Ordinance must offer protection to all citizens
The debate over the proposed amendment to the Domestic Violence Ordinance to include same-sex spouses in the scope of protection has become an issue so divisive even members from the same political party find themselves disagreeing with one another.
First it was the Democratic Party's Wong Sing-chi vowing not to vote for the amendment in its current form because of his religious beliefs, despite his party having supported it. Then, Civic Party members protested that their chairman Ronny Tong Ka-wah committed the party to support the amendment without consulting them and respecting their faith.
Mr Wong proposes changing the name of the law, which is currently called the Family Violence Ordinance (translated from the Chinese) to the household violence ordinance and he will support it.
Opponents of the amendment, who often claim religious beliefs as the basis of their action, say they are concerned that inclusion of same-sex spouses in the ordinance would indirectly recognise gay relationships and pave the way to legalising same-sex marriage, especially when the law is about 'family'.
Groups representing sexual minorities are rightly sceptical of Mr Wong's proposition. The law should be protecting victims of abuse in relationships, not households. The law currently includes ex-marital spouses and ex-cohabiting spouses who don't live with the abusers any more but are still under threat because of their former relationships.
Advocates for the amendment include Horizons, an organisation which specialises in sexual orientation and gender identity issues. We would like to think that logical argument alone would resolve differences over this issue, however, that is naive.