Supreme court ruled current marriage laws' failure to guarantee marriage equality unconstitutional

It just ocurred to me that, with the holidays coming and everybody headed South to see the family, there will be a few “Mom, Dad, this is Ah Huang. We love each other and we are getting married!” moments this weekend.

2 Likes

Unfortunately, given the imperative to carry on the family name, a lot of parents probably won’t be as enlightened as the supreme court justices.

Yep. Given that they buy foreign brides for procreation and such. Worse is that the old generation controls the purse, that and guilt. But with enough support from society, these new couples will find their own way. They have to. And it will be a better way. Their way. If they can shake off the “family” -rather, traditional- shakles, it will open a myriad of possibilities. This is a breath of fresh air all younger geenrations, both hetero and homo and anything in between and beyond, need desperately.

Many criticize the government for “solving” the easiest issue. In truth, this is just one that cuts through many other matters and has as main players the ones that can bring the whole country together and forward: the youth. If they have hope, we all have hope. Basic identity issues need to be solved in every aspect in order to know where to go from here. And breaking up with obsolete shakls is essential in every aspect of society, economy and most importantly, the mind.

1 Like

I would like to see more positive portrayals of the daily life of homosexual couples in popular entertainment. Current they are either ignored or only depicted for their struggles.

More on the exact text here: Taiwan's constitutional court rules in favor of same-sex marriage | Taiwan News | 2017-05-24 16:22:00

What I find very important, and strangely not being reported in the news, is this part:

(7) The Marriage Chapter does not set forth the capability to procreate as a requirement for concluding an opposite-sex marriage. Nor does it provide that a marriage is void or voidable, or a divorce decree may be issued, if either party is unable or unwilling to procreate after marriage. Accordingly, reproduction is obviously not an essential element of marriage. The fact that two persons of the same sex are incapable of natural procreation is the same as the result of two opposite-sex persons’ inability, in an objective sense, or unwillingness, in a subjective sense, to procreate. Disallowing two persons of the same sex to marry, for the sake of their inability to reproduce, is a different treatment having no apparent rational basis.

1 Like

That particular line of reasoning doesn’t hold up. Tons of couples I know here (including one of my kids) have given their kids the mother’s family name because there’s no son, There’s no convention dictating which parent’s surname is used.

That is what keeps my hopes up about the decriminalization of adultery here in Taiwan.

Currently, according to existing laws, adultery only accounts for two people having sexual relations, like the Bill Clinton definition, i.e. oral and anal don’t count as sexual relationship. Therefore, when one aside is denying that he or she is cheating and refusing to get a divorce when the marriage has obviously came to its end, the one being cheated on has to catch the adultery in the act.

That’s why we see all those private detective ads with monkeys on them. The court/law demands proof of the cheaters’ body parts actually coupling. Anything short of that could result in the case being dismissed. Gathering that evidence often requires the one being cheated on having to break many laws (trespassing, breaking and entering, and many more) just to be able to obtain evidence of his/her loved ones getting it on, like in the middle of it.

That is a terrible way to determine whether a marriage is sustainable.

So with the Supreme Court spelling out sex/procreation isn’t the main purpose of marriage, perhaps this opens up avenues to decriminalization of adultery. Stop the divorce process to favor the man, and end any discrimination in the divorce procedure all together.

That then would open up Diverse Union Act, for people who aren’t families in a traditional sense to form a family.

1 Like

Sure, the reasoning doesn’t hold up, but lots of people’s attitudes are based more on tradition than reason. There’s a long tradition of men from poor families marrying into wealthy families with no sons to carry on the family name, but it’s always been a method of last resort. In families that can produce sons, keeping the family line intact with male biological heirs has always been the preferred option.

I know several gay couples who have been disowned by their parents, with the main reason given being that they can’t carry on the family name. And then you have gay people who end up getting married and having kids as a result of family pressure. Things are beginning to change, but this pressure is very real, especially in the south, and isn’t something that will go away overnight.

1 Like

I’m afraid this homosexual marriage issue will end up like the prostitution issue years ago, which means nothing constructive will be done in reality.

“Homo” may just seem like an abbreviation of “homosexual,” but it’s actually an offensive slur.

1 Like

Given th elow bith rates, honestly, carrying on the family name is moot. I’d dare to say most heterosexual couples here in Taiwan do not want, can’t or simple are unable to afford a kid. I think what the ruling does say si taht if you cannot force people who biologically can conceive to reproduce, then you also do not have the right to discrimate against a union that won’t result in babies. Because, face it, even they can, married couples are not reproducing, family name my foot. The most enlightened choose not to, otehrs can’t because their age/medical conditions/etc. It would be insane to discrimate against any of them, and hence, it si nice to see the courtesy of common sense extended to couples who biologically belong to the same sex and hence cannot by themselves conceive.

As we have seen, it is the obssession with the family name that causes most pain and social disorder, with infidelities, trickery, bribery and collusion, human trafficking, or at least, divorces and disavowing women’s rights and many others, as consequences. Far more damaging overall.

1 Like

A good point. Obsessing over family name is pretty pointless when nobody is having children. Change is coming whether they like it or not. Maybe some of these newly minted married gay couples who want to have kids can adopt unwanted babies from other countries. We’ve got to start doing something about the abysmally low birthrate.

The use of the word homo to refer to a group of people is pejorative, with exception to when talking about our genus, like did Neanderthals and Sapiens get married.

Outside of Africa, we are all admixture of both, oh, and let’s not forget about the Denisovans. So yes, inter-homo-marriage happened, and made homo-sapiens outside Africa more adaptable to the climate and environment of their new surroundings like getting lighter skin to produce more vitamin E in colder regions, malaria resistance, and ability to live at a higher altitude. And Asians are a bit more Neanderthal and Denisovan than Europeans.

I’m just gonna pretend this is what you meant.

I have fixed it.
Thanks, Dr. Milker. I didn’t know that before.

No problem. It’s an honest mistake.

That won’t happen as if the law isn’t amended, any gay couple can just go register as a married couple after two years, so basically the justices had thought this through.

I don’t see where all this “nobody is having kids” deal comes from.
I got one recently married kid who gave birth six weeks ago, and another who’s due in October.
In my big office, I’d say there might be one in 15 couples who aren’t having kids, and the vast majority of those with kids have 2 or even 3.
In my neighborhood, everyone has kids.

And these are all dead center middle class or grey collar folks, none of them come from family money or privilege, pretty much the demographic standard for Taipei.

Yeah, well, you know what they say about stats.

Any frggin ways, I certainly don’t see any reduction in production anywhere in my world.
And it sure ain’t like the frigging crowds are thinning out.

And you also know what they say about anecdotal evidence. :sunglasses: