An article published in the media recently on “cross-strait same-sex marriages” essentially called LGBT+ people’s marriages a national security “loophole.”
The rights of all LGBT+ couples come from the respect and pursuit of human rights, and we should defend the human rights of LGBT+ Taiwanese who fall in love with a partner from China and firmly defend their right to freely marry.
If people who believe that “China’s ‘united front’ workers” could infiltrate Taiwan simply through a genuine cross-strait same-sex marriage looked into the situation more closely, they would find that the majority of “united front workers” come to Taiwan through heterosexual marriages. Why would they spend time, money and effort in faking being a part of the LGBT+ community, and go through the difficult process of registering a cross-strait same-sex marriage just to enter Taiwan?
Perhaps they think that the government has thrust the doors wide open for same-sex couples spanning the Taiwan Strait simply to show their support for LGBT+ civil rights. This is wrongheaded. The Mainland Affairs Council has said that the government is respecting the judicial rulings of the executive and judicial branches.
Anyone doubting this could do an online search, where they might find a story on the Web site for the Taiwan Alliance to Promote Civil Partnership Rights about one cross-strait couple named Ryan and Righ, who married in the US and later applied to return to Taiwan as a married couple with their marriage from the US recognized. Their case was reviewed by the Taipei High Administrative Court and to date has garnered two court rulings partially in their favor. The government must abide by judicial rulings and respect constitutional government bodies as it opens up access to marriage for cross-strait same-sex couples.
Some say that heterosexual cross-strait couples are already a security loophole. Their idea of national security is about not allowing any marriages for any cross-strait couples, and not allowing any Chinese to set foot in Taiwan.
If the Chinese Communist Party really wanted to infiltrate Taiwan, it would probably just permit Chinese “united front workers” to first change their nationality, or directly buy off people of Han descent in other countries. So, would Taiwan want to prohibit all people with Han ancestry or foreigners from entering its borders?
The only solution is to bolster national security checks, and not base checks on national origin and lumping everyone together. Cross-strait marriages already undergo a strict national security review mechanism, and interviews conducted by customs agents at Taiwan’s ports go as far as asking couples minute daily life details, such as which side of the bed they or their partner sleep on.
“The more Taiwanese come together, the more secure the country is” is inspiration enough to protect Taiwan and make it indomitable; anything else is extra. The thing that truly brings Taiwanese together is that we are one people in this island nation, with love for one’s neighbor.
Suppose someone in your family or friend group fell in love with someone of the same sex, but that person had the misfortune of being born in China. If the Taiwanese partner was not allowed to marry their Chinese partner, and was forced by friends and family to break up or move to China, then where would we find this supposed spirit of love for one’s neighbor?
Lin Sheng-yi is a member of the Taiwan Alliance to Promote Civil Partnership Rights.
Translated by Tim Smith
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
RSS