초록 열기/닫기 버튼
헌법해석은 법률해석과는 성격이 다르므로 문리해석에서 시작하여 객관적․체계적해석목적론적 해석, 역사적 해석 등으로 끝나는 것이 바람직하지만, 이것으로 명확하지않은 경우에는 변화된 사회현실을 고려한 새로운 헌법해석 방법으로 해결하여야 한다. 새로운 헌법해석방법은 헌법 규정의 불명확한 내용이 있을 경우에는, 전통적 해석방법인 문언해석, 논리해석, 체계해석, 역사해석을 먼저 하고, 그럼에도 불충분하면 사회적소수자의 보호와 배분적 정의의 실현으로 변화된 사회현실을 고려하여 새로운 헌법해석방법으로 해결하여야 한다. 이러한 새로운 헌법해석 방법은 불명확한 헌법규정의 내용에 시대적 요청에 적합한 ‘살아있는 헌법’을 채워 넣는 작업이므로 규범의 내용을 밝히는데 초점이 주어진 전통적 해석 방법과 차이가 있다. 이 원칙을 적용하면, 헌법 제36조 제1항 ‘양성의 평등’의 해석은, 건국헌법에서 혼인의양성평등을 규정한 것은 당시의 축첩제도와 가부장적 남존여비 사상이 만연한 시대에서양성평등을 강조하려 했다는 해석이 나오고, 지금은 축첩제도와 가부장적 남존여비 사상이 사라지고 양성평등이 구체적으로 실현되고 있는 점에서 ‘성적 소수자의 혼인의 자유, 성적자기결정권, 평등권, 행복추구권 등’을 존중하는 입장의 헌법해석이 도출되므로, 동성혼을 허용하는 입장이 가능하다고 주장한다. 그러나 ‘양성의 평등’을 ‘(성)평등’으로 적극적 헌법해석을 하여 동성혼을 허용하게 된다면, 사실상 헌법 제36조 제1항의 ‘양성의 평등’을 ‘(성)평등’으로 헌법개정이 되는 경우에 해당이 된다. 이는 헌법제정권력자나 헌법개정권력자가 행하는 헌법제․개정권을 헌법해석으로 침해하여 헌법해석의 개념상 본질을 벗어나게 되어, 국민주권주의 원칙에위배된다. 따라서 헌법 제36조 제1항 ‘양성의 평등’은 남녀평등으로 해석이 되어 현행 헌법질서하에서는 동성혼을 허용하지 않는 입장이다. 굳이 변화된 사회현실을 고려하여 동성혼을 허용하려면, 헌법 제36조 제1항의 양성평등을 (성)평등으로 헌법개정을 하거나, 또는제36조 제1항 자체를 삭제하는 방법 밖에 없다.
Since the constitutional interpretation is different from the legal interpretation, it is desirable to start with the literary analysis and end with objective, systematic, analytical, and historical interpretation, but if this is not clear, it should be resolved by a new method of constitutional analysis that takes into account the changed social reality of society. If there are unclear contents of the Constitution's regulations, the new method of constitutional analysis shall be addressed with a new method of constitutional analysis, taking into account the social reality transformed by the protection of the social minorities and the realization of the distributed definition. This new method of constitutional analysis differs from the traditional method of interpretation focused on revealing the contents of the norm, as it is to fill in the content of unclear constitutional regulations with a “living constitution” that is suitable for the request of the times. Applying this principle, the interpretation of Article 36 paragraph 1 of the Constitution says that the definition of equal rights for both sexes in a national constitution was intended to emphasize equal rights for both sexes in a time when the idea of a marriage was rampant, and now the system of a superposition and patriarchal equal rights for both sexes have disappeared and the idea of gender equality of the minority sexes has been decided specifically. Article 36: How far is the constitutional interpretation limit of equal rights for both sexes? The interpretation of the Constitution shall not under any circumstances serve as a constitutional authority or a constitutional amendment authority. It is beyond the essential limits of the interpretation of the Constitution to lead to the enactment or amendment of the Constitution. The interpretation of the Constitution, which allows gender equality as well as equal rights for both sexes, will go beyond the essential limits of the interpretation of the Constitution and play the role of constitutional authorities or constitutional revisionists. In the case that there is a written regulation on equal rights for both sexes of marriage in the first paragraph of Article 36 of the Constitution, the positive equality of the first paragraph of Article 36 of the Constitution shall be allowed by the active interpretation of the Constitution as gender, in effect if the equal rights for both sexes of Article 36 paragraph 1 of the Constitution is amended by gender equality, and this shall be limited from the constitutional interpretation. This would violate the constitutional amendment rights of constitutional authorities or constitutional revisionists by constitutional revisionists by violating the Constitution's interpretation and thus deviating from the essence of the constitutional interpretation. Article 36 Paragraph 1 of the Constitution requires a faithful interpretation of the written language of equal rights for both sexes, which is close to the essence of the concept of constitutional interpretation. Therefore, under the current constitutional order, the written statement of equal rights for both sexes under Article 36 paragraph 1 of the Constitution should be changed to gender equality in order to allow same-sex marriage. In the end, it is not possible to recognize same-sex marriage through active constitutional analysis, and if it is necessary to allow same-sex marriage, it will have to be done as a constitutional amendment method.
키워드열기/닫기 버튼
same-sex marriage, equal rights for both sexes, gender equality, limits to the constitution interpretation, the traditional method of constitution interpretation, the new method of constitution interpretation.
