Despite widespread calls to legalize same-sex marriage, many conservatives insist that marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples and that homosexual couples only need a separate law that would give them rights similar to those enjoyed by married couples.
Their comments have drawn criticism for encouraging a policy based on segregation.
Like many white people who defended racial segregation in the US and Apartheid in South Africa many years ago, those conservatives claim that, despite being segregated, people can still be equal, without realizing that a system of segregation is institutionalized social inequality.
Some of the conservatives have argued that because Aborigines have the Indigenous Peoples Basic Act (原住民基本法), there is no reason homosexual couples should not have an act exclusively designed for them too.
Why would introducing a separate act for homosexual couples constitute discrimination, they ask.
Laws for minorities, including Aborigines and people with disabilities, exist because the government recognizes that certain groups are marginalized and disadvantaged as a result of social inequality.
Therefore, they require more protection from the law, in addition to having their basic rights. In other words, laws for minorities should serve to provide additional protection for minorities and advance social equality.
For example, while Aborigines have the same rights as every person under the same laws, the Indigenous Peoples Basic Act provides additional protection against possible harm from racial injustice that the government acknowledges still exists.
However, conservatives are calling for a special law for homosexual couples instead of amendments to the Civil Code, not because they want to promote equal rights or acknowledge the oppression sexual minorities face, but for discriminatory reasons.
Believing that homosexual people do not deserve the same rights as heterosexuals, they are calling for a law that would segregate sexual minorities from heterosexual people and treat them differently by excluding them from the rights of married couples and families protected by the Civil Code.
To put it more simply, the Indigenous Peoples Basic Act and the law on homosexual couples that conservatives are calling for are entirely different in their motivations and objectives.
While the former was introduced to promote social justice, the latter would exacerbate social inequality.
Conservatives claim that such an act would protect homosexual couples, but in reality it could only encourage discrimination.
Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Yu Mei-nu’s (尤美女) proposed amendments to the Civil Code would only require changing five of its articles. In terms of the legislative process, amending the Civil Code is much easier and more practical than introducing an entirely new law for homosexual couples.
Conservatives claim they respect homosexual people and support their rights, but in order to deprive the latter of their rights to marriage, they are willing to see considerable legislative resources wasted on a superfluous law.
Some have even criticized homosexuals, saying they are ungrateful, and this only makes people wonder about their true motivations for wanting a separate law.
Jiang Ho-ching is a doctoral candidate in anthropology at American University in Washington.
Translated by Tu Yu-an
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US