Opinion | Why using Chinese tradition to oppose same-sex marriage in Hong Kong is misguided
- Regina Ip says the long history of the concubine system negates the argument that marriage in Chinese tradition is the union of ‘one man and one woman’
- There are complex reasons behind the evolution of the Judeo-Christian concept of marriage that go beyond same-sex couples seeking equal rights
The fact that the motion is non-binding did not stop fellow legislator Priscilla Leung Mei-fun from moving an amendment to urge the government to respect “the family values which Chinese societies cherish” and “refrain from shaking the existing marriage institution as a show of respect for the mainstream values in Hong Kong society”.
The debate reopened long-standing divisions in our society between the younger, more liberal, Western-educated generation who support equal rights and the older, more conservative camp opposed to equal rights on religious grounds, or concerns that equal rights would erode the “sacred” institution of marriage as the union of “a man and a woman”.
There is no substance in the argument that marriage as the union of “one man and one woman” is a Chinese tradition. Traditional Chinese society viewed women as the property of men, and allowed men to have more than one wife and concubine.
In deference to this Chinese tradition, the Hong Kong government did not abolish the concubine system until the enactment of the Marriage Reform Ordinance in 1970. After the ordinance came into force, in October 1971, the status of concubinage and “kim tiu” marriage (a Chinese custom which permitted the sole male heir to have more than one wife to carry on the male lines of his uncles) was abolished. Thereafter, a couple could only validly marry under the Marriage Ordinance, which defines marriage as “the voluntary union for life of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others”.