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
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers