The Alliance for the Happiness of Future Generations, an anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) group in which conservative Christians are a majority, has again launched a petition for a “marriage definition referendum” and last week submitted a proposal to the Central Election Commission.
The proposal calls for “a referendum on the definition of marriage,” yet its real purpose is to oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage.
To justify the legitimacy of its proposal, the alliance said in a news release that “holding a referendum is the exemplification of a democratic country and democracy is the pride of Taiwan.”
Using “democracy” to defend a referendum that is against same-sex marriage is to misunderstand the concept of democracy by erroneously simplifying it to mean “protest through the ballot box.” It also ignores that democratic politics should be founded upon the fundamentals of social equality and justice.
While holding referendums is an essential aspect of a democracy and public consensus plays a vital role in politics, understanding democracy as merely an exercise in majority rule is extremely dangerous. When dialogue cannot be conducted fairly, the rights of minority groups are easily compromised.
A referendum on the rights of minority groups would likely only reflect social prejudices rather than social justice.
This is exactly the case with the anti-LGBT alliance: They keep proposing referendums that are against same-sex marriage by manipulating the logic of majority rule to prevent LGBT people — who form a minority — from striving for equal civil rights.
About half a century ago, many US states still had laws that prohibited interracial marriage. It was not until the 1967 case of Loving versus Virginia that the US Supreme Court ruled marriage between white and black persons legal.
Yet, according to opinion polls at that time, no less than 70 percent of US citizens opposed interracial marriage. If a referendum had been held, the result might have produced a huge step backward for fundamental human rights in the US.
In the past few years, Taiwanese anti-LGBT groups have proposed a series of referendums that were opposed to same-sex marriage, while social campaign groups have repeatedly made it clear in response that issues of human rights should never be determined by casting votes.
Dealing with the rights of minority groups through referenda not only demonstrates a misunderstanding of democracy, but would also be an abuse of the referendum process which deprives society of opportunities to more proactively facilitate equality and social justice.
Last year, the Council of Grand Justices ruled in favor of social campaign groups in a constitutional interpretation on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage: “Homosexuals, due to demographic structure, have been a discrete and insular minority in society. Impacted by stereotypes, they have been among those lacking political power for a long time, unable to overturn their legally disadvantaged status through ordinary democratic process.”
Despite the council asserting gay people’s equal civil rights through a constitutional interpretation, anti-LGBT groups continue to promote a referendum.
These groups, with their strong religious backgrounds, will never give up, just as there are still racist extremists in the US, despite interracial marriage being legal for half a century.
Conservatives and prejudice will not disappear overnight, but the struggle for social justice and equality should never be compromised. Democracy does not exist to serve prejudice.
Jiang Ho-ching is a doctoral candidate in anthropology at American University in Washington.
Translated by Chang Ho-ming
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath