婚姻傳統上是男女兩性依特定的法律、倫理和風俗的規定所建立起來的夫婦關係。它是組成家庭的基礎和根據。是家庭成立的標誌。兩性結合趨於規範化的主要手段是風俗、倫理和法律；現代社會主要是依據法律。
    法律制度對婚姻成立的所有條件設定，是針對人民希望透過婚姻，來取得相關的權利和義務。政府是以尊重公民當事人真實意願為原則，來考慮的訂立國民在特定的條件下締結婚姻，才能享有婚姻的權利和義務時。法律並不保護婚姻，而是保護公民因婚姻而產生的相關權利和義務。對同性婚姻的承認，其目的就是確立和保護同性公民因婚姻而產生的權利和義務。法律必須對符合這些條件而締結的婚姻所產生的權利和義務給予保護，這些權利應該包括相互扶養權，共同財產權，獲得贍養權，遺傳繼承權等等。
    本論文第一章為序論，說明本論文的研究動機，研究目的與限制。第二章為從美國聯邦憲法當中得出基本人權是否有包含自由選擇婚姻伴侶。第三章則列出聯邦法院與地方法院關於同性婚姻的裁決，第四章為說明支持與反對同性婚姻的論述。第五章為傅科與同性婚姻的探討。第六章為結論。

Traditionally, marriage is based on the order of law, social values and ethics. In today’s society, civil marriage, which is set up by the law makers, is the key to access lots of duties and benefits. Civil marriage is the protection for setting up a family. What the government should do is to give benefits and duties to who wants to get married, not trying to define the definition of marriage. 

      In Massachusetts, same sex partners can get married now. More and more states passed the laws to protect same sex partners’ benefits and duties. Civil Union, Domestic Partnership, and Reciprocal Beneficiaries provide some benefits and duties similar to marriage. However, with the Defense of Marriage Act, same sex partners can not access over one thousand federal benefits and duties from the “Real” marriage.

      The main purpose of the study takes the United States Constitution as the guidelines to analyze the fundamental human rights, and try to find out if the right to get married is included.  Chapter One is the introduction of the study. Chapter Two shows the fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Chapter Three lists the verdicts in the Federal Supreme Court and State Supreme Court related to marriage and same sex marriage. Chapter Four lists the standing points from pro-same sex marriage groups and from anti-same sex marriage groups. Chapter Five is the discussion about same sex marriage from Foucault’s point of view. Chapter Six is the conclusion.

目錄

第一章	 序論----------------------------1
第一節	 研究動機與目的------------------2
第二節	 研究方法與限制------------------6


第二章   美國憲法與同性婚姻---------------7
第一節     美國憲法中保障人權的架構-------7
第二節	婚姻的定義-----------------------14
第三節	捍衛婚姻法-----------------------20


第三章   美國對同性婚姻的判決-----------26
第一節     美國地方法院的關於同性婚姻的判決26
第二節	美國最高法院相關案件--------------35
第三節	麻塞諸塞州的判決內容--------------49


第四章	各界對於同性婚姻的看法------------53
第一節	支持同性婚姻的論述----------------53
第二節	反對同性婚姻的論述----------------65
第三節	目前同性戀婚姻在各州的情況--------69


第五章    傅科與同性婚姻-------------------75
第一節	 性與權力-------------------------75
第二節	 同志權力探討---------------------82
第三節	 傅科的貢獻-----------------------85

