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
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS