While the 2018 constitutional interpretation legalizing same-sex marriage was undeniably a major milestone in the push for LGBTQ equality, there is far more under the rainbow umbrella than marriage.
Two of the most pressing problems were brought under the spotlight recently, as LGBTQ groups took the opportunities afforded by International Transgender Day of Visibility on March 31 and Children’s Day on April 4 to raise urgent calls for legal reform.
Perhaps most appalling are the medical requirements facing someone wanting to change their legal gender. According to Ministry of the Interior rules, an applicant must provide two psychiatric evaluations and proof of surgery to change the little “M” on their identification card to “F” or vice versa, meaning that they must have removed their characteristic sex organs.
There are many reasons why this is an unfair and damaging requirement. Not every transgender person can or wants to undergo surgery, yet lacking documents that reflect their reality, many face difficulties when applying for necessities such as housing and employment.
This is despite the ministry’s vow in 2014 that it would revise the controversial rules, as well as a legal amendment by the Legislative Yuan in 2015, which the ministry is evidently still reviewing. For an issue that the government has long agreed needs fixing, it is shocking that it persists.
The Taiwan Alliance to Promote Civil Partnership Rights, which led the legal case for marriage equality, on March 31 turned its sights on this issue, launching a petition and representing a client suing the government to overturn what it decries as “forced sterilization.”
A few days later, a coalition of LGBTQ rights groups announced another lawsuit, this one over the right to adopt.
While a net positive, the 2019 law to implement same-sex marriage included some provisions clearly intended to appease its opponents, among them a ban on adoption if both spouses are not biologically related to the child. This raises a host of potential human rights violations that were illustrated by emotional stories from the six litigants.
One couple, Yi Ling (怡伶) and Yi Ju (怡如), said they had to have some difficult discussions after Yi Ju fell ill earlier this year. Their adopted son is a legal stranger to Yi Ling, meaning that “if something happened to Yi Ju ... he would lose both his mothers at once,” Yi Ling said. The couples’ legal representatives are approaching the case from the perspective of both LGBTQ and children’s rights, citing the right to equality under the Constitution and the “best interests of the child” principle under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Like the gender change rule, it is appalling that a law that so flagrantly harms the public good is still on the books. Hopefully as the public and the court hear these couples’ stories, they will realize that acceptance is what is best for everyone involved.
Yet the news is not all bad. Over the past few months, there has been progress in the fight to counteract another legal oversight that only allows unions between partners from countries that recognize same-sex marriage.
Aside from the Judicial Yuan on Jan. 22 approving amendments to explicitly allow all international marriages involving a Taiwanese partner, the Taipei High Administrative Court on March 4 also revoked a decision by a household registration office to refuse the union between gay rights activist Chi Chia-wei (祁家威) and his Malaysian partner, citing a provision that foreign laws should not be applied if they contravene “the public order or boni mores [good morals] of the Republic of China.”
Taiwan can be proud of its status as Asia’s LGBTQ haven, but marriage is not the be-all and end-all. If it is to keep this well-deserved title, things must keep changing for the better.
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Most countries are commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II with condemnations of militarism and imperialism, and commemoration of the global catastrophe wrought by the war. On the other hand, China is to hold a military parade. According to China’s state-run Xinhua news agency, Beijing is conducting the military parade in Tiananmen Square on Sept. 3 to “mark the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II and the victory of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression.” However, during World War II, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) had not yet been established. It
A recent critique of former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s speech in Taiwan (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” by Sasha B. Chhabra, Aug. 12, page 8) seriously misinterpreted his remarks, twisting them to fit a preconceived narrative. As a Taiwanese who witnessed his political rise and fall firsthand while living in the UK and was present for his speech in Taipei, I have a unique vantage point from which to say I think the critiques of his visit deliberately misinterpreted his words. By dwelling on his personal controversies, they obscured the real substance of his message. A clarification is needed to
There is an old saying that if there is blood in the water, the sharks will come. In Taiwan’s case, that shark is China, circling, waiting for any sign of weakness to strike. Many thought the failed recall effort was that blood in the water, a signal for Beijing to press harder, but Taiwan’s democracy has just proven that China is mistaken. The recent recall campaign against 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, many with openly pro-Beijing leanings, failed at the ballot box. While the challenge targeted opposition lawmakers rather than President William Lai (賴清德) himself, it became an indirect
RSS