Human rights groups have accused the Hong Kong government of failing to provide the “bare minimum” of rights to same-sex couples after it rejected a bill that was introduced to comply with an order by the city’s top court.
The city’s unicameral legislative council (LegCo), on Wednesday rejected the bill by a vote of 71-14 after the second reading, following months of debate in the city between opponents who said it threatened family values and advocates who said the government was out of line with the majority of residents who supported same-sex relationships.
The bill, which would have given limited rights to couples whose marriage or civil union was registered overseas, was in answer to a September 2023 ruling by the court of final appeal. The landmark case, brought by activist Jimmy Sham, affirmed that the city’s laws defined marriage as between a man and a woman, but also said the government was obliged to create an “alternative framework” which recognised the “core rights” of same-sex couples.
The resulting proposal was criticised at the time by advocates who said it was a “pained attempt” to comply while offering as little as possible. On Wednesday they criticised LegCo’s rejection of it.
Advocacy group, Hong Kong Marriage Equality, said the veto sent “a troubling signal to both local and international communities – that court rulings may be disregarded and the dignity of individuals overlooked.
“We commend the government for taking initial steps towards fulfilling its constitutional obligation to implement the court of final appeal’s decision on establishing a legal framework for the recognition of same-sex relationships.
“At the same time, we express our profound regret that lawmakers have chosen to ignore clear evidence and public sentiment.”
Amnesty International’s Nadia Rahman said the bill was “flawed”, and would have provided “the bare minimum of protection” only to couples who registered their relationship overseas, but its rejection showed “an alarming disdain for LGBTI rights”.
“It is a setback which shows just how far Hong Kong has to go before everyone in the city can enjoy equal rights,” said Rahman.
“All of our community feel very disappointed, but I still want everybody to have hope because this is not the endgame,” Sham said after the vote.
Wednesday’s vote was the first time a bill has been rejected by LegCo since an electoral overhaul by the Chinese government, designed to ensure only pro-Beijing “patriots” could run Hong Kong, effectively removed opposition.
During the lengthy debate some legislators said they were voting against the bill because it would affect the foundations of monogamous and heterosexual marriage in Hong Kong.
Lawmaker Holden Chow from the city’s biggest pro-establishment party said the bill’s passage would mean opening “a Pandora’s box”, and “subverting Hong Kong’s marriage system between one man and one woman”.
Junius Ho, a firebrand legislator known for incendiary views about the LGBTQ+ community, said the government should never have proposed the bill, and suggested increasing the rights of same sex couples would cause confusion on Mother’s Day and Fathers Day.
“Why do we still need to worry about imaginary troubles and do all this unorthodox stuff? To plunge an entire society into turmoil for a small minority of people?”
Among the 14 who voted in favour of the bill, lawmaker Regina Ip likened it to a “minimum spending” requirement, given the rights offered were limited.
Secretary for constitutional and mainland affairs Erick Tsang, said the government was disappointed that legislators vetoed the bill, but respected their decision which he said was on behalf of local residents and mainstream opinion.
Meanwhile Beijing officials said the decision proved that LegCo was not a “rubber stamp” parliament, as critics have called it since the electoral overhaul.
Polling has shown the majority of people in Hong Kong support same-sex relationships, and extensive lobbying by LGBTQ+ groups and a series of hard fought court cases have established some piecemeal rights, including those related to public housing, inheritance law and spousal visas.
Nick Infinger, a Hongkonger who previously succeeded in an LGBTQ+ rights legal bid, said the community had few other places to turn.
“Judicial review would be the only way that we can fight for our rights … little bit by little bit,” he said.
The court of final appeal gave the government a two-year deadline, which ends this month. In a statement the government said it wouldn’t apply for an extension, but would “further discuss and study the issue with the department of justice”.
Additional research by Jason Tzu Kuan Lu
