SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Taiwan's Council of Grand Justices (大法官) ruled that the current civil law banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional and that the legislature has two years to either amend the law or create a new law.
Legislation enforcing the court's ruling is already working its way through the legislature, where both the ruling and major opposition parties support legalisation as do a majority of Taiwanese people and President Tsai Ing-wen.
—news.com.au (News Corp)
A large percentage of the public in Taiwan has accepted the idea of same-sex marriage because leaders have elevated liberal social causes to show the island's democratic credentials in the face of China, a political rival that restricts free speech and association.
But the debate has prompted a backlash, with mass protests by conservatives in recent months.
Additional coverage:
- The Washington Post
- The Washington Times
- NPR
- CNN
- The New York Times
- Reuters
- Reuters (on reaction in PRC)
- Voice of America (U.S. government)
- The Sydney Morning Herald (opinion)
- Taiwan News (on media reaction)
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @12:52AM (2 children)
Marriage is a legal concept, it has little to do with love. Historical examples abound when marriage occurred with no love whatsoever (the parents used to make the decision.) The society created this legal status for a reason - because it is interested in creating and protecting families that, eventually, bear children. As children are wanted by the society, the tax load on the family is reduced as a reward and partial compensation for their hard work, and as some sort of protection of the child (so that one of the parents is not incentivized to take off.) Single-gender pairs do not produce children, and the society owes them nothing, as there is nothing to reward or compensate. Those couples (and other configurations) are still free to do whatever they want, but they should not be receiving the benefits that are reserved for those who produce children. There is also nobody to protect, and such pairs should be free to separate whenever they want. I never understood what exactly, aside from tax benefits, drives them into the shackles of marriage.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by julian on Monday May 29 2017, @12:58AM (1 child)
That's religious conservative bullshit.
Barren heterosexual couples receive all the legal and financial benefits as fertile heterosexual couples. Homosexual couples can raise children from other people, or orphans, or unwanted children. Also, there are so few homosexual couples wanting to raise children that it's barely an issue. It's a rounding error that we don't need to attend to, other than recognize our commitment to equal treatment under the law means they get to raise kids too if they want.
Away, away with your naturalistic fallacy!
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @01:11AM
The society is not interested in same-sex parents raising children. A kid needs parents of both genders. We know that because too many children are raised by single moms, and that ain't perfect.
Thanks for the confirmation of my original assertion that single-gender couples are not contributing to the growth of the society.
They did their part of the social contract, and the society fulfilled its obligations as well.