2018年6月1日，高等法院上訴庭頒下判辭，裁定公務員在外地結婚的同性伴侶未能獲得配偶福利並非歧視；又指若讓同性婚姻的公務員取得配偶福利，將削弱婚姻的獨特地位，而且社會主流仍支持異性戀婚姻。我們在下面輯錄了三位法官判辭的精華語錄，分析文章請按這裡。

【案件編號：梁鎮罡對公務員事務局局長及稅務局局長 [2018] HKCA 318】

張舉能法官（高等法院首席法官兼上訴庭庭長）

「婚姻是社會及法律制度，值得受法律完整保護……這是不證自明的。以下的說法[也]是不證自明……在香港，婚姻只是指男女婚制。」

“Marriage is a social and legal institution worthy of full protection by the law. …this is self-evident.  This proposition is no less self-evident, … as in Hong Kong, marriage means heterosexual marriage only.” [para. 2]

「鑑於《基本法》本身的定義傾向男女婚制，在香港，任何人不能輕易說排除同性戀者的婚姻就是錯或歧視。」

“Given that the Basic Law itself inclines toward heterosexual couples in terms of access to marriage, by definition, in Hong Kong one simply cannot say it is wrong or discriminatory for marriage to exclude homosexual people.” [para. 8]

「不一定要問有甚麼傳統、社會、道德或宗教理由或價值顯示基本法[對男女婚制]的偏好。不論它們是甚麼，這些理由或價值現已植根在我們的基本法內，也在第三十七條顯示出對男女婚制的憲法偏好。」

“It is not necessary to ask what the traditional, social, moral or religious reasons or values that inform this preference in the Basic Law are.  Whatever they may be, these reasons or values are now embedded in our Basic Law and have found expression in article 37 in its constitutional preference for heterosexual marriage.” [para. 8]

「在香港……保護婚姻的傳統概念及制度是一個正當的目的……背後是有基本的憲法支持。」

“In Hong Kong, …protecting the traditional concept and institution of marriage is a legitimate aim…there is a fundamental, constitutional backing to it.” [para. 9]

「透過容許同性伴侶享有[已婚伴侶享有的]福利或特權……就即是破壞社會中婚姻地位的獨特性，也實際上是把社會沒有認可的關係等同婚姻關係。」

“by allowing same-sex couples to share in benefits or privileges … one is undermining the uniqueness of the status of marriage in society; one is in fact equating relationships which society does not recognise as a marriage…” [para. 12]

「[對同性配偶福利的]反對是真實及實質的，不能簡單掃在一旁，當作非理性或只是歧視。」

“Yet the objection is nonetheless real and substantive, and cannot be simply brushed aside as irrational or purely discriminatory.” [para. 12]

「我們必需緊記，邏輯沒有界限，本案所挑戰的福利及特權被擴張會導致(幾乎不能避免地)其他領域的類似擴張，如公共房屋、社會福利、公共醫療福利、僱傭福利及保障、退休金及人壽保險。」

“yet it must be remembered that logic knows no bounds.  The extension in the present case of the benefits and privilege under challenge would lead, almost inevitably, to similar extensions in other areas concerning, for instance, public housing, social welfare, public medical benefits, employment benefits and protection, pensions and life insurance.” [para. 17]

林文翰法官（高等法院上訴庭副庭長）

「[同性婚姻的]辯論經常集中在關係為本分析。主要論據是因為很多同性伴侶和異性伴侶的關係本質上相同，因此兩種關係的差別對待是歧視……然而……香港法律只認可男女婚制，在這處境中……以上辯論是放錯了焦點。」

“the debate …has often been focused on a relationship-oriented analysis. The primary argument is that as many homosexual couples share in substance the same relationship between each other as do heterosexual couples, the differential treatment between these two kinds of relationship is discriminatory. However…… Hong Kong law only recognizes heterosexual marriage. In this context, …… the above debate is wrongly-focused.” [para. 22]

「婚姻不只是伴侶之間的關係，而是一個承諾，在其之上，法律及其他社會規範認可的一種特別和獨特的身份地位。」

“Marriage is more than an acknowledgement of a relationship between the couple. It is a commitment upon which a special and unique status is recognized in the eyes of the law and other social norms.” [para. 22]

