Even the first official state visit of a US leader to England in decades couldn't keep US President George W. Bush out of a fray over whether men can marry men, and women marry women.
The highest court in the US state of Massachusetts ruled on Tuesday that a ban on same-sex marriages was unconstitutional, setting the stage for a battle not only within the various arms of state government but also on the national scene.
In an unusual reaction to a state court ruling, the decision drew fire from the peaks of Washington power.
"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," Bush said in a statement issued along the way from Washington to London.
Not so, said Massachusetts Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, who wrote the majority opinion in the 4 to 3 decision.
"Marriage is a vital social institution ... It brings stability to our society," she wrote. "Barring an individual from the protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution."
Thus the war lines were drawn between a growing number of gay couples who live together, raise children and want heterosexual-marriage-type protections for their family and the legions of straight couples who believe such arrangements violate the natural order.
"I don't think we should put people in jail for what goes on in their bedrooms," religious Christian evangelist Jerry Falwell told CNN. "But I think [this ruling is] something a vast majority of people don't want."
The court decision could provoke new impetus among conservative Republicans for the long-brewing push for amendment to the US constitution to define marriage as a heterosexual institution.
Conservatives have been frustrated by moves by states like Massachusetts and Vermont, which recently approved same sex civil unions but not marriages, to defy the federal 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. That law defines marriage as a union of separate sexes.
The advocates of such an amendment found a willing leader on Tuesday. In his statement, Bush declared himself ready to go to "work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."
The deeply divided Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled 4 to 3 on a case filed by seven same-sex couples who had been turned down when they applied for marriage licenses, media reports said.
In the majority opinion, Marshall also wrote that the primary purpose of marriage was "the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children."
Justice Robert Cordy, in a dissenting opinion, disagreed, saying the legislature, not the court, must decide an issue so "deeply rooted in social policy."
And Justice Martha Sosman, in another dissenting opinion, said the phenomenon of gay relationships was too recent and too little studied to guarantee that "redefinition will not have unintended and undesirable social consequences."
Creating a grace period for the ruling to take effect, the court said the couples were entitled to marry but also gave the legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."
That move put the highly volatile issue back in the lap of the Massachusetts legislature, which is already considering a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The constitution currently does not specify the sex of marriage-license applicants.
No US state sanctions gay marriages, but Vermont allows same-sex couples to tie the knot in civil unions, which give them nearly the same rights as married couples within Vermont but not outside the state.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with