The Council of Grand Justices on Friday began a session to hear a constitutional challenge concerning same-sex marriage, brought by gay rights advocate Chi Chia-wei (祁家威) and the Taipei City Government.
This makes Taiwan the first Asian nation to agree to a constitutional interpretation on this issue, pushing for amendments to the Civil Code (民法) as a way to legalize same-sex marriage.
At the core of the debate is Article 972, Section 1, Chapter II of the code, which defines marriage as an agreement made by the “male and the female parties,” something Chi and the city government’s counsel said is unconstitutional. The Constitution does not address marriage between people of the same sex.
Minister of Justice Chiu Tai-san’s (邱太三) closing remarks drew a lot of attention. Chiu’s preference was for an alternative proposal amending the Civil Code: enacting a separate law for same-sex marriage under the principle of separate but equal; same-same, but different.
It should be noted that Premier Lin Chuan (林全) has distanced himself from Chiu’s preference. Responding to a question on the government’s position, Lin later said Chiu did not speak for the Executive Yuan, adding that he did not really understand what Chiu meant by “separate, but equal.”
Chiu also — rather absurdly and tangentially — quoted the ancient Chinese classic I Ching (易經, Book of Changes) which talks of the original emergence of the earth and the sky, and from there men and women. Case closed. Chinese antiquity has bequeathed Taiwan the cast-iron principle that marriage should be based on a union between a man and a woman.
This was not Chiu’s most absurd reference, but it did tie in with his central position, that marriage — specifically between a man and a woman — was legitimized by its antiquity, that it was a “thousand-year tradition” and, for that reason, should not be tampered with.
“Has there ever been a cultural institution or social phenomenon for same-sex marriage?” he asked, presumably rhetorically.
It is an important point, if only because it has been repeatedly broached as a rationale for denying equal marriage rights to a significant minority of the population.
Tradition is important, as it facilitates stability and therefore progress, counter-intuitive as that might at first seem. The point is also important because a society has to ask itself whether tradition serves it, or if the shoe is on the other foot.
Speaking of feet, to what extent was long-held tradition given as reasoning for the longevity of foot-binding in China? This dubious practice was widespread from just before the Song Dynasty to the mid-1950s, making it a thousand-year tradition. When the Japanese put a stop to it in Taiwan in 1915, was it objected to on the basis of tradition?
Laws and social conventions can, and do, change. In 1275, the age of consent in England was 12. It took 600 years for that to be increased to 13 in England and Ireland, but only another 10 years for it to be increased again, to 16. In the UK’s Sexual Offences Act of 1967, the male homosexual age of consent was 21. It was first lowered to 18 in 1994, and then reduced to 16 in the 2000 Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, bringing age of consent in line with that for heterosexuals.
Same-sex marriage is not specified in the Civil Code (民法), and it — like all laws — is not set in stone. It is a reflection of the society and the public’s expectations, and is there to serve society, not immutably prescribe how it behaves.
Changes to the Civil Code cannot be made spuriously or arbitrarily, but that is not how same-sex marriage advocates see it, either. It is a matter of extreme gravity, and it enjoys popular support in Taiwan.
Unless Hollywood movies like Greenland, Deep Impact, and Armageddon have predictive powers and a rogue space rock is heading our way, stopping Chinese Communist Party expansionism is likely to prove the single most challenging and dangerous problem of our lifetimes. How can the United States, Taiwan, and other liberal democracies prepare for and prevent attacks from China? How can Washington bolster Taipei’s confidence when it doesn’t recognize Taiwan as a real country and, so far, lacks the political will to make major adjustments to its ossified China policy and Taiwan policy? How can Taiwan make itself heard on the world stage when
Hypersonic weapons are defined as armaments capable of traveling at speeds faster than Mach 5 and can be broadly classified into two types: hypersonic glide vehicles (HGV) and hypersonic cruise missiles. The former are launched into the upper atmosphere by ballistic missiles. The vehicle is then separated from the booster to maneuver, or glide, toward its target. The latter can be launched from a jet plane or rocket to reach supersonic speed before igniting a scramjet engine to achieve hypersonic speeds. As the US engages in a great-power competition with China and Russia, all three countries are racing to field hypersonic
The number of people emigrating from Hong Kong has been rapidly increasing, Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department data show, with the territory’s population dropping by 110,000 people from 2019 to this year. China’s imposition of a National Security Law has clearly triggered a massive population outflow. However, not only people but also foreign businesses are leaving Hong Kong. For example, Vanguard Group, the world’s second-largest asset management company, VF Corp and Sony Interactive Entertainment have moved their top regional management from Hong Kong to Singapore. LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton, the world’s largest luxury goods company, has also relocated staff
President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) Double Ten National Day address has attracted a great deal of analysis and many different interpretations. One core question is why Tsai chose this occasion to discuss Taiwan’s national status. What was her main motive and what effect did she intend to have? These are issues that clearly need further clarification. The section of Tsai’s speech that attracted the most attention internationally was, not surprisingly, the part where she laid out “four commitments” that she said should serve as common ground for all Taiwanese, regardless of political affiliation. The commitments were to liberal democracy and constitutional government; that the