釋字728號解釋的多數意見宣稱：平等僅是眾多憲政價值中的其中一個價值，必須在具體案件中與其他價值相互權衡競爭；依此，基於考量法安定性、法不溯及既往原則，以及尊重私法自治及契約自由，祭祀公業排除女系子孫擔任派下員的傳統宗族習慣，並未違反憲法平等原則。然而，持少數意見的大法官和其他批評者卻認為，平等是憲政體制最核心的構成性價值，依據憲法平等原則及增修條文促進性別平等的規定，國家不僅有消極義務去避免直接性別歧視，同時也有積極義務去消除間接性別歧視。這兩種對於平等的不同釋憲觀點，即「競爭性平等觀」與「構成性平等觀」，何者才是具有說服力的主張而可證成國家統治行為的政治正當性？本文認為，平等關懷是尊重自由的前提，缺少平等的自由，毋寧是為強凌弱、眾暴寡的弱肉強食世界提供背書。從而，多數意見聲稱，基於尊重立法及民間習慣，應容許以共同血緣為基礎的祭祀公業得自由排除女系子孫擔任派下員，此舉不但容任不平等的性別歧視文化繼續存在，同時更無異於宣告，男優於女的血緣歧視也是合理正當的；這完全背離「每個人都有同等尊嚴、國家應給予平等關懷」的憲政主義核心價值。

In Interpretation No.728, the majority opinion claims that equality is only one of many constitutional values being balanced with other. It argues that the traditional custom of ancestor worship guilds excluding female offspring from being qualified successors does not violate the constitutional principle of equality. The minority and other critics nevertheless insist that equality is the constitutive value of our constitutional regime. The government has both a passive obligation to prevent direct gender discrimination and an active obligation to eliminate indirect discrimination. Between the two conceptions of equality, i.e. the ＂competitive＂ and the ＂constitutive＂, this essay aims to explore which is the most convincing conception to justify the legitimacy of state actions. I endorse the constitutive conception by arguing that without equality liberty may lead to the law of jungle in which the weak becomes the prey of the strong. No. 728 not only tolerates the existing culture of gender discrimination but also strengthens the ＂blood discrimination＂ which endorses the superiority of male over female. Therefore, it entirely violates our central value of constitutionalism: ＂everyone has equal dignity, and the state is obligated to show equal concern for each.＂