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
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