동성애에 대한 일반인들의 인식이 변화되고 있음에도 불구하고, 이에 대한 법원의 판단에는 상반된 시각이 존재하고 있다. 우리나라는 동성애를 처벌하는 일반적인 규정이 없지만 동성애가 헌법상 자기결정권에 의하여 보호되는지 논의될 필요가 있다. 이를 위해서는 먼저, 동성애에 대한 법적인 관점에서의 개념정의가 필요하다. 그런데 동성애란 동성의 상대에게 감정적 이끌림을 느끼는 것이라고 하거나 동성에 대한 성적 지향이라고 하는 것은 바람직하지 못하다. 따라서 헌법적인 관점에서의 동성애란 성별이 같은 13세 이상의 승낙연령에 도달한 자들 간에 성매매와 같은 위법행위의 개입 없이 당사자의 자유의사에 의한 동의로 은밀하게 이루어지는 성적 행위로 정의할 수 있다고 본다. 한편 미국에서의 동성애에 관한 논쟁은 우리에게 시사하는 바가 크다. 1986년 미국연방대법원은 Bowers v. Hardwick판결에서 동성간의 성행위가 미국헌법상 보호되지 아니한다고 판결하였다. 그러나 동법원은 2003년 Lawrence v. Texas판결에서 적법절차 조항하의 자유권은 정부의 간섭 없이 자신들의 행위를 할 수 있는 완전한 권리를 부여하고 있기 때문에, 서로 간에 완전한 합의를 통해 동성애적 생활양식에서 흔히 볼 수 있는 성관계를 맺고 있는 두 명의 성인은 자신들의 사적인 삶을 존중받을 자격이 있으며, 주는 그들의 사적인 성행위를 범죄로 규정함으로써 그들의 존재를 폄하하거나 그들의 운명을 통제할 수 없다고 판시하면서 Bowers판결을 파기하였다. 이러한 Lawrence판결의 의미에 관하여는 다양한 견해들이 제시되고 있다. Lawrence판결이 논거로 제시한 자유의 의미를 Mill의 위해의 원칙으로 해석하는 견해, 주거의 불가침이라고 하는 장소적 프라이버시로 보는 견해 및 법률의 사문화로 보는 견해 등이 있으나, 동성애가 단순한 동성간의 ‘성적 행위’가 아니라 동성애자가 자신의 자율적 선택에 의하여 타인과 맺는 ‘내밀한 사적인 관계’로서 이들에게 인간으로서의 존엄권과 사적인 삶을 존중받을 권리가 있음을 선언한 것으로 보아야 할 것이다.

Despite the marked shift in popular attitudes toward homosexuality, the courts have some conflicting perceptions of it. There is no anti-sodomy statute punishing the public in general in Korea, but it should be examined whether the constitutional self-determination right gives homosexuals a right to engage in consensual sodomy at home without intervention of the government. For this purpose, above all, in legal perspectives we should define what homosexuality is. It is, however, undesirable to define homosexual sodomy as a kind of emotional attraction or sexual orientation to another individual of the same-sex. In my opinion, therefore, homosexual sodomy in constitutional perspectives may be defined as a sort of sexual intercourse between consenting same-sex adults (older than 13 years in Korea) with full and mutual consent acting in private without involving illegal activity such as prostitution. Then, the debate about homosexual sodomy in the U.S. brings us many insightful thoughts. In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court held that there was no fundamental right to engage in consensual homosexual sodomy. In Lawrence v. Texas, the Court, however, held that since the right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives homosexuals the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government, two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle are entitled to respect for their private lives and the State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime, and the Court overruled Bowers v. Hardwick in 2003. There are divergent understandings of the meaning of Lawrence in the U.S. The libertarian model, for example, claims that the liberty in Lawrence can be read as the Mill's harm principle, the privacy model stresses that two consenting adults have the sexual relations in their own bedroom, and the desuetude model emphasizes that the sodomy law cannot be enforced if it has lost public support. However, Lawrence should be read as granting the right to dignity and equal respect for people involved in the relationship because sodomy is not a sexual act but a kind of intimate personal relationship between people of the same-sex.

Despite the marked shift in popular attitudes toward homosexuality, the courts have some conflicting perceptions of it. There is no anti-sodomy statute punishing the public in general in Korea, but it should be examined whether the constitutional self-determination right gives homosexuals a right to engage in consensual sodomy at home without intervention of the government. For this purpose, above all, in legal perspectives we should define what homosexuality is. It is, however, undesirable to define homosexual sodomy as a kind of emotional attraction or sexual orientation to another individual of the same-sex. In my opinion, therefore, homosexual sodomy in constitutional perspectives may be defined as a sort of sexual intercourse between consenting same-sex adults (older than 13 years in Korea) with full and mutual consent acting in private without involving illegal activity such as prostitution. Then, the debate about homosexual sodomy in the U.S. brings us many insightful thoughts. In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court held that there was no fundamental right to engage in consensual homosexual sodomy. In Lawrence v. Texas, the Court, however, held that since the right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives homosexuals the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government, two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle are entitled to respect for their private lives and the State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime, and the Court overruled Bowers v. Hardwick in 2003. There are divergent understandings of the meaning of Lawrence in the U.S. The libertarian model, for example, claims that the liberty in Lawrence can be read as the Mill's harm principle, the privacy model stresses that two consenting adults have the sexual relations in their own bedroom, and the desuetude model emphasizes that the sodomy law cannot be enforced if it has lost public support. However, Lawrence should be read as granting the right to dignity and equal respect for people involved in the relationship because sodomy is not a sexual act but a kind of intimate personal relationship between people of the same-sex.

, , , , , ,

Homosexuality, Liberty, Sodomy, Privacy, Equal Protection, Fundamental Right, Right to Dignity