The first constitutionalism was a gender exclusionary constitutionalism, which simply took a foundational gendered political order for granted, drawing from Enlightenment theories prevalent at the time. This chapter explains how the marital contract and the separate spheres tradition excluded women from the realm of equal citizenship rights despite constitutional appeals to the notion of equality. It shows how women were active in revolutionary moments and also seized to intervene in constitution-making from the very start and to advance various causes (e.g., temperance, female suffrage, abolitionism). The chapter then proceeds to show how women eventually conquered voting rights and the recognition of constitutional sex equality, along with provisions protecting motherhood and the family, first during interwar constitutionalism and then in post–World War II constitutionalism, and shows how none of this was sufficient to tackle the legacy of the separate spheres tradition, especially given the cultural hegemony of the breadwinner family model in the postwar years.

Government policies and South Korea’s legal system historically regarded people with disabilities as objects of compassion and protection, rather than human beings equal to nondisabled people. Starting in the 1980s, disabled people began protesting for equal worth and dignity. People with disabilities then established organizations and sought changes in policies and the legal system with support from civic groups and the media. Their claims, mostly grounded upon natural law ideas and the equality protections in the Constitution, were for formal equality. The chapter traces the struggles by Korean disability communities, civic organizations, and lawyers to raise public consciousness and press the National Assembly to revise or enact laws, such as the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). The chapter also examines the outcomes of movements for the rights to mobility, independent living, and special education. It concludes by highlighting shortcomings in Korean disability law and suggests necessary reforms for a more inclusive and integrated society.

Despite some policy gains and expanded civil liberties, sexual minorities in South Korea face challenges from both conservatives and liberals. While anti-LGBTI conservatives seek to block equal rights and antidiscrimination laws, many liberal politicians have been reluctant to embrace sexual minority rights as fundamental human rights. In many instances, they portray sexual minority rights as premature, rather than permanently impossible, asserting that it is “not yet” the right time in Korea. This chapter discusses early LGBTI mobilization in the 1990s in three parts: the solidarity politics cultivated with labor and emerging human rights activism against state violence and national security surveillance; the untimely deaths of LGBTI activists; and so-called youth protection policies that deferred freedom and empowerment for LGBTI youth. This discussion is paired with an analysis of how LGBTI rights activism fared during and after the Candlelight Protests in 2016–17 in what I call a “politics of postponement.”