Despite widespread calls to legalize same-sex marriage, many conservatives insist that marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples and that homosexual couples only need a separate law that would give them rights similar to those enjoyed by married couples.
Their comments have drawn criticism for encouraging a policy based on segregation.
Like many white people who defended racial segregation in the US and Apartheid in South Africa many years ago, those conservatives claim that, despite being segregated, people can still be equal, without realizing that a system of segregation is institutionalized social inequality.
Some of the conservatives have argued that because Aborigines have the Indigenous Peoples Basic Act (原住民基本法), there is no reason homosexual couples should not have an act exclusively designed for them too.
Why would introducing a separate act for homosexual couples constitute discrimination, they ask.
Laws for minorities, including Aborigines and people with disabilities, exist because the government recognizes that certain groups are marginalized and disadvantaged as a result of social inequality.
Therefore, they require more protection from the law, in addition to having their basic rights. In other words, laws for minorities should serve to provide additional protection for minorities and advance social equality.
For example, while Aborigines have the same rights as every person under the same laws, the Indigenous Peoples Basic Act provides additional protection against possible harm from racial injustice that the government acknowledges still exists.
However, conservatives are calling for a special law for homosexual couples instead of amendments to the Civil Code, not because they want to promote equal rights or acknowledge the oppression sexual minorities face, but for discriminatory reasons.
Believing that homosexual people do not deserve the same rights as heterosexuals, they are calling for a law that would segregate sexual minorities from heterosexual people and treat them differently by excluding them from the rights of married couples and families protected by the Civil Code.
To put it more simply, the Indigenous Peoples Basic Act and the law on homosexual couples that conservatives are calling for are entirely different in their motivations and objectives.
While the former was introduced to promote social justice, the latter would exacerbate social inequality.
Conservatives claim that such an act would protect homosexual couples, but in reality it could only encourage discrimination.
Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Yu Mei-nu’s (尤美女) proposed amendments to the Civil Code would only require changing five of its articles. In terms of the legislative process, amending the Civil Code is much easier and more practical than introducing an entirely new law for homosexual couples.
Conservatives claim they respect homosexual people and support their rights, but in order to deprive the latter of their rights to marriage, they are willing to see considerable legislative resources wasted on a superfluous law.
Some have even criticized homosexuals, saying they are ungrateful, and this only makes people wonder about their true motivations for wanting a separate law.
Jiang Ho-ching is a doctoral candidate in anthropology at American University in Washington.
Translated by Tu Yu-an
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS