As the May 24 deadline looms for the government to create provisions to legalize same-sex marriage, the process has been stalled again with a third bill advancing to a second reading on Thursday last week.
As many advocates feared, despite initial promises to quickly take care of the issue nearly two years ago, the government has dragged it out to the very end.
Groups opposing same-sex marriage mounted a wildly successful disinformation campaign that led to last year’s referendum results, and it is not surprising that their bill, backed by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Lai Shyh-bao (賴士葆), is competing with the one backed by the Executive Yuan.
Both have also advanced to the second reading, and it is up to the lawmakers to decide which one to pass. Hopefully the government will not disappoint again, as this administration has too much to lose.
However, now there is a deeply disturbing third bill that claims to be the “middle path” between the two other proposals, drafted by HTC chairwoman Cher Wang’s (王雪紅) Faith, Hope and Love Foundation and sponsored by Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lin Tai-hua (林岱樺).
It uses the term “same-sex unions,” which is sort of a step above the “family members” bill backed by Lai and groups opposed to marriage equality, but still goes against the constitutional interpretation that specifically used the word “marriage.”
Wang’s foundation aims to support Christian organizations around the world. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is widely known that the campaign against same-sex marriage is being driven by those who use Christian doctrine to discriminate.
There are countless moderate and LGBTQ-friendly Christians, but the bill’s omittance of the word “marriage” is already telling.
Certain contents of the bill show that it is definitely no “middle path,” instead serving as another vehicle to deny the rights of same-sex couples. Even worse, it masks itself as a more moderate law by use of the word “union.” At least groups opposed to marriage equality, such as the Alliance for the Happiness of the Next Generation, are clear on their position.
The remaining contents aside, one look at the bill’s “fake marriage” clause should raise red flags. The clause would “authorize prosecutors or social welfare agencies to request that a court intervene and abrogate a same-sex union if relatives within three degrees of consanguinity of either member of the union believe that it was not for the purpose of two people ‘living life together.’”
This is blatant discrimination. Some Christian groups in Taiwan are even blasting the bill as tarnishing the church’s reputation.
It is comical that Lai continues to use the referendum results to build his argument, saying that public opinion should be above the constitutional interpretation. In what nation does public opinion take primacy over the constitution?
Unfortunately, while opponents lambast Lai for his comments, he likely knows what he is doing. Due to the disinformation campaign, many people who still believe that the referendum results legally “rejected” same-sex marriage remain in denial. His comments will only further this confusion, which is what the opposition wants.
What was celebrated as a landmark decision in human rights has turned into a drawn-out slugfest, with new obstacles appearing, even with the finish line in sight.
The Legislative Yuan is to start reviewing all three proposals tomorrow. Hopefully the final decision will not be one that mars Taiwan’s reputation as a progressive nation that respects human rights.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers