【清華大學、交通大學挺婚姻平權！】聯合聲明暨連署

Joint Statement and Petition: “Tsing Hua University and Chiao Tung University Support Marriage Equality!”

臺灣社會推動同性婚姻的討論已久，20年過去了，2016年的今日，我們依舊在新聞媒體上看到許多毫不遮掩的歧視，聽到許多無實證根據的荒誕發言；但同時，也有許多人挺身而出，加入澄清事實、積極對話、勇於對抗的行列。

Taiwanese society has been discussing the promotion of same-sex marriage for over 20 years now. However, in 2016, we still witness many blatant discriminations as well as baseless and preposterous statements in social media. But, meanwhile, more and more people are boldly stepping up, joining the ranks of those who seek to clarify the facts, actively engage in dialogue, and have the courage to resist.

身為台灣社會的一份子，我們自然不能袖手旁觀、推卸自己的公民責任；作為清華大學與交通大學的一份子，無論是教授、學生、行政人員、勞僱者、研究人員、或畢業校友，基於高等教育追求社會正義、人性尊嚴、多元平等的精神與價值，我們決定在此刻聯手支持《民法》第972條之修正，並發表以下聲明：

As a part of Taiwanese society, we are not born to stand idly by and shirk our civic responsibilities; as members of Tsing Hua University (NTHU) and Chiao Tung University (NCTU), no matter whether we are professors, students, administrators, employees, researchers, or alumni, we—based on the spirit and values of higher education in its pursuit of social justice, human dignity, equality, and diversity—at this moment decided to join our hands in support of the amendment of Article 972 of Taiwan’s Civil Code, and issue the following statement:

一、承擔公共知識分子的角色

1) Assuming the Role of Public Intellectuals

除上述所言，我們認為大學有追求自由思考、學術求真、深化教育、實踐民主與公共介入的多重定位與角色。因此，我們不能同意部分大學以「宗教」之名，發表諸如「 同志如竊盜不能合理化」等行歧視之實的言論。這些聲明不僅企圖從根本否認人的生存狀態，也漠視同志權利，更違背高等教育的理念。此外，作為公共知識分子，常受社會之託肩負發表實證研究、論述、甚至影響或制定公共政策的責任，我們更應該本著學術自由、中立客觀的態度，以紮實合理的研究成果說服一般大眾，為社會正義而努力，而不只是為特定理念服務。

In addition to the above, we believe that an university assumes multiple positions and roles in the pursuit of free thinking, academic truth-seeking, the deepening of education, the practice of democracy as well as public involvement. Therefore, we cannot agree that some universities express discriminatory views in the name of ‘religion’, such as “just like burglars, homosexuals cannot be rationalized.” These statements not only attempt to deny the essence of the human condition, but also ignore the rights of LGBTQ people, and are in sharp contrast to the principles of higher education. Furthermore, as public intellectuals, commonly entrusted by society with the responsibility to publish empirical research, engage in discourse, and even influence or formulate public policy, we should—adhering to principles of academic freedom, and a neutral and objective approach—convince the general public with solid and reasonable research results, work for social justice, and not just serve certain beliefs.

二、性別平等運動不該走回頭路

2) The Movement for Gender Equality Should Never Backtrack

回顧清交兩校學生集體推動性平運動的歷史，從1990年清大女研社《娘娘腔》創刊、到「清大小紅帽小組」對性騷擾議題的推動，以及社團間對性別議題的公開辯論等，這些行動不止於校園內，許多人更積極投入80-90年代台灣社會如火如荼的性別運動。2009年，交大第一個性/別相關社團BLG(By Liberal Gender)部落革成立，並在2011年拓展橫跨兩校，而2010年清大性別研究社再度成立，與其他校內單位團體持續一點一滴推動性別平權。

Let’s look back at the history of students' collective efforts to promote gender equality at our two universities: From the founding of the “Niangniang Qiang” (i.e. sissy voice) magazine by NTHU’s Women’s Studies Club in 1990, to the campaigning for issues concerning sexual harassment by NTHU’s “Little Red Hat Group” and the various open debates on gender issues by student clubs, all of these actions were not just limited to campus, but many of us actively participated in Taiwan’s gender movement that was in full swing in the 1980s and 90s. In 2009, “BLG” (By Liberal Gender), the first club on gender/sexuality issues at NCTU was established, and in 2011, it expanded across both universities. In 2010, NTHU’s Gender Research Club was reestablished. It continues to gradually push for gender equality together with other school departments and organizations.

性別運動道阻且長，回顧前人努力，除了秉持過去的戰鬥精神，我們應繼續開展性別多元論述與爭取平權，絕對不允許運動走回頭路。遺憾的是，在爭取婚姻平權的路上，社會上對於性傾向、性別認同或性別氣質的各種歧視傾巢而出，我們強力譴責且不能包容這些無知、偏見、甚至人身攻擊等言論與行動。

The road to gender equality is long and lined with obstacles. When looking at the hard work of our forebears, we should—in addition to upholding the fighting spirit of the past—also continue to advance diverse gender discourses and fight for equal rights. We shall never allow the movement to backtrack. Unfortunately, in the fight for marriage equality, all kinds of discrimination against sexual preference, gender identity, or gender expression turn out in full force. We strongly condemn and cannot tolerate such ignorant, prejudicial words and deeds, some of them even going as far as personal attacks.