結論---------------------------------------89

參考書目-----------------------------------93

參考書目
中文部分

于奇志著，傅偉勳，韋政通主編，傅科。台北市：三民書局，1999年。
宋鎮照，社會學。台北市：五南書局，1997年。
江雅綺譯，蓋瑞‧史賓斯著。正義的神話。台北市：商周出版，
    2001年。
朱敬一，李念祖著。基本人權。台北：時報文化出版公司，2003年。
周華山，同志論。台北市：正港資訊，1995年。
黃立怡撰，美國同性戀婚姻合法化之研究。台北：淡江大學美國研究所，民國八十八年。
柯威恩‧帕特森著，結構群編譯。美國憲法釋義。台北：結構群文化事業有限公司，1991年。
廖世德翻譯，Michael Hutchison著。性與權利：心身政治的剖析。
台北市：自立晚報出版，1994年。
劉泗翰翻譯，R.W. Connell著，性/別。台北市：書林出版有限公司。
錢俊譯， Hubert L. Drefus， Paul Rabinow著，傅科：超越結構主義與詮釋學。台北：桂冠書局，1995年。
鄧正來主編，特倫斯‧鮑爾著，布萊克維爾政治百科全書。北京：中國政法大學出版社，1992年。
楊大春，傅科。台北市：生智出版社， 2003年。
程家驤等編譯，性知識精華。廣州：暨南大學出版社，1994年。
劉國彬，楊德友譯，C.G.Jung 著。榮格自傳─回憶‧夢‧省思。台北市：張老師文化事業股份有限公司，1997年。
吳國卿譯， Paul R. Abramson， Steven D. Pinderton著。美麗性世界。台北市：經典傳訊文化公司，2000年。
郭志嵩翻譯，約翰‧彌爾著。論自由。臺北市 : 臉譜文化事業公司, 2004年。
焦興鎧主編，美國最高法院重要判例之研究：一九九零~一九九二。台北：中央研究院歐美研究所，1994年。
吳懿婷、洪儷倩譯，鮑柏‧伍華德，史考特‧阿姆斯壯著。最高法院兄弟們。台北市：商周出版，2001年。
朱瑞祥著。美國最高法院判歷史程。台北市：國立編譯館，1994年。
藍采風著。婚姻與家庭。台北：幼獅出版社，1996年。
彭懷真著。婚姻與家庭。台北：巨流圖書公司，1998年。
羅志淵編着。美國政府與政治。台北：國立編譯館，1964年。
顧樂群，吳寧康，傅崑成，趙一先，黃寶松編譯。美國憲法逐條釋義-附模範州憲法。台北：三民書局，1991年。
艾德曼(Ellen Alderman), 甘迺迪(Caroline Kennedy)著 ，吳懿婷譯。隱私的權利（台北市：商周文化出版公司，二零零一年）
荊知仁著。美國憲法與憲政。台北：三民書局，1994年。
秦修明，湯新楣，李宜培譯，勒克西‧德‧托克維爾著。民主在美國。台北：貓頭鷹出版社，2000年。
陸潤康著。美國聯邦憲法論。台北：文笙書局，1964年。

英文部份
Books

Abelove, Henry and Barale, Michele Aina and Halperin, David M. eds. The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. New York and London: Routledge, 1993
Baird, Robert M. & M. Katherine eds. Homosexuality. New York: Prometheus Books, 1995.
Cahill, Sean. Same-sex Marriage in the United States-Focus on the Facts. New York: Lexington Books, 2004.
Calhoun, Craig.  Light, Donald. Keller, Suzanne. Sociology. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities, 1996.Cott, Nancy F. Marriage Vows- A History of Marriage and the Nation.  Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2000.
Defending a Higher Law,Why We Must Resist Same-Sex “Marriage” and the Homosexual Movement. New York: The American Society For The Defense Of Tradition, Family and Property Committee on American Issues, 2004.
D’emilio,  John.  Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities- The Making of a Homosexual Minority in the United States 1940-1970. New York: The University of Chicago Press, 1983.
Danaher, Geoff.,  Schirato, Tony., and Webb, Jen. Understanding Foucault. New York: Sage Publications, 2000.
Friedman, Lawrence. Total Justice. New York: Russell Sage Foundation Publications, 1994.
Garrett, William R. Seasons of Marriage and Family Life. CBS College Publishing： 1979.
Gerstmann, Even . Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution.  New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Giddens, Anthony. Sociology, New York : Polity Press, 1993. 
Goode, William J. World Revolution and Family Patterns.  New York: The Free Press, 1963.
Hamer, Dean H. et al. The Science of Desire. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995.
Mouffe, Chantal ed. Dimensions of Radical Democracy .London: Verso,  1992.
Macionis, John J. Sociology. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1997.
Olsen, d. H., & Defrain, J. Marriage and Family: Diversity and strengths. Mountain view. CA: Mayfield Publishing Co. ,1994.
Rawls , John.  A Theory of Justice Cambridge, MA: Harvard University  Press, 1999.
Strasser, Mark. Legally Wed: Same Sex Marriage and The Constitution.  New York: Cornell University Press, 1997.
Stephens, William N. The Family in Cross-Cultural Perspective.  New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963.
Sullivan, Andrew.  Same Sex Marriage: Pros and Cons. New York: Vintage Books, 1997.
Witt, Lynn. ed. Out in All Directions- A Treasury of Gay and Lesbian America. New York: Warner Books. 1995. 
Rauch, Jonathan. Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America. New York: Times Books, 2004.
Rennison, C., and Welchans, S. (2000, May; rev. 2002, January 31). Intimate partner violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs.
Szasz, Thomas S. The Manufacture of Madness. New York: A Delta Book, 1970）, p. Xx
Spargo, Tamsin. Foucault and Queer Theory. New York: Totem Books, 1999.
Stein,  Edward ed. Social Constructionism and Study of Human Sexuality, in Forms of Desire: Sexual Orientation and the Social Constructionist Controversy. New York and London: Routledge, 1992.
Warner, Michael, ed. Fear of a Queer Planet- Queer Politics and Social Theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000.
Rennison, C., and Welchans, S., Intimate Partner Violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2000.

