Since the US Supreme Court declared the ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional in June, the historic ruling has been an encouragement to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) communities across the world, and Taiwan is no exception. Indeed, the nation’s central and some local governments have responded positively to the call for equal marriage rights.
Among the six municipalities, Taipei, Taoyuan, Taichung and Kaohsiung said they would include same-sex couples in their public mass weddings, while New Taipei Mayor Eric Chu (朱立倫) and Tainan Mayor William Lai (賴清德) refused to adopt the same measure.
‘SAME-SEX PARTNERSHIP ACT’
Photo: Yang Kuo-wen, Taipei Times
The Ministry of Justice has proposed a same-sex partnership act, which is similar to civil unions in the US, because it believes Taiwanese aren’t ready to accept same-sex marriage.
The ministry made the announcement after the LGBT community held a rally in Taipei last month to urge the legislature to amend the Civil Code (民法) to allow for marriage equality.
“This policy follows global judicial trends and changes in public opinion,” the ministry said. But the plan has been panned as much as it’s been praised.
Photo: Liao Chen-huei, Taipei Times
An opinion poll conducted by the ministry in 2013 showed that 53.7 percent of Taiwanese supported same-sex marriage, while 61.1 percent said that same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt children.
Minister of Justice Luo Ying-shay (羅瑩雪) said that her ministry would hold an online vote on the government’s Public Policy Network Participation Platform (公共政策網路參與平台) — join.gov.tw/openup/ — and take the results into consideration when drafting the final bill to be sent to the legislature for review.
Voting began on Aug. 3 and runs for three months. Questions include whether or not voters support legal protection for same-sex couples, whether you support a same-sex partnership act and whether you support a same-sex marriage act.
EQUALITY NOT NEGOTIABLE
But the Green Party Taiwan and some LGBT groups have called the ministry’s separation of gay couples from straight couples “false equality and true discrimination” (假平等、真歧視).
The party argues that all people should enjoy the right to decide whether to enter a marriage, a view endorsed by the Taiwan Alliance to Promote Civil Partnership Rights (伴侶盟). The alliance questioned whether the ministry is trying to delay a draft bill for marriage equality.
“The marriage bill will become invalid automatically if it doesn’t pass a second and third reading during the last legislative session by December,” the alliance said. “When will the ministry submit the partnership act to the legislature? During this session or after the presidential election next year when the authorities in charge step down?”
Perhaps the ministry’s biggest mistake lies in the use of an online vote to guide policy. If the majority of Taiwanese voted against giving equal rights to foreign workers, for example, should the ministry deprive the workers of these rights?
More importantly, online voting is considered less objective than phone polling. Anti-gay religious groups mobilize their followers to actively participate in this kind of voting, inviting distortion of the sample in favor of the opinionated few.
Instead of handling a human rights issue via online voting, the ministry should take the initiative to protect equal rights. As the five US grand justices who voted in favor of marriage equality emphasized in their plurality opinion, when a minority group’s constitutional rights are violated, the authorities in charge must stand out just to safeguard its rights.
A CONSTITUTIONAL CALL
Inspired by the US ruling, the Taipei City Government announced last month that it plans to seek a constitutional interpretation on whether the Civil Code violates the Constitution by restricting marriage to straight couples. However, the US situation is quite different from that of Taiwan, and it seems unrealistic to seek an interpretation at present.
For the US Supreme Court, the conservative and progressive forces are evenly matched. But in Taiwan, many of the 15 members of the Council of Grand Justices are conservative. All four justices approved by the legislature in June, all are opposed to same-sex marriage.
“Homosexuals are only acceptable on the premise that they do not infringe on the freedom of others,” said Deputy Minister of Justice Wu Chen-huan (吳陳鐶), one of the new justices who will take their posts in October. Wu added that most countries do not recognize same-sex marriage, which he claims would have a negative impact on society.
What is Wu talking about? He never shows, probably because there is no evidence, that same-sex marriage will infringe on the freedom of others. And the ministry’s own polls show that a majority of Taiwanese support same-sex marriage, so what’s the big deal?
Regardless, as a progressive interpretation of the law is unlikely in the short term, enacting a partnership act is not a bad idea because it can protect the rights of same-sex couples in the absence of the legislature passing a marriage act, which is the ultimate goal.
A PROGRESSIVE RULE
Meanwhile, the Ministry of Health and Welfare made a special interpretation of the Medical Care Act (醫療法) last month, allowing same-sex couples to make medical decisions for partners based on an oral or written agreement.
“In the past, same-sex couples did not even have hospital visitation rights, let alone medical decision right for partners,” said the Taiwan GDi Association (台灣基地協會), which praised the health ministry.
It’s praise that is well deserved.
In late October of 1873 the government of Japan decided against sending a military expedition to Korea to force that nation to open trade relations. Across the government supporters of the expedition resigned immediately. The spectacle of revolt by disaffected samurai began to loom over Japanese politics. In January of 1874 disaffected samurai attacked a senior minister in Tokyo. A month later, a group of pro-Korea expedition and anti-foreign elements from Saga prefecture in Kyushu revolted, driven in part by high food prices stemming from poor harvests. Their leader, according to Edward Drea’s classic Japan’s Imperial Army, was a samurai
Located down a sideroad in old Wanhua District (萬華區), Waley Art (水谷藝術) has an established reputation for curating some of the more provocative indie art exhibitions in Taipei. And this month is no exception. Beyond the innocuous facade of a shophouse, the full three stories of the gallery space (including the basement) have been taken over by photographs, installation videos and abstract images courtesy of two creatives who hail from the opposite ends of the earth, Taiwan’s Hsu Yi-ting (許懿婷) and Germany’s Benjamin Janzen. “In 2019, I had an art residency in Europe,” Hsu says. “I met Benjamin in the lobby
April 22 to April 28 The true identity of the mastermind behind the Demon Gang (魔鬼黨) was undoubtedly on the minds of countless schoolchildren in late 1958. In the days leading up to the big reveal, more than 10,000 guesses were sent to Ta Hwa Publishing Co (大華文化社) for a chance to win prizes. The smash success of the comic series Great Battle Against the Demon Gang (大戰魔鬼黨) came as a surprise to author Yeh Hung-chia (葉宏甲), who had long given up on his dream after being jailed for 10 months in 1947 over political cartoons. Protagonist
A fossil jawbone found by a British girl and her father on a beach in Somerset, England belongs to a gigantic marine reptile dating to 202 million years ago that appears to have been among the largest animals ever on Earth. Researchers said on Wednesday the bone, called a surangular, was from a type of ocean-going reptile called an ichthyosaur. Based on its dimensions compared to the same bone in closely related ichthyosaurs, the researchers estimated that the Triassic Period creature, which they named Ichthyotitan severnensis, was between 22-26 meters long. That would make it perhaps the largest-known marine reptile and would