大法官解釋 釋字第748號 |
|---|
| 公佈日期：20170524 |
| 解釋爭點 |
| 民法親屬編婚姻章，未使相同性別二人，得為經營共同生活之目的，成立具有親密性及排他性之永久結合關係，是否違反憲法第22條保障婚姻自由及第7條保障平等權之意旨？ |
| [10] 人權事務委員會，於西元1990年第39屆會議之第19號一般性意見第4段中文全文為：「《公約》第二十三條第二項重申已達結婚年齡的男女結婚及成立家庭的權利。同條第三項規定，婚姻非經婚嫁雙方自由完全同意，不得締結。締約國的報告應說明是否存在基於親屬關係程度或智力缺陷等特別因素而對締婚權的限制和阻礙。《公約》未規定男女具體的結婚年齡，但這一年齡應使結婚男女雙方能以法律規定的形式和條件各自表示自由的和完全的同意。在此方面，委員會謹指出，這種法律規定必須符合《公約》所保障的其他權利的充分行使，例如，思想、信念和宗教自由的權利意味著每個國家的立法中應規定宗教婚姻和世俗婚姻可以並存。但是，委員會認為，如一國規定婚禮以宗教儀式慶祝，但按照民法進行、證實和登記，這並不違反《公約》。委員會還要求各國在報告中包括有關這個問題的資料。」英文為：'Article 23, paragraph 2, of the Covenant reaffirms the right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family. Paragraph 3 of the same article provides that no marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses. States parties’ reports should indicate whether there are restrictions or impediments to the exercise of the right to marry based on special factors such as degree of kinship or mental incapacity. The Covenant does not establish a specific marriageable age either for men or for women, but that age should be such as to enable each of the intending spouses to give his or her free and full personal consent in a form and under conditions prescribed by law. In this connection, the Committee wishes to note that such legal provisions must be compatible with the full exercise of the other rights guaranteed by the Covenant; thus, for instance, the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion implies that the legislation of each State should provide for the possibility of both religious and civil marriages. In the Committee’s view, however, for a State to require that a marriage, which is celebrated in accordance with religious rites, be conducted, affirmed or registered also under civil law is not incompatible with the Covenant. States are also requested to include information on this subject in their reports.' http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=INT%2fCCPR%2fGEC%2f6620&Lang=en, last visited: May 16, 2017. [11] Ms. Juliet Joslin et al. v. New Zealand, Communication No. 902/1999, U.N. Doc. A/57/40 at 214 （2002）. http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/undocs/902-1999.html, last visited: May 18, 2017. |
| < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 > |
填單諮詢
最新活動