On Nov. 18, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the prohibition against civil marriages for same-sex couples violates the Massachusetts Constitution. As Chief Justice Margaret Marshall stated in her ruling, "The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens." She said the government had failed to identify any reason for denying civil marriage to homosexual couples.
The ruling was yet another milestone for the homosexual cause in the US. In response, however, US President George W. Bush commented during his visit to London that "marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," and he felt that the ruling violated this principle. He vowed to work with the US Congress to "defend the sanctity of marriage."
I believe that Bush's remarks were not only inappropriate but also senseless. As the head of the world's superpower, he should never let his religious beliefs interfere with the judicial system. Besides, what is the definition of "sanctity" anyway? The sanctity of marriage lies in loving and cherishing another human being. It's sacred because of the holiness of love, not a person's gender.
By sacrificing certain people's rights in order to protect his personal beliefs, Bush has brought his country back to a time when black people were enslaved and when women were not allowed to vote. Not to mention that the "sacred institution" between heterosexuals doesn't look so sacred in view of the fact that the US has the highest divorce rate in the world.
As times change, perhaps conservatives should also change their minds to keep up with trends. For example, the Episco-pal Church consecrated its first openly gay bishop early this month. This served as a very good start. Unfortunately, church conservatives are warning that the consecration could have destroyed people's faith in the church.
In fact, these people should not worry about a thing if their faith in God is strong enough. They have to realize that people hold different religious, moral and ethical convictions about homosexuality, and that the key to the problem often lies in how they read the Bible, and how they truly understand God's words.
I am particularly impressed by the ruling, which stressed that the purpose of marriage is "the commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children." Conservatives claim that the purpose of getting married is to raise children. If that is the case, should women who do not or cannot give birth be barred from marrying?
As for same-sex couples with children, the ruling will not only protect their rights but also those of their children. As the ruling pointed out, homosexual parents have no access to civil marriage and its protection because they are unable to procure a marriage license.
"It cannot be rational under our laws, and indeed it is not permitted, to penalize children by depriving them of state benefits because the state disapproves of their parents' sexual orientation," the ruling said.
Looking back at Taiwan situation, President Chen Shui-bian (
Meanwhile, the opposition camp has also vowed to further protect and promote gay rights in Taiwan. It's certainly hoped that our politicians will not only talk the talk but also walk the walk.
Chang Sheng-en is a lecturer of English at Shih Chien University and National Taipei College of Business.
Congressman Mike Gallagher (R-WI) and Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) led a bipartisan delegation to Taiwan in late February. During their various meetings with Taiwan’s leaders, this delegation never missed an opportunity to emphasize the strength of their cross-party consensus on issues relating to Taiwan and China. Gallagher and Krishnamoorthi are leaders of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. Their instruction upon taking the reins of the committee was to preserve China issues as a last bastion of bipartisanship in an otherwise deeply divided Washington. They have largely upheld their pledge. But in doing so, they have performed the
It is well known that Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) ambition is to rejuvenate the Chinese nation by unification of Taiwan, either peacefully or by force. The peaceful option has virtually gone out of the window with the last presidential elections in Taiwan. Taiwanese, especially the youth, are resolved not to be part of China. With time, this resolve has grown politically stronger. It leaves China with reunification by force as the default option. Everyone tells me how and when mighty China would invade and overpower tiny Taiwan. However, I have rarely been told that Taiwan could be defended to
It should have been Maestro’s night. It is hard to envision a film more Oscar-friendly than Bradley Cooper’s exploration of the life and loves of famed conductor and composer Leonard Bernstein. It was a prestige biopic, a longtime route to acting trophies and more (see Darkest Hour, Lincoln, and Milk). The film was a music biopic, a subgenre with an even richer history of award-winning films such as Ray, Walk the Line and Bohemian Rhapsody. What is more, it was the passion project of cowriter, producer, director and actor Bradley Cooper. That is the kind of multitasking -for-his-art overachievement that Oscar
Chinese villages are being built in the disputed zone between Bhutan and China. Last month, Chinese settlers, holding photographs of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), moved into their new homes on land that was not Xi’s to give. These residents are part of the Chinese government’s resettlement program, relocating Tibetan families into the territory China claims. China shares land borders with 15 countries and sea borders with eight, and is involved in many disputes. Land disputes include the ones with Bhutan (Doklam plateau), India (Arunachal Pradesh, Aksai Chin) and Nepal (near Dolakha and Solukhumbu districts). Maritime disputes in the South China