三、專法就是歧視

3) Creating a Special Law Is Discrimination

正是在上述的誤解、恐懼或拒斥之上，許多人反對同性婚姻。但作為民主國家，一人一己好惡不應使國家放棄對公民個人的性傾向、性別認同或性別氣質的尊重，更不該干涉其他公民取得平等權的保障。此外，我們更強調立專法只會造成更多難題與歧視：倘若專法與民法規定有異，那便是公然歧視同性婚姻，倘若「全部規定都跟現行民法婚姻一樣」而立專法，那擺明是隔離且歧視、不讓同性婚姻制度進入更基礎的民法。正如有學者所言：「每個人首先是自由的公民，平等的公民，可以相愛的公民。作為公民就應該適用民法。」對於擔心同性婚姻造成婚姻家庭天崩地裂的人，我們呼籲其正確認識「婚姻」的韌性與彈性，如果婚姻秩序如此容易被破壞，豈有存在至今的道理？反之，如果真的那麼不堪一擊，豈不應該砍掉重練，何必特意耗費大筆成本小心翼翼保護？

It is on the grounds of such misconceptions, fears, or repulsions that many people oppose same-sex marriage. However, as a democratic country, people’s individual preferences should not allow the state to abandon respect for its citizens’ personal sexual preference, gender identity, or gender expression, and in no case should it obstruct other citizens from obtaining equal rights protection. In addition, we emphasize that the formulation of a special law will only create more problems and discrimination: if there are differences between the new special law and the Civil Code, it presents an open discrimination against same-sex marriage. If “all provisions are the same as for marriage as laid out in the existing Civil Code,” this is clearly a form of segregation and discrimination, not admitting the institution of same-sex marriage into the more basic Civil Code, or as one scholar put it: “Everyone is a free citizen, an equal citizen, a citizen who can love other people first and citizens should be able to make use of the Civil Code.” For those who fear that same-sex marriage may cause marital and family breakdowns, we call for a correct understanding of the resilience and flexibility of “marriage”. If marital order was so easily destroyed, would there be any reason to retain it? On the contrary, if marriage was really that vulnerable, should we not discard it and start afresh? Why deliberately waste so much time and energy to protect it carefully?

四、政府積極作為，不該假借「民意」為藉口

4) The Government Should Act Proactively, Not Use “Public Opinion” As a Pretense

我們認為政府應該積極作為，不是放任沒有根據的謠言四處流傳，也不是任意使用沒有邏輯論據的學者意見與研究詮釋，更不是以沒有「全民共識」逃避進行政府決策。我們希望政府正確理解，同性婚姻並不是多加要求的額外恩惠，更不是政黨、政府操縱的籌碼。政府如此搖擺躊躇，求好於誰，不但徒增無謂的社會恐慌與社會撕裂，更讓民眾對政府失望，社會更加動盪不安。唯有主動闢謠並解說法案內容、帶領人民理性溝通，才是我們期待政府應有的擔當與作為。

We believe that the government should act proactively; it should not let baseless lies spread around, make arbitrary use of scholarly opinions and research interpretations that lack logical argumentation, or use the argument of “universal public consensus” to evade its policy-making responsibility. We hope that the government correctly understands that marriage equality is not some special favor with more demands attached to it, nor should it be treated as a bargaining chip by political parties and the government. The government’s hesitant and wavering attitude, its attempt to be on good terms with everyone, have not only increased unnecessary fear and a rift in society, but also left the public more disappointed with the government and society more disconcerted. We expect our government to take the initiative to refute rumors and explain the contents of the amendments, and to lead the people in rational dialogue.

葉永鋕媽媽在今年高雄同志大遊行對大家說：「你們手上的車票是到終點站的，絕對不可以中途下車！」雖然這可能不是最後一哩路，但我們願意、也有責任並肩風雨同行，當臺灣社會需要我們的時候，清華大學與交通大學絕不缺席。誠摯邀請所有清大人與交大人攜手參與連署！

During this year’s gay pride parade in Kaohsiung, the mother of Yeh Yong-chih* said: “The ticket in your hands is to the terminal station, in no case can you get off during the ride!” This might not be the last mile of the road, but we are willing to, and have the responsibility to walk shoulder to shoulder through trials and hardships. When Taiwan’s society needs us, Tsing Hua University and Chiao Tung University will never back out. We sincerely invite all members of NTHU and NCTU to join hands and take part in this petition!

Online petition: http://tinyurl.com/nthunctustand4

Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/nthunctugenderequality

Link to the petition statement: https://sites.google.com/view/nthu-nctustand4marriagequality/

*Yeh Yong-chih was a middle school student in southern Taiwan. He was regularly bullied for his effeminate behavior by his classmates. His death led to the passing of the “Gender Equality Education Act” in 2004.