미연방대법원 최근 판결(United States v. Windsor, Hollingsworth v. Perry)을 통하여 살펴본 미국에서 동성혼 관련 헌법적 논의
Constitutional Review of Same-Sex Marriage in RecentU.S. Supreme Court Cases(United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry)
0
조회
0
다운로드
10
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Korean courts have not recognized same-sex marriage as a type of legitimate marriage. The issue of same-sex marriage, including one movie director’s announcement of his same-sex marriage, is becoming gradually a topic of discussion in the Korean society. Since 2000 several countries, including some in the E.U. and North & South Americas, have recognized same-sex marriage. On the other hand, courts of some other countries have decided that their societies are too premature to allow legitimate same sex-marriage. In the United States, as of present, 18 states and Washington D.C. recognize lawful same-sex marriage. On the federal level, there was the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision to support same-sex marriage. In United States v. Windsor, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that Defense of Marriage Act(DOMA) Section 3, defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, is unconstitutional. While writing the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court’s case, Mapp v. Ohio(1961), Justice Tom Clark stated “[t]here is no war between the Constitution and common sense.” In Windsor(5-4 decision), it seems that Justices writing the majority opinion agree that allowance of the same-sex marriage is near to common sense. It means that sexual orientation should not be a discriminatory classification. On the same day the Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of California Proposition 8, which defined the meaning of marriage as a union between a Man and a Woman. By saying that the party did not have standing, the court did not express a direct opinion about Proposition 8. However, in the future it is possible that lower level federal courts and states’ courts might be influenced by Windsor’s endorsement of same-sex marriage. Windsor and Perry give us an opportunity to rethink the role of courts. Courts must think seriously whether they should always support majority rule, monitor the possibility of tyranny of the majority and listen to carefully minority’s interests, or balance between those values. When we see issues of same-sex marriage, we should not forget the days when we ignored several fundamental rights which we should have given full respect to at the time. In the not so distant future, Korean courts may be forced to decide whether same-sex marriage is simply different or if it is wrong. In this way, the U.S. Supreme Court’s concerns regarding same-sex marriage could have value for comparative research.
Abstract
Korean courts have not recognized same-sex marriage as a type of legitimate marriage. The issue of same-sex marriage, including one movie director’s announcement of his same-sex marriage, is becoming gradually a topic of discussion in the Korean society. Since 2000 several countries, including some in the E.U. and North & South Americas, have recognized same-sex marriage. On the other hand, courts of some other countries have decided that their societies are too premature to allow legitimate same sex-marriage. In the United States, as of present, 18 states and Washington D.C. recognize lawful same-sex marriage. On the federal level, there was the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision to support same-sex marriage. In United States v. Windsor, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that Defense of Marriage Act(DOMA) Section 3, defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, is unconstitutional. While writing the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court’s case, Mapp v. Ohio(1961), Justice Tom Clark stated “[t]here is no war between the Constitution and common sense.” In Windsor(5-4 decision), it seems that Justices writing the majority opinion agree that allowance of the same-sex marriage is near to common sense. It means that sexual orientation should not be a discriminatory classification. On the same day the Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of California Proposition 8, which defined the meaning of marriage as a union between a Man and a Woman. By saying that the party did not have standing, the court did not express a direct opinion about Proposition 8. However, in the future it is possible that lower level federal courts and states’ courts might be influenced by Windsor’s endorsement of same-sex marriage. Windsor and Perry give us an opportunity to rethink the role of courts. Courts must think seriously whether they should always support majority rule, monitor the possibility of tyranny of the majority and listen to carefully minority’s interests, or balance between those values. When we see issues of same-sex marriage, we should not forget the days when we ignored several fundamental rights which we should have given full respect to at the time. In the not so distant future, Korean courts may be forced to decide whether same-sex marriage is simply different or if it is wrong. In this way, the U.S. Supreme Court’s concerns regarding same-sex marriage could have value for comparative research.
