Days after the Nov. 24 elections, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Lai Shih-bao (賴士葆) demanded that the government “abide by the will of the people” and only allow same-sex couples to have civil unions.
Lai also lashed out at Judicial Yuan President Hsu Tzong-li (許宗力) for “trumping democracy” by saying that any laws passed following the referendums “cannot contradict” the Council of Grand Justices’ Interpretation No. 748, which guarantees same-sex couples the right to marriage.
He also proposed introducing another referendum in 2020 to annul the interpretation.
The absurdity here is manyfold.
First, the referendum questions on Nov. 24 need to be clarified. Two of the three questions proposed by groups against marriage equality were related to marriage: “Do you agree that the Civil Code should define marriage as the union between a man and a woman?” and “Do you agree that the right to persons of the same sex to create a permanent union should be guaranteed by an institution other than marriage as defined by the Civil Code?”
The wordings were formed after a hearing determined that the groups’ original questions — which used “marriage” in the questions without the restrictive modifier “as defined by the Civil Code” — had contradicted the constitutional interpretation.
In other words, by acknowledging the mistake and changing the wording, the groups fully understood that the authorities would still be required by the interpretation to amend or enact laws that protect same-sex couples’ right to marriage — or so the Central Election Commission believed, as it said in a news release in April after it approved the questions.
Legal experts cautioned the commission even before the referendums took place, saying that the groups were veiling their true intentions by adding the restrictive modifiers to their proposals just so the questions could pass the commission’s review. Meanwhile, the groups were telling the public that they were campaigning to block same-sex couples from marrying at all, whether via the Civil Code or a separate law.
So the warning was right: The groups are denying that the referendum results leave any room for the possibility of marriage equality, even in the form of a separate law.
They were endorsed by some KMT lawmakers and likely by many more who voiced their support for the groups before the elections, including Kaohsiung mayor-elect Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜), who reportedly called an anti-gay pastor after the elections and promised to bring his choice for Kaohsiung Education Bureau head to the pastor, presumably for approval.
Lai also said that what Hsu and another “few grand justices” decided was not as democratic as the referendum, and that as long as Hsu and other justices appointed by the Democratic Progressive Party do not recognize the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution, their decisions are not to be respected.
Plenty of debates could be launched on the question of whether constitutional courts are “democratic” enough, but what is certain is that the KMT does not respect the Constitution as much as it thinks it does. KMT politicians only cite it when discussing cross-strait relations, shouting about the section on territory.
Lai is no exception. He criticized Hsu’s qualification because Hsu had argued that the sovereignty of the ROC does not extend to the “mainland.”
The Constitution, more than the KMT and some independence advocates like to admit, is not just about “territory.” It guarantees human rights and calls for equality before the law “irrespective of sex, religion, race, class or party affiliation.”
A series of strong earthquakes in Hualien County not only caused severe damage in Taiwan, but also revealed that China’s power has permeated everywhere. A Taiwanese woman posted on the Internet that she found clips of the earthquake — which were recorded by the security camera in her home — on the Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu. It is spine-chilling that the problem might be because the security camera was manufactured in China. China has widely collected information, infringed upon public privacy and raised information security threats through various social media platforms, as well as telecommunication and security equipment. Several former TikTok employees revealed
For the incoming Administration of President-elect William Lai (賴清德), successfully deterring a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) attack or invasion of democratic Taiwan over his four-year term would be a clear victory. But it could also be a curse, because during those four years the CCP’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) will grow far stronger. As such, increased vigilance in Washington and Taipei will be needed to ensure that already multiplying CCP threat trends don’t overwhelm Taiwan, the United States, and their democratic allies. One CCP attempt to overwhelm was announced on April 19, 2024, namely that the PLA had erred in combining major missions
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
The Constitutional Court on Tuesday last week held a debate over the constitutionality of the death penalty. The issue of the retention or abolition of the death penalty often involves the conceptual aspects of social values and even religious philosophies. As it is written in The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, the government’s policy is often a choice between the lesser of two evils or the greater of two goods, and it is impossible to be perfect. Today’s controversy over the retention or abolition of the death penalty can be viewed in the same way. UNACCEPTABLE Viewing the