Do the judges who gave the verdict on the appeal regarding benefits for same-sex spouses have any idea how offensive and discriminatory their words sound (“Government has ‘legitimate aim’ to protect traditional marriage, Hong Kong appeal court rules, overturning landmark decision on benefits for same-sex spouses”, June 1)?
If certain benefits were granted, the Court of Appeal judges wrote, “the very status of marriage would diminish significantly in the eyes of the public”, and it would “offend, challenge, question, confuse, or subtly change society’s established understanding and concept of marriage”.
According to one judge, it was undisputed that the word “marriage” referred to the union between a man and a woman.
Advertisement
But even in Hong Kong, it is disputed, as this appeal shows. Forty countries worldwide already recognise either same-sex marriage or civil unions; Australia in December became the 26th nation in the world to allow same-sex couples to marry, after Taiwan became the first Asian jurisdiction to rule to legalise this, in May last year.
Gay rights activists celebrate a landmark decision by the constitutional court, paving the way for Taiwan to become the first place in Asia to legalise gay marriage, in Taipei on May 24, 2017. Photo: AFP
But these judges in Hong Kong still unapologetically entertain anti-gay reflexes institutionalised in a hodgepodge of private persuasions, religious or otherwise.
