sodomy law is plainly neutral, i.e., applicable for men and women, homosexual and heterosexual individuals, the author found that, in practice, sodomy law always criminalize lesbian and gay men. The author also discussed relevant articles of Taiwan's Penal Code, especially the newly revised articles of sex crime-crime of "disturbing sexual autonomy". Chapter IV scrutinizes the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. The author first analyzed why people are always reluctant to recognize the same-sex marriage, and reiterate the so-called "slippery slope" arguments. The judiciary around the world never decided clearly that lesbians and gay men could legally wed, until the Hawaii Supreme Court held the Hawaii Revised Statutes §572-1 unconstitutional. Inspiringly by a recent development that the Canada Supreme Court declared positively the word "spouse" does not exclusively mean the combination of a man and a woman. This is , in indeed, a milestone in rhetoric. According to the "per se rule", the author also strongly criticized the "Defense of Marriage Act"(DOMA), and claimed that DOMA should be held unconstitutional. After comparing the institutions substantially protected same-sex couples, i.e., "registered partnership" or "domestic partnership", the author concluded such institutions as phase work. However, the final task is to make lesbians and gay men legally wed, just like "human being in love". Chapter V summarized the findings and suggested measures for further improvement. The author hopes to remind domestic gay organizations of the importance to use judicial approach solving the issue of equal protection for lesbian and gay men. After bloody wars and tragic disasters, why people can not learn to treat "others" as "selves"? Some day, lesbians and gay men can walk hand in hand with one's love in bright sunshine. Wish is not a dream. Keywords: Gay; Lesbian; Homosexuality; Queer; Equal Protection; Review Standards; Same-Sex Marriage; Sodomy; Privacy; Liberalism; Economic Analysis of Law; Social Constructionalism; Defense of Marriage Act.