NGOS HOLD FORMAL DEBATE ON MARRIAGE EQUALITY PROS AND CONS|同性婚姻修法爭議大 民間辯論正反交鋒

Last month the constitutional court held a hearing on marriage equality. On Apr.8, a debate was held by NGOs on whether civic law should be amended by the constitution to guarantee marriage equality. The value of marriage and the definition of partnership were discussed. Many people watched the debate on the pros and cons, which was broadcast live online. During the formal debate on whether the constitution should be changed to include marriage equality, all sorts of views for and against were put forward. ==YOU HSUAN-HAO debate team teacher== My side thinks that we should try to develop a law for civil partnership to avoid direct changes to the constitution, which may cause difficulties in articles of the constitution. ==CHEN CHIH-MING Spokesperson, The LGBT Family Organisation== Does partnership law solve the problem? No, because it extends to all parts of the law which impinge on defining a relationship, whether it's the Basic Labor Law or any other, if a company defines 'husband and wife' as the relationship, then does your partner come under that law? The team that supported change of the constitution feel that a dedicated same-sex marriage law would not have to scope to solve work or social-related problems. However, advocates for a dedicated law feel that such an overt action to amend the civil law, will cause confusion, and challenge the traditional monogamy system, thus is more likely to intensify social opposition. ==LEE YI-HSUAN Adjunct Assistant Professor, Tunghai University== If we give practical guarantees to same-sex marriage, then we must defend traditional social values that people are accustomed to, that marriage is just a man and a woman. == CHEN SI-YUAN Dep-Dir. Precise Group== Those against say that civic law originally designated a man and a woman, so it is not suitable for either allowing or restricting same-sex or marriage equality. I find this strange, as when the civic law on trade restrictions was implemented we used real money, but now we use credit cards and e-commerce and the law applies with the same rights and no difficulties in application, just as before. This debate attracted a big audience, especially after the constitutional court meeting last month on the same topic, at which government departments, petitioners and academics were invited to put their points of view. The grand justices' verdict should be released by the end of May, but there is a still a strong public interest in debating the core issues. TRANSLATED BY：CLARE LEAR 爭論不休的「同性婚姻」議題，上個月，司法院召開了「憲法法庭」，來進行言辭辯論，而今天，是有民間團體，針對民法是否該修法，保障婚姻的爭議點，舉行辯論大賽，由正、反兩方，進行意見交鋒，吸引不少民眾，到場觀摩，聆聽各種論點。 同性婚姻要爭取合法化，是要修改民法?還是另立專法?一再引發爭論，在這場辯論比賽中，也成為主題，主張正、反意見的雙方，各自表述。 ==學辯教育團隊專任導師 游軒豪== 我方認為 我們應該嘗試 往制定民事伴侶法的 這個方向前進 要避免直接修改民法 造成條文上窒礙難行的部份 ==台灣國際同志權益促進會發言人 陳志明== 我們用伴侶法有解決這個問題嗎　 並沒有 因為這延伸出去所有的　 跟定義關係上面適用的法律　 不管是在勞基法也好　 今天只要公司裡面 定義的是夫妻　 那你的伴侶適不適用 不適用 贊同修改民法的一方，質疑為同性婚姻立專法，貌似和善，卻無法解決同志在工作或社會，面對的問題，不過，主張立專法的一方則質疑，大動作修改民法，牽動法條太廣，將造成混亂，而挑戰傳統一夫一妻制度，更可能激化社會對立。 ==東海大學朝陽科技大學兼任助理教授 李怡萱== 我們給予了 （同性婚姻）實質保障之後　 我們今天所要捍衛的　 是傳統的社會價值 道德情感之下　 大家已經習慣的婚姻 是一男一女這樣的結合關係　 ==沐恩科技集團副總監 陳思淵== 反方說 我們在制定民法 一開始是用一男一女的思維 因此不太適合拿來 做現在同性婚姻的履行以及約束 那我也覺得很奇怪 其實我們一開始 民法在做一些貿易的約束的時候 那時候的貨幣都是實質貨幣 可是我們現在 從事很多信用卡 電子商務的時候 我們都沒有實質貨幣貿易的存在 因此我們的民法 在規範所有的債權跟物權 都產生窒礙難行之處了嗎 這場辯論比賽，吸引許多民眾，到場參與，針對民法沒有考量同性婚姻的問題，上個月，司法院才召開憲法法庭，請政府單位、聲請人以及學者專家，進行言辭辯論，最快在五月底，大法官會議會做出解釋文，在結果還沒出爐前，同性婚姻議題，仍舊受到關切，在民間的辯論活動中，正、反兩方攻防，呈現不同論點。 蔡慧玲 郭俊麟 台北報導