The government, all governments needs to get out of the business of giving a shit about same sex, other sex, any sex, whatever. The only thing that matters is if you have citizens. Nothing more.
You either can allow two citizens to recognize visiting rights, health care, etc, or not. I dont really care if you are married or not.
The government is enforcing contracts. Write up what kind of contacts can exist - divorce with child support, health care etc. And then if two consenting adults want to enter into that contract, they can. End of discussion.
Marriage and companionship is not defined by the state. Only contract enforcement is. And it is completely wrong to say one citizen has access to a contract, and another, arbitrarily does not.
This might be the most succinct I’ve ever seen this. Good on ya
The government, all governments needs to get out of the business of giving a shit about same sex, other sex, any sex, whatever.
Marriage is heavily bound up in the ownership of property and the political networks of elite families. If you get under the fold…
The law, which would have recognised some rights for couples who were married overseas
seems to be a broadly unpopular compromise solution, satisfying very few people in practice
the bill had been criticised by both LGBTQ activists - who viewed it as insufficient in creating an alternative framework - and by members of the LegCo - who said the proposal went against traditional family values and paved the way for the legalisation of same-sex marriage
who said the proposal went against traditional family values
And there is the problem of course. Which is absurd. Because who ever is in power gets to determine what a traditional family value is. And that is why citizens need to argue that government is a set of codified rules, bound to all, not some morality maker.
Because who ever is in power gets to determine what a traditional family value is.
That is the nut of any political system. You can’t just throw up your hands and announce “We need to get government out of X”, because that’s loser talk. It implies you’ve sworn off ever having a majoritarian view and just want to hide in obscurity. Ultimately, you need a popular representative majority. And the good news is…
Polls suggest that there is rising support for same-sex marriages among the Hong Kong public. A survey in 2023 found 60% were in favour of same-sex marriage, compared to 38% a decade ago.
Mass Line politics would suggest change is in the wind, whether the old guard of social conservatives want it or not. But in a system like Hong Kong’s (one pioneered by the British and staunchly championed by American Libertarians until about five years ago) that change has to occur via shifting social attitudes in the municipal mega-corps.
One of the bigger frictions in Hong Kong politics is this stark divide between the (heavily conservative Catholic) ruling class and the (far more Buddhist/secular) working class. Even the handover back to China hasn’t done much to change the dynamic, as Beijing has prioritized loyalty to the CCP over real progressive politics. Turns out Eastern Capitalists are as happy to sell out for a quick buck as their Western Peers.
citizens need to argue that government is a set of codified rules, bound to all, not some morality maker
The problem isn’t that the government lacks a set of codified laws. It’s that the laws are shit and need changing.
Maybe the inertia in the legislature will give the courts more latitude to simply nullify anti-LGBTQ provisions, as happened in the US state of Iowa in 2009 under Varnum v. Brien. Or maybe the public can stir up a big enough stink that Hong Kong corporate heads relent. I guess we’ll see.
I think you missed the basic point: if it doesn’t apply to all citizens it cannot apply at all. That is not loser talk. That is simple to the point and is exactly what you want in a government.
I appreciate everything else you said however. Relating it to the real world situation is reality.
if it doesn’t apply to all citizens it cannot apply at all
The conservative response to this has always been “The law does apply to all people. One Adult Man, One Adult Woman is a universal rule for all marriages.” The libertarian attitude of “Get government out of marriage” doesn’t work in this regard, because marriage is a legal compact with a host of downstream consequences.
Marriage is a political institution. It cannot be depoliticized, only reformed in one way or another.
One Adult Man, One Adult Woman is a universal rule for all marriages
A conservative would ask you why the woman needs to be an adult?
Again, the only real answer is you have an adult citizen who wants to form a contract (because marriages are a social and/or religious concept) with another citizen. Done.
Exactly what you said: it is a legal contract with downstream consequences (well not really if you dont want to bother with it at all, but I digress). A legal contract. You cannot pick and choose who gets to make contracts, because if you do, they really have no legal basis.
Red heads cant sign contracts with left handed people. That is where you will end up.
A conservative would ask you why the woman needs to be an adult?
Sure. There’s plenty of variation in their deplorable beliefs.
A legal contract. You cannot pick and choose who gets to make contracts
State legislatures have enormous latitude in deciding the validity of contracts. It’s one of their fundamental roles.
Same sex relationships are bourgeois decadence and against the tenets of Xi Jinping Thought
