Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lin Tai-hua (林岱樺) has proposed a draft titled the “enforcement act of Judicial Yuan Constitutional Interpretation No. 748 and Referendum No. 12.” Her title combines the names of the Cabinet’s and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Lai Shyh-bao’s (賴士葆) drafts, and Lin has said that her draft takes an “eclectic” stance on same-sex unions.
However, reading Lin’s bill is infuriating, as it displays blatant discrimination against same-sex couples. It contravenes constitutional protections for freedom and equality, and is the most vicious of the three drafts and the farthest from marriage equality.
When lawmakers create a law, they must keep the promise held out by a constitutional state of equal protection for every citizen. Constitutional Interpretation No. 748 says: “It is within the discretion of the authorities concerned to determine the formality for achieving the equal protection of the freedom of marriage.” This means that legislative cross-party negotiations must comply with the Constitution. If a draft is unconstitutional, it should not reach the negotiation table, but should be promptly excluded.
Not getting same-sex marriage legislation passed by the deadline on Friday next week would have no effect on the existing marriage rights of opposite-sex couples. The cross-party talks are meant to decide the rights of same-sex couples and the form of those rights.
Comprehending what is taking place is unbearable. Can the fundamental rights of a minority truly be reduced or negotiated by other people?
The target of the constitutional interpretation is clear: “This case concerns the social and political issues of whether homosexuals shall have the autonomy to choose whom to marry, and of whether they shall enjoy the equal protection of the same freedom of marriage as heterosexuals.”
The interpretation says that the Civil Code’s failure to offer equal protection of marriage freedom for same-sex couples is unconstitutional, so it is unthinkable that a non-marital option that treats same-sex couples unequally could be added to the cross-party talks.
Rather than seeking harmony, Lin’s bill is strongly discriminatory: First, it questions the love and union of same-sex couples; second, it does not allow same-sex couples to be defined as parents.
The bill contains a “fake marriage clause.” As same-sex marriage does not contribute to procreating the next generation, it says that people with “unclear or undecided sexual orientation and even heterosexuals” must be prevented from simply “trying out” same-sex marriage after the act takes effect. The bill prohibits same-sex couples from marrying unless they create a permanent union of an intimate and exclusive nature for the purpose of living a shared life.
None of the employees responsible for marriage documentation at household registration offices can detect whether opposite-sex couples registering a marriage can procreate, or whether they are truly heterosexuals. If an opposite-sex couple entered into a marriage to get a tax rebate, obtain a visa or receive a subsidy, they would not necessarily produce children, but lawmakers only seek to apply the “fake marriage clause” to same-sex couples, revealing typical discrimination against sexual orientation.
Who says that same-sex couples cannot become parents? The Cabinet’s draft allows a spouse in a same-sex marriage to adopt the other spouse’s biological children, but not the spouse’s adopted children, nor does it allow the couple to jointly adopt children that one of them was not involved in procreating. Lin’s draft only allows for joint guardianship of the other spouse’s biological children, no adoptions.
Why should same-sex relationships be questioned and challenged? Is it not because those proposing the drafts believe that only opposite-sex relationships show natural affection, and that only those relationships should be cherished and respected?
The lack of understanding regarding same-sex relationships could stem from the heterosexual norm of marriage being between a man and a woman that is deeply rooted in Taiwan’s legal system.
The marriage equality bills proposed in 2013 by DPP Legislator Yu Mei-nu (尤美女) and then-DPP legislator Cheng Li-chun (鄭麗君), as well as another version proposed by Yu in 2016, were meant to be anti-discriminatory, saying that when reviewing an adoption application, a court could not discriminate based on an applicant’s gender, sexual orientation or identity characteristics.
Lin’s bill encourages discrimination. Citing the constitutional guarantee of the freedom of conscience, belief, religion and speech for every individual and group, the draft says that these rights are not to be affected or limited by the enforcement of the same-sex marriage act, and that the act does not breach the ban on differentiated treatment.
Leaving the anti-discrimination of past drafts only to arrive at the discrimination of Lin’s would move Taiwan ever farther from equality.
Life is not easy for Taiwanese. Apart from big dreams about making a fortune, they do not have much apart from love and the Constitution. People should cherish each other — and drop the discrimination.
The law cannot fathom the breadth and depth of human emotions — which might seem awkward and cruel — but it can implement equality. Lawmakers must create a system that lets people maintain and cherish intimate relationships, which should not be based on gender or sexual orientation.
Hopefully the law will not deteriorate into a tool for vested gender interests. Lawmakers must uphold constitutional values, and bring the nation closer to true equality.
Chen Yi-chien is a professor at Shih Hsin University’s Graduate Institute for Gender Studies.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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