Opponents of same-sex marriage demonstrate in Taipei on Nov. 24. Their signs make statements about the traditional family.
A couple holds hands during Taipei's annual pride parade on Oct. 29
Posted on 11/30/2016 8:36:26 AM PST by SeekAndFind
TAIPEI -- Taiwan's momentum toward becoming the first republic in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage has run up against religion.
President Tsai Ing-wen, who came into office in May, supports legalizing marriage rights for all. Last month, in the lead-up to Taiwan's annual pride parade, expectations rose that the Legislative Yuan would pass a bill to that effect by the end of this year. On Nov. 17, the legislature began fully debating a revision to the civil code.
That same day, some 10,000 opponents demonstrated in the streets.
A week later, when the Yuan's Legal System Committee held a public hearing on the bill, same-sex couples as well as parents of LGBT children shared personal experiences in stressing the need for marriage equality. And human rights groups rallied around the parliament building to support the cause.
But representatives of religious groups also showed up to speak against the bill. They argued that same-sex marriage would destroy families and throw Taiwanese society into confusion.
The leader of a Christian organization criticized schools for "nurturing" LGBT people through programs designed to deepen understanding.
With momentum having been gathering since last January, when Tsai won the presidency, many Taiwanese were surprised by the outburst against marriage equality.
Tsai has been supportive of the issue from the outset. She even appointed Audrey Tang, a trans woman, as a minister without portfolio.
And this year's pride parade, at the end of October, attracted a record 80,000 participants from various parts of Asia.
Hsu Hsui-wen, head of an organization that promotes LGBT rights, said the opposition seemed to coalesce only when marriage equality appeared to be on the brink of certainty.
In a survey earlier this month, commercial broadcaster TVBS found that 43% of respondents oppose marriage rights, 1 percentage point more than those who favor equality.
Hsu said her organization will work to deepen public understanding of the issue and overcome the opposition through debate.
Opponents are focusing, in part, on the language of the bill, which would change the civil code's definition of a marriage from the union of a "man and woman" to "both sides."
The bill also calls for eliminating the civil code's age-based gender bias. In Taiwan, males older than 17 and females older than 15 are allowed to marry. The bill would permit anyone older than 17 to marry.
But there are some in Taiwan who see this as too radical. At the hearing, a legal scholar said marriage between men and woman is a culture that cannot be changed by revising the civil code.
Meanwhile, the Ministry of Justice is preparing another bill aimed at ensuring the rights of same-sex partners. The legislation is considered more acceptable to opponents of marriage equality than the bill to revise the civil code.
Activists have criticized this bill, arguing it would isolate the LGBT community. Yet it could end up getting the nod, depending on how much of a hubbub opponents create down the road.
President Tsai has yet to clarify her stance.
The Legal System Committee, meanwhile, appears to be moving toward the Ministry of Justice bill. It is to hold another public hearing, then amend the civil code revision bill to reflect the voices raised.
But the number of sessions and hours for deliberation are not fixed, so issues could fail to proceed from the committee.
It turns out that the issue could actually be too sensitive for gay-friendly Taiwan.
Consider that the bill to amend the civil code was worked out under the leadership of You Mei-nu, a member of the Democratic Progressive Party, which has a parliamentary majority. In other words, the governing party is split on the issue.
So forget marriage equality sailing through the Yuan -- the law-making body may never even get a bill.
Asia will have to wait for LGBT rights.
The pic of the two women holding hands looks fake..?
Perverts on Parade, gross.
It ‘stumbles’ because the true percentage of legitimately displaced people in this country (and the world) is actually a small fraction. Small enough to be legitimately be considered as aberrant and outside the norms of acceptability.
It is only when outside influences such as government or a media and entertainment industry obsessively focus on the trivial 1 percent and try to make that segment seem much, much larger than it really is.
In a world without politics, bureaucrats and do-gooder airhead Hollywood liberals this crap would end as inauspiciously as it began.
Truth is truth. You can’t name it any other thing.
It’s not so much about making the group seem bigger than it really is. It’s about not hurting their feewings. They want to be married and mean people don’t want them to be married and that makes them sad. Mean people suck, you know.
Of course, it’s wrong to want to keep people from being happy, but anyone who thinks a marriage license is a happiness license is delusional. Similarly anyone who thinks a marriage license guarantees you get sex is delusional.
But we don’t want to hurt anyone’s feewings, do we?
Most countries haven’t made “discwimination” of any kind their number one sin like the U.S. has. If you can successfully define something as “discwimination” here, then it gets an instant “Scarlet D” and must be repealed instantly to avoid incurring the wrath of Mother Gaia.
And, yes, studies have shown that U.S. citizens think homosexuals are 20% of the population because of the extreme disproportionate focus homosexual characters and people are given in entertainment and media.
It really isn’t about the license or the law. It is about forcing acceptance and embracement of an aberrant lifestyle that really hasn’t a basis in nature. They can put all the lipstick and glitter they want on it, but it is still a pig in the end.
Their real purpose is to force acceptance and complete endorsement of their aberration.
I understand that, but their mechanism is
Feeeeeeewings
Woah, woah, woah, feeeeewings.
Leviticus 20:13 makes more and more sense to me these days.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.