The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals recently found in favor of New York resident Edith Windsor in a case over federal government inheritance tax, ruling that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates the US Constitution’s equal protection clause.
Windsor had been in a relationship with her partner, Thea Spyer, for more than 40 years. The couple registered their marriage in Canada, where same-sex marriage is legally recognized, in 2007. In 1997, the federal government passed the DOMA, legislation that defines marriage as the legal union of a man and woman, ensuring the continued existence of the gulf between the rights enjoyed by same-sex couples and those between heterosexual couples. Spyer passed away in 2009, and when Windsor tried to gain access to her long-term partner’s inheritance, she was hit with an inheritance tax bill of US$363,053, more than she would have paid had their marriage been recognized in federal law.
Same-sex couples are also denied the same rights as “normal” couples regarding health insurance, tax credits and social welfare.
In Taiwan, a homosexual couple, after being turned away when trying to register their marriage in court in 2000, took the issue to the Council of Grand Justices, but the case was not heard because the Judicial Yuan said it did not qualify for appeal. The general consensus among the judiciary in Taiwan is that the law does not currently recognize same-sex marriages, and until it does, nothing will change. It is not up to the judiciary to make the law.
The US Circuit Court of Appeals took a strict position on the Windsor case because it recognized that homosexuals, as a group, have suffered discrimination for a long time. Therefore, the US government, as the defendant in this case, had to prove that its policies did not result in discrimination against anyone on the basis of sexual orientation. This is very different from past litigation in which the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to show that he or she had experienced discrimination.
Since 2008, there has been some debate on same-sex marriage in Taiwan. Nowadays, family structure is more heterogenous than ever, going far beyond the traditional, legally recognized concept of the nuclear family. We now have, for example, co-habiting heterosexual couples, homosexual partners in stable, long-term relationships who would like to get married but who are unable to do so legally, or good friends living together and looking out for each other. Even though the rights of people in a partnership are not necessarily compromised at the outset by the lack of legal recognition of their relationship, it is not hard to imagine that they will come up against problems as a result of this lack of recognition as they live their lives together.
The next step for the gay rights and gender equality movement is to push for new ways of defining partnerships, whether by incorporating same-sex marriages within the traditional marriage format or establishing a new system of partnerships with guaranteed rights. Three possible models could be same-sex marriage; a partnership system with no restrictions on gender or sexual orientation; or partnerships with more than two partners.
Last weekend, Taipei hosted a gay pride parade. The main theme was marriage reform, to reflect diversity in partnerships and to seek equal rights. Here we have civil groups taking steps to ask for government policy to be changed on issues they are concerned about, trying to open up dialogue with the rest of society. Will the various branches of government in Taiwan, the executive, judicial and legislative organs, listen?
Tsai Chi-hsun is secretary-general of the Taiwan Association for Human Rights.
Translated by Paul Cooper
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Xiaomi Corp founder Lei Jun (雷軍) on May 22 made a high-profile announcement, giving online viewers a sneak peek at the company’s first 3-nanometer mobile processor — the Xring O1 chip — and saying it is a breakthrough in China’s chip design history. Although Xiaomi might be capable of designing chips, it lacks the ability to manufacture them. No matter how beautifully planned the blueprints are, if they cannot be mass-produced, they are nothing more than drawings on paper. The truth is that China’s chipmaking efforts are still heavily reliant on the free world — particularly on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
Keelung Mayor George Hsieh (謝國樑) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on Tuesday last week apologized over allegations that the former director of the city’s Civil Affairs Department had illegally accessed citizens’ data to assist the KMT in its campaign to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) councilors. Given the public discontent with opposition lawmakers’ disruptive behavior in the legislature, passage of unconstitutional legislation and slashing of the central government’s budget, civic groups have launched a massive campaign to recall KMT lawmakers. The KMT has tried to fight back by initiating campaigns to recall DPP lawmakers, but the petition documents they
RSS