참고문헌 (29)
- 김지혜, "성적지향과 성별정체성에 관한 국제인권법 동향과 그 국내적 적용", 법조, 61(11), pp.181~222 (2012), 법조협회
- 노기호, "군형법 제92조 “추행죄”의 위헌성 고찰 ― 육군 제22사단 보통군사법원 2008.8.6. 위헌제청결정사건(2008고10)을 중심으로 ―", 헌법학연구, 15(2), pp.263~300 (2009), 한국헌법학회
- 류성진, "헌법재판에서 국제인권조약의 원용가능성 : 미국, 남아프리카 공화국, 우리나라의 사례를 중심으로", 아주법학, 7(1), pp.7~35 (2013), 법학연구소
- 박승호, "미국헌법상 동성애자의 권리 —Romer 사건과 Lawrence 사건 검토를 중심으로—", 미국헌법연구, 22(2), pp.203~242 (2011), 미국헌법학회
- 방승주, "사회통합과 헌법재판", 저스티스, 134(2), pp.352~373 (2013), 한국법학원
- 박종보, "미국헌법상 기본권의 체계와 이론적특성", 미국헌법연구, 17(1), pp.41~74 (2006), 미국헌법학회
- 박종보, "미국헌법이 한국헌법에 미친 영향", 법학논총, 24(3), pp.57~76 (2007), 법학연구소
- 박찬운, "차별금지법 제정의 의미와 ｢차별금지법안」의 주요내용", 국가인권위원회 공청회(2006, 3. 28)자료집 (2006), 국가인권위원회
- 문광삼, "미국에 있어서 결혼할 권리와 연방대법원", 법학연구, 54(3), pp.1~26 (2013), 법학연구소
- 서원우, "미국의 있어서의 사법의 공공정책형성", 미국헌법연구, 16(1), pp.1~30 (2005), 미국헌법학회
- 이경환, "군대내 동성애 행위 처벌에 대하여", 공익과 인권, 5(1) (2008), 서울대 인권법학회
- 이덕환, "미국법상 동성혼에 관한 연구", 비교사법, 12(1) (2005), 한국비교사법학회
- 이상경, "동성애 군인의 규제에 대한 헌법적 재조명 -소위 “불문부답법”에 관한 미국 연방판례를 중심으로", 세계헌법연구, 16(2), pp.269~294 (2010), 세계헌법학회한국학회
- 이종근, "성적(性的) 소수자의 권리보호에 관한 비교법적 연구 - 국제재판소 및 주요 국가의 판례를 중심으로 -", 법학논총, 18(2), pp.129~155 (2011), 법학연구원
- 임지봉, "헌법의 구체적 강의 방법과 내용", 법학논고, (28), pp.87~117 (2008), 법학연구원
- 조재현, "동성애에 관한 법적 고찰", 헌법학연구, 8(3), pp.146~178 (2002), 한국헌법학회
- 허순철, "미국헌법상 동성애*- Lawrence v. Texas판결의 헌법적 의의를 중심으로 -", 공법학연구, 9(1), pp.110~134 (2008), 한국비교공법학회
- Carlos Ball, "The Positive in the Fundamental Right to Marry: Same-Sex Marriage in the Aftermath of Lawrence v. Texas", Minnesota L. Rev, 88, pp.1184~ (2004)
- Benedict Carey, "Experts Dispute Bush on Gay-Adoption Issue", New York Times, ~ (2005)
- Erwin Chemerinsky, "What Should the Court Do?", N.Y.U. Rev. of Law & Social Change, 37(230), pp.229~230 (2013)
- Barbara J. Cox, "The Tyranny of the Majority Is No Myth”: Its Dangers For Same-Sex Couples", Hamline Journal of Public Law & Policy, 34, pp.235~ (2013)
- Alan L. Goldbloom, "Marriage Vote: Family’s Love Matters More Than Its Form", Star Tribune, ~ (2012)
- Courtney Joslin, "Search for Harm: Same-Sex Marriage and the Well-Being of Children", Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties L. Rev, 46, pp.81~ (2011)
- David S Law, "The Evolution and Ideology of Global Constitutionalism", Calif. L. Rev, 99, pp.1163~1167 (2011)
- Jethro Mullen, "Court Shoots Down Short-lived Same-Sex Marriage Law in Canberra, Australia", CNN, ~ (2013)
- Juan F. Perea, "Ethnicity and Prejudice: Reevaluating “National Origin” Discrimination under Title VII", Wm. & Mary L. Rev, 35, pp.805~ (1993)
- Jenny Rivera, "An Equal Protection Standard for National Origin Subclassifications: The Context That Matters", Wash. L. Rev, 82, pp.897~ (2007)
- Harmeet Shah Singh, "India’s Supreme Court Declares Homosexual Sex Illegal", CNN, ~ (2013)
- Laurence Tribe, "Constitutional Inevitability of Same-Sex Marriage", Maryland L. Rev, 71, pp.471~ (2012)