On June 26, the US Supreme Court ruled in its Obergefell versus Hodges decision that the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry. By a vote of 5-4, the ruling swept away state bans on same-sex unions. Perhaps while a majority in the US and many around the world are celebrating the decision, it might be unpopular or foolish to consider dissent. However, there are some uncertainties.
Surely, people should be entitled to a basic right to love whomever and in whatever fashion they choose. However, in most parts of the world, including Asia, ethical opposition remains against the institutionalization of same-sex marriage and families that should be differentiated from disapproval of homosexuality. While homosexuality might not be fully accepted as a social norm, it is — in most cases — not baldly disparaged.
So if the broad concept of homosexuality is separated into three categories — same-sex behavior, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage, most people could probably accept or understand the first two, but a large number would be opposed to the third. The social reservation with regard to institutionalizing the third category — still a significant 37 percent in the US according to a Gallup poll — should not be vilified because these people remain unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy.
Most movements in Asia center on whether gay couples should be entitled to marriage and family rights. More people remain skeptical about a decline in traditional or nuclear family structures. In an expanded definition of marriage or family, which spouse would be the husband and which the wife? If a gay couple adopts a child, which partner should be called “mom” and which “dad”?
In Taiwan, 40 percent of the public is in favor of same-sex marriage, but 45 percent are against, a TVBS poll found last year. This perhaps coincides with a view that such disruption of traditional family structures would exacerbate the continued shrinking and aging of populations. No country in Asia has yet legalized same-sex marriage.
Moreover, “legislating from the bench” or activism on the part of the US Supreme Court is not good judicial practice. As US Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his dissent: “The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgement. The right it announces has no basis in the [US] Constitution or this court’s precedent.”
The desire to remake society according to popular insight should be delegated to the legislative branch. The US Congress, which represents public opinion, should legislate same-sex marriage — as 36 states and the District of Columbia have. It should not be of concern to the judiciary.
The comparison of conventional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment to African-Americans and women seems misguided. In contemporary times, lesbian and gay people have enjoyed such citizenship rights as suffrage, freedom of expression and protection from unjust discrimination. It is rather the socially recognized and approved attitudes toward marriage and family that have altered over time.
Upsetting legal order as constitutional and “meant to be” without a concrete juridical basis is a course that has no end. As US Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion: “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family... They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The constitution grants them that right.”
In the future, might the court rule to incorporate and stand for the constitutionality of juvenile, polygamous and incestuous associations as well?
Alfred Tsai is studying economics and political science at Columbia University.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under