近年來，同性婚姻成為臺灣同志社群中重要的政治議題，將同婚納入基本人權及公民權之訴求，是同婚運動的主要策略；於此同時，反對聲浪如酷兒左翼，其對於婚家體制之批判，以及同婚運動即是同志主體走入必然「正典化」的諸多觀察，在運動中亦形成極具影響力的抵制派。針對臺灣同婚運動的來自酷兒左翼的批判，多數採納由觀察美國新自由主義脈絡中所生產的酷兒論述，然而兩地政經及運動脈絡不同，筆者認為應該避免將兩地同婚的進程直接複製。有鑑於此，本篇論文將透過闡明美國新自由主義之發展，以及性治理政策如何影響當地同志運動歷史進程，質疑「同性戀正典化」一詞挪用至臺灣脈絡的合理性及實際性；此外，筆者亦將藉由賽菊蔻對於酷兒研究方法學的反思，提出酷兒批判應用於運動層面的限制，並用以帶給臺灣同婚運動一個反二元對立路線的可能。

Same-sex marriage has become an important political issue in the LGBT communities in Taiwan within the past few years. The marriage equality movement emphasizes that marriage is a basic human right and adopts the rhetoric of citizenship to seek LGBT inclusion in the nation-state. At the same time, a queer left that critiques the LGBT inclusionary effort into the nationstate and the normalizing forces of same-sex marriage has also solidified as a strong voice and politics against same-sex marriage in this debate. In this paper, through clarifying the historical context of the marriage equality movement and the specificity of neoliberal sexual governance in the United States, I question the intelligibility and effectiveness of the queer left’s appropriation of the discourse of “homonormativity” in the Taiwanese context. Drawing from Eve Sedgwick’s reflexive critiques on paranoid hermeneutics of suspicion commonly practiced by queer theorists, I point to the limits of directly employing queer critiques as a political strategy, and the possibility of an antibinary stance on the same-sex marriage debate in the current movement.