「如果一個權利或特權(及其相關的義務及責任)是以身份地位為本而非以關係為本，則強制類似的特權及福利擴展到其他與婚姻類似的關係(如同性戀關係或其他形式相似的關係)會必然侵害這個身份地位的獨特性。」

“If a right or privilege (and the corresponding obligation and duty) is status based as opposed to relationship based, the mandatory extension of a similar right or privilege to some other relationships resembling marriage (be it homosexual relationship or other forms of similar relationship) would necessarily erode the uniqueness of the status.” [para. 24]

「若變成關係為本，關係的實質就需要被檢視……[但]人際關係複雜而恆常變化，若說同性伴侶關係享有跟異性伴侶一樣穩定及豐富的關係，這樣也可以說很多未婚伴侶享有相同或類似的關係。」

“Once it becomes a relationship-oriented exercise, the substance of the relationship has to be examined…. human relationship is complex, involving ever-changing dynamics. Whilst I acknowledge that there are homosexual couples enjoying relationships which are as enriching and stable as those enjoyed by heterosexual couples, it can also be said that there are many non-married couples enjoying the same or similar kind of relationship.” [para. 25]

「同樣，有不少住在一起的人享有穩定關係，他們互相支持及關心，他們可能是父母及子女、兄弟姊妹、至親或好朋友。在互相照顧的角度看，這些關係的本質或許跟一些伴侶沒有分別。因此，如果一些權利及義務的標準基於以關係為本的評估，就沒有理由差別對待他們。」

“Likewise, there are many people living together in a stable relationship providing support and care to each other. They may be parent and child, siblings or close relatives or good friends. From the point of interdependence of each other, the substance of their relationship may not be that different from some couples. Thus, if the benchmark for some rights and privileges is based on a relationship-oriented assessment, there may not be justification for treating them differently from a couple.” [para. 26]

潘兆初法官（高等法院上訴庭法官）

「在香港，在基本法的憲法支持下，我們的法律主張異性戀婚姻。……異性婚姻作為在香港承認，並深深植根於我們法律體系的唯一婚姻形式，有明顯的理由必須得到法律的充分保護。」

“In Hong Kong, with the constitutional backing of the Basic Law, our law favours heterosexual marriage…Heterosexual marriage, as the only form of marriage recognized in Hong Kong and deeply imbedded in our legal system, must for obvious reason deserve full protection of the law.” [para. 89]

「保護婚姻作為一種制度，法律不僅保護婚姻關係或與婚姻有關的權利和義務，法律正是要保護婚姻地位(status of marriage)本身。」

“In protecting marriage as an institution, the law is not just protecting the martial relationship or the rights and obligations associated with marriage.  The law is protecting the very status of marriage itself.” [para. 90]

「這些權利和義務完全取決於婚姻的特殊地位，而這些權利和義務……僅限於已婚夫婦。……如果未婚伴侶享有同樣的權利和義務，它們對婚姻的獨特性就消失了，而婚姻地位反過來會被貶低；已婚和未婚之間的界線會變得模糊。」

“Those rights and obligations, stemming exclusively from the special status of marriage, which are unique to it are…available to married couples exclusively… If unmarried couples are granted the same access to such rights and obligations, their uniqueness to marriage is gone.  And the status of marriage in turn would be diminished.  The line between being married and unmarried would be blurred if not gone.” [para. 95]

「牢記政府不僅僅是私營機構的普通僱主。……在履行施政、制訂和執行其政策、開展業務和事務的職能時，它盡力反映和維護整個社會普遍存在的社會道德價值觀。從這個意義上說，政府是香港普遍的社會道德價值觀的監護人(custodian)。」

“bear in mind that the Government is not just an ordinary employer in the private sector…In performing its functions of governance, formulating and implementing its policies, and conducting its business and affairs, it strives its best to reflect and uphold the prevailing socio-moral values of the community at large.  In this sense, the Government is the custodian of Hong Kong’s prevailing socio-moral values.” [para. 110]

「通過賦予同性婚姻伴侶……獲得僅賦予婚姻關係的配偶福利，婚姻的地位在整體公眾眼中將顯著削弱。事實上，公眾很可能認為這是從後門承認同性婚姻。」

“By granting same-sex married couples…access to Spousal Benefits, which are unique to marriage, the very status of marriage would diminish significantly in the eyes of the public at large.  Indeed, the public at large might well think that it is a recognition of same-sex marriage by the back-door.” [para. 110]