Cases

Baker v. Lwein, 852 P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993)
Baker v. Nelson, Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1971, 191 N.W.2d 185
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)
Baehr v. Miike, 994 P.2d 566 (Haw. 1999)
Brause v. Rureau of Vital Statistics, 1998 WL 88743 (Alaska Super. Ct. Feb. 27, 1998).
City o Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)
Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976) 
Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471(1970) 
E isenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972)
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), Docket Number: 496
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 798 N.E. 2d 941, 440 Mass. 309 (Mass. 2003)4, 2003-Nobember 18, 2003
Jefferson v. Hackney, 206 U.S. 535 (1972)
Johnes v. Hallahan, 501 S.W. 2d. 588(Ky. Ct. App. 1973)
Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
 Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977)
Maynard v. Hill(234 US 190, 205, 211 [1888]) 
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390, 399 (1923)
Perez v. Sharp (Oct. 1, 1948) 32 Cal.2d 711, 198 P.2d 17
Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937) 
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) 
Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
Singer v. Hara, 522 P. 2d. 1187 (Wash. App. Div. 1974).
Shapiro v. Thrompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629 (1969)
Standhardt v. Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County
United States v. Morrison, 120 S. Ct. 1740 (2000) 
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)
United Association of Journeyment Local 198 AFL-CIO Pension Plan v. Myers, 488 F. Suppp. 704, 707 (M. D. La. 1980) 


Journals
Coombe, Rosemary J. "Publicity Rights and Political Aspiration: Mass Culture, Gender Identity, and Democracy." New England Law Review （1992）, pp. 1222-1223.
Morant, Blake D. “The Teachings of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Contract Theory: An Intriguing Comparison.” Alabama Law Review  (Fall 1998), p76.
Hamer, Dean H. et al., “A Linkage Between DNA Makers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation ,” The Science of Desire (1995), Appendix A.
Gunther, Gerald  “Forward: In Speech of Evolving Doctrine on a Changing Court: A Model For a Newer Equal Protection.” Harvard Law Review  (1972), p.8.

Newspaper
“Bush’s Remarks on Marriage Amendment.” New York Times. (2003, July 9), P. A18.
Tribe, Laurence  “Constitution Bashing”, New York Times, (1996, July 29).

Magazines
Sanderson, Terry.  “Month in a Minute,” Gay Times.（March, 2005）, p. 19.
Lisotta, Christopher. “Gay Marriage’s Secret Weapons,” The Advocate. (April 13, 2004), pp., 34, 36.


Web Site
http://www.glad.org/rights
http://news.bbc.co.uk
http://gsrat.net/news
http://gsrat.net/news/newsclipdDetail.
http://www.timesonline.uk
http://www.lambdalegal.org,
http://www.cnn.com 
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar8.htm
http://zh.wikipedia.org/