Next month should have been a time for celebration for LGBT rights advocates, as it marks the first anniversary of the Council of Grand Justices’ ruling paving the way for the legalization of same-sex marriage within two years.
However, the Central Election Commission’s decision on Tuesday to approve three gay-unfriendly referendum proposals has added uncertainty over the future of same-sex couples in the nation.
Let us take a look at the proposed questions first.
One of the proposals submitted by the anti-gay group Alliance for the Happiness of the Next Generation asks: “Do you agree with the Civil Code’s restriction of marriage to a union between a man and a woman only?”
Another one would ask people whether they think that the right to same-sex marriage should be granted by a means other than amending the Civil Code.
The last proposal asks the public whether it supports exempting elementary and junior-high students from receiving education about homosexuality that is mandated by the Gender Equity Education Act (性別平等教育法).
On the surface, none of the three referendum proposals blatantly contradicts Constitutional Interpretation No. 748, which, despite ruling that the Civil Code’s prohibition of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, gives concerned authorities leeway to decide through what legislative measure they plan to protect LGBT couples’ right to marry.
However, the results of the three referendums, should they garner the more than 280,000 signatures each required to pass the second threshold and be put to a vote, could nevertheless influence how lawmakers and the government legalize same-sex unions.
If the first two proposed referendums are passed, they would send a strong message to those in power that a majority of Taiwanese do not think that homosexual couples deserve the same treatment and constitutional protection as those afforded to heterosexual couples.
Moreover, the underlying message is that most Taiwanese still regard homosexuality as an oddity and that the “condition” should therefore be dealt with in a separate context, which means a separate piece of legislation on the matter.
Despite the interpretation’s issuance on May 24 last year, LGBT rights advocates have not turned complacent and have instead stepped up their advocacy for real equality, something they believe can only be achieved by extending the Civil Code’s definition of marriage to also include homosexual couples.
Segregated legislation would not guarantee equality — far from it. What if descendants of so-called new immigrants were barred from receiving education in Taiwan and the government decided to lift the ban, but on one condition — that they be separated from the descendants of Taiwanese in a different classroom. The two groups would both be guaranteed the right to education, but would you call that equality?
Also, “protecting” young pupils from education about homosexuality would not make the nation’s non-heterosexual population go away. Doing so would only instill the idea that homosexuality is forbidden and bizarre in young minds, and impede the nation from becoming a more tolerant society.
The three proposed referendums serve as a wake-up call to rights advocates that the battle over same-sex marriage is not yet over and that they need the support of like-minded people more than ever.
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with