Following the Council of Grand Justices’ Constitutional Interpretation No. 748 on May 24 last year, the Democratic Progressive Party government has not proposed a corresponding draft law and has refused to explain the spirit and direction of the draft.
The government’s hesitation encouraged anti-LGBT religious groups, who took advantage of last year’s amendments to the Referendum Act (公民投票法), which significantly lowered requirements, to initiate three illegal and unconstitutional referendums in March.
The first referendum questions proposed by the anti-LGBT camp were: “Do you agree that marriage should be restricted to the union between one man and one woman?” and “On the premise that the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman remains unchanged, do you agree that the rights of two persons of the same sex to permanent cohabitation together should be guaranteed in a law other than the Civil Code?”
They were blatantly trying to block the requirements in Constitutional Interpretation No. 748 that the authorities must within two years from the interpretation’s announcement amend or enact laws to implement “equal protection of the freedom of marriage.”
In the end, the Central Election Commission (CEC) demanded that the questions be changed, and so the proposer added the words “Civil Code,” changing the question to: “Do you agree that the Civil Code should define marriage as the union between a man and a woman?”
This was nothing but an administrative expedient.
The CEC knew that the proposer of the referendum nonsensically stated that “it is not necessary to use the word ‘marriage’ to refer to marriage freedom,” but still approved the proposal.
The anti-LGBT proposer knew that the amended referendum question was only about restricting “marriage” as defined in the Civil Code, yet they still used the initial version of the question in an attempt to brainwash Taiwan and mislead people into believing that as long as they voted yes, “marriage” could be restricted to one man and one woman.
This highly controversial referendum on April 17 passed the first stage of the CEC review. In the following months, the anti-LGBT camp spent hundreds of millions of New Taiwan dollars on distorting LGBT people’s right to marriage equality, by calling it a “same-sex union” and “same-sex cohabitation.”
The Executive Yuan’s position paper is clear: “The Constitution guarantees people of the same sex the right to marry. This has been confirmed by Constitutional Interpretation No. 748, and it will not be changed due to the results of this referendum.”
However, society has been brainwashed by the anti-LGBT camp, and even the most fundamental component of the constitutional order, that a law must not contravene the Constitution, is being denounced by the anti-LGBT camp for disrespecting public opinion.
People who are brainwashed behave as if they have been bitten by zombies — panic spreads and even the most basic common sense is thrown out the window.
In response to this referendum, which was wrong from the very beginning, the Taiwan Alliance to Promote Civil Partnership Rights immediately filed a lawsuit. After it was dismissed, the alliance filed an administrative lawsuit. A referendum cannot be held on a basic human right — this is a fundamental component of the constitutional order.
The alliance regrets that the LGBT community has become the first group to be oppressed and exploited by Taiwan’s referendums, and hopes that the judiciary will defend democratic constitutionalism and revoke these three referendums.
The alliance also hopes that the ruling party will learn from the bitter election losses and understand that at least 3 million people pursue equality and are willing to back the ruling party and support a draft bill that meets the requirements of the grand justices’ ruling.
In the past few months, the anti-LGBT camp has pumped hundreds of millions of NT dollars into inciting fear and prejudice against the LGBT community. This has caused unbearable suffering and humiliation for the gay community.
Hopefully Taiwanese society will be able to engage in profound reflection, and democracy will not be abused again to allow the majority to harm minority groups.
Chien Chih-chieh is secretary-general of the Taiwan Alliance to Promote Civil Partnership Rights.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
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
At the same time as more than 30 military aircraft were detected near Taiwan — one of the highest daily incursions this year — with some flying as close as 37 nautical miles (69kms) from the northern city of Keelung, China announced a limited and selected relaxation of restrictions on Taiwanese agricultural exports and tourism, upon receiving a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) delegation led by KMT legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅崑萁). This demonstrates the two-faced gimmick of China’s “united front” strategy. Despite the strongest earthquake to hit the nation in 25 years striking Hualien on April 3, which caused
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past