A same-sex union special act drafted by HTC chairwoman Cher Wang’s (王雪紅) Faith, Hope and Love Foundation and proposed by Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lin Tai-hua (林岱樺) proceeded to a second legislative reading on May 3. Alongside the Executive Yuan’s “enforcement act of Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 748” and a “same-sex family members special act” sponsored by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Lai Shyh-bao (賴士葆), the three draft bills were on Thursday sent to cross-caucus talks presided over by Legislative Speaker Su Jia-chyuan (蘇嘉全).
Laws formulated to cover family members and relatives, marriages or any horizontal union between two people should never disregard a family’s vertical relationships. There are already many same-sex families in Taiwan whose children were born after an anonymous sperm donation and artificial insemination. These children are lineal descendants of one of the parents in a legal parent-child relationship.
What requires particular consideration from lawmakers is how to give the other spouse in the same-sex marriage — who is not the biological parent, but who is willing to raise the child with their partner — the legal right to rear, protect and educate the child with the partner in the best interests of the child, rather than the adults.
This seems to be the core concern for people who trumpet the protection of family values and advocate the concept of family responsibilities. Parents determined to give birth to children and raise them together should also be allowed to jointly exercise their rights and fulfill their responsibilities. The law should recognize the parent-child relationship between the non-biological parent and their partner’s child.
This is why the Cabinet’s draft, written by the Ministry of Justice, allows a spouse in a same-sex marriage to adopt the other spouse’s biological children.
The court, after ensuring that the spouses want to jointly raise the child and that the relationship is in the child’s best interests, approves the adoption, which grants parent-child rights, but also the obligation to care for the child — in the same way as for heterosexual families. Stable relationships not easily renounced are in the best interest of adopted children.
Lin’s and Lai’s bills only allow a spouse in a same-sex marriage who is the biological parent to grant the other spouse — who is not a blood relation of the child — partial guardianship. Their idea is that guardianship would allow the spouse of the biological parent to contribute to the child’s care and protection. The same mechanism exists in the Civil Code (民法) and most people in a same-sex relationship have already authorized their partner to be the guardian of their children.
In principle, the law allows biological parents to authorize any trusted person to perform the function of a guardian, regardless of their relationship to the child. Even a nanny can be the authorized guardian of a child.
From a legal perspective, should two parents who bring up a child together be considered nannies or parents? The Lin and Lai versions prefer creating a guardianship that can be terminated, leaving children who are used to having two people caring for them with only one.
What does that mean for the family stability that Lin and Lai advocate for or their position that having two parents is better than one? The adoption approach gives the child greater security. An adoption can only be broken by a court, not the will of the parents.
If a same-sex couple breaks up, the one exercising guardianship over the child can renounce the relationship and become free of further responsibility. If the guardian had greater financial means, the breakup could result in a sudden decline in the child’s care.
Opponents of same-sex marriage use the justification that they protect “the happiness of the next generation,” but in refusing to give equal rights to same-sex families, the best interests of the children are ignored.
Closer scrutiny of the posturing of lawmakers and lobbyists reveals their focus on the selfish interests of adults: the nature of kinship, whether the biological or the adoptive parent is the child’s true family after a breakup.
From the beginning, opponents of same-sex marriage never really considered the issue from the perspective of protecting the well-being of children. The legislators, before casting their votes, should think twice about which version conforms to the best interests of the children.
Kuan Hsiao-wei is an associate professor of law at National Taipei University.
Translated by Chang Ho-ming
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
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US