【法政奄列】因家庭而結合，為公屋而偷情？（劉偉聰）
蘋果日報 2020/03/13 06:15
同性婚姻馬道立劉偉聰人權法案法政奄列Lady Hale
憑市民選票選出來的自是尊貴honourable的議席，縱然還是有dishonourable的議員最愛辰時卯時走出來胡言妄語。
上周高等法院為Nick Infinger v Hong Kong Housing Authority（HCAL 2647/2018）一案頒下判詞，裁定房委會在公屋申請中的Spouse Policy不承認合法同性婚姻，實屬歧視，違反了《基本法》第25條及《人權法案》第22條，故屬非法及違憲。旋有知法議員聞判後直指法院僭越政府及立法會分配公共資源的權力，且人人平等但也不必處處平等，最後更質問一句：「為何婚外情的人不行？」
哈！唔問唔知真考起！考起沒有詳讀full judgement的邊個同呀邊個！主審法官也許老早怕大家太忙，讀不了全文，故來了個清脆的highlight:
“I would add that the present case only concerns a foreign, monogamous, same-sex marriage. Other than the fact that the Applicant’s marriage with the Partner are between two persons of the same sex, the Housing Authority has not been able to point to any difference between their marriage and other foreign opposite-sex marriages which it would accept for the purpose meeting the eligibility criterion under §2.3.3 of the Application Guide.” （判詞第52段）
上周高等法院為Nick Infinger v Hong Kong Housing Authority（HCAL 2647/2018）一案頒下判詞，裁定房委會在公屋申請中的Spouse Policy不承認合法同性婚姻，實屬歧視，違反了《基本法》第25條及《人權法案》第22條，故屬非法及違憲。旋有知法議員聞判後直指法院僭越政府及立法會分配公共資源的權力，且人人平等但也不必處處平等，最後更質問一句：「為何婚外情的人不行？」
哈！唔問唔知真考起！考起沒有詳讀full judgement的邊個同呀邊個！主審法官也許老早怕大家太忙，讀不了全文，故來了個清脆的highlight:
“I would add that the present case only concerns a foreign, monogamous, same-sex marriage. Other than the fact that the Applicant’s marriage with the Partner are between two persons of the same sex, the Housing Authority has not been able to point to any difference between their marriage and other foreign opposite-sex marriages which it would accept for the purpose meeting the eligibility criterion under §2.3.3 of the Application Guide.” （判詞第52段）
「人人平等」是項高屋建瓴的大原則
要緊處是點出同性婚姻和異性婚姻俱是依據法律（因香港尚未有同性婚姻法，同性婚姻目下依據的只能是foreign law）的二人結合，這種婚姻下組成的家庭，其居住需要不會因同性異性而有別。房委會妄分同性異性家庭，屬沒有理據的性取向歧視。「人人平等」是一項高屋建瓴的大原則，不是絕對不絕對，而是每有differential treatments，我們便要細察其間有否合理及合乎比例的依據，主審法官朗聲道：
“The question is whether the line which has been drawn is fair, reasonable and lawful.”
若說分配公共資源只屬政府及立法會的獨家權力，錯錯錯！若真如此，政府及舐皇黨佔盡的行政立法機關還不比翼齊飛，雙翼遮天（雖然那也許是the inconvenient truth!）？ 因此終審法院首席法官馬道立曾不為所動，正色道：
“Afterall, the courts have the ultimate responsibility of determining whether acts are constitutional or lawful. It would be appropriate for the courts to intervene (indeed they would be duty bound to do so) where, even in the area of socio-economic or other government policies, there has been any disregard for core-values. “ (Fok Chun Wa v Hospital Authority (2012) 15 HKCFAR 409)
“The question is whether the line which has been drawn is fair, reasonable and lawful.”
若說分配公共資源只屬政府及立法會的獨家權力，錯錯錯！若真如此，政府及舐皇黨佔盡的行政立法機關還不比翼齊飛，雙翼遮天（雖然那也許是the inconvenient truth!）？ 因此終審法院首席法官馬道立曾不為所動，正色道：
“Afterall, the courts have the ultimate responsibility of determining whether acts are constitutional or lawful. It would be appropriate for the courts to intervene (indeed they would be duty bound to do so) where, even in the area of socio-economic or other government policies, there has been any disregard for core-values. “ (Fok Chun Wa v Hospital Authority (2012) 15 HKCFAR 409)
細聽Lady Hale一席話
或曰對同性異性婚姻一視同仁，勢將破壞傳統家庭價值和倫理，持此說者多不是宗教情懷滿滿的「耶x」，卻是只聽阿爺支笛的「爺x」！我們不如聽聽最愛別上蜘蛛襟針的Lady Hale （前英倫最高法院院長，也是我城終審法院非常任法官）的人話：
“⋯⋯it is difficult to see how heterosexuals will be encouraged to marry by the knowledge that some associated benefit is being denied to homosexuals. They will not be saying to one another ‘let’s get married because we will get this benefit and our gay friends won’t!” （Rodriguez v Minister of Housing (a Privy Council appeal from Gibraltar)）
「為何婚外情的人不行？」那不是人話！一來婚外情是passionate union，不是an institution，人家枕邊的事，我們不必以法律枉操心；二來婚外情怕沒有住屋需要，事關志明與春嬌的浪漫春天好端端還在，還未客滿吧，客官！
多了。
作者：劉偉聰，法門中人，多餘多話，寒舍中有小貓一雙，男的是陳寅恪，女的叫Dworkin。
【法政奄列】專欄隔周五在蘋果動新聞上線
-----------------------------
【武漢肺炎】專頁
全民自救 抗疫資訊盡在《蘋果》
-----------------------------
無懼警暴 學懂自救
《抗暴之戰●法例須知》讀果 上架
“⋯⋯it is difficult to see how heterosexuals will be encouraged to marry by the knowledge that some associated benefit is being denied to homosexuals. They will not be saying to one another ‘let’s get married because we will get this benefit and our gay friends won’t!” （Rodriguez v Minister of Housing (a Privy Council appeal from Gibraltar)）
「為何婚外情的人不行？」那不是人話！一來婚外情是passionate union，不是an institution，人家枕邊的事，我們不必以法律枉操心；二來婚外情怕沒有住屋需要，事關志明與春嬌的浪漫春天好端端還在，還未客滿吧，客官！
多了。
作者：劉偉聰，法門中人，多餘多話，寒舍中有小貓一雙，男的是陳寅恪，女的叫Dworkin。
【法政奄列】專欄隔周五在蘋果動新聞上線
-----------------------------
【武漢肺炎】專頁
全民自救 抗疫資訊盡在《蘋果》
-----------------------------
無懼警暴 學懂自救
《抗暴之戰●法例須知》讀果 上架