Why QT same-sex visa ruling could be a Trojan virus for traditional marriage in Hong Kong
In answering the first question posed by the director of immigration in his application for leave to appeal, with due respect, I believe that the court is wrong to hold that it was not an absolute bar.
The question posed by the director was that, “given that same-sex marriage or civil partnership is not legally recognised in Hong Kong at all levels” and accordingly the denial of the right to same-sex couples does not constitute discrimination on account of sexual orientation, whether this is an absolute bar to a claim of discrimination on account of sexual orientation, when the differential treatment is based on marital status in all contexts. This clearly is the key fulcrum on which the appellant QT built her case.
Further, the Court of Final Appeal in its ruling seems to have created a new law instead of applying and interpreting with regard to the meaning of “spouse” or “dependant”.
My concern is purely about the potential legal challenges brought about by the decision by the court which, to my mind, is a disguised Trojan horse virus that would eventually undermine our traditional social fabric of marriage between men and women.