Gay Marriage in Taiwan?!?!

Procedures, processes, JFRV, potential documentation difficulties, whether to get married in Taiwan or overseas, as well as legal basis for divorce in Taiwan, including all related problems and pitfalls, child custody, alimony payments, abandonment, extra-marital affairs, and other complications...
Forum rules
While the moderators are happy to help point people in the right direction for legal assistance and to attempt to keep these forums civil and tidy, please bear in mind that an Internet forum is not the place for providing or receiving legal advice or for the creation of any attorney-client privileges or obligations. Also keep in mind that Forumosa and the moderators cannot conduct comprehensive reviews of all laws or legal concepts referenced or discussed within these forums – laws and regulations are updated and amended, interpretations do change, and sometimes the legal landscape can change very fast. Forumosa provides these legal forums for general informational purposes only. By using these legal forums, you agree that the information does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and any other posters on these forums. DO NOT CONSIDER THE FORUMS TO BE A SUBSTITUTE FOR OBTAINING LEGAL ADVICE FROM A QUALIFIED LICENSED ATTORNEY.

Postby jlick » 09 Nov 2003, 19:54

It's been discussed and proposed off and on for years now. Don't get your hopes up until it is actually passed. With elections so soon, a lot of what you read and hear is posturing, and not necessarily something that will actually become law.
Forumosan avatar
jlick
Presidential Advisor (zǒng tǒng gù wèn)
Presidential Advisor (zǒng tǒng gù wèn)
 
Posts: 3004
Joined: 15 Dec 2002, 13:38
Location: 中華民國台北市中山區
4 Recommends(s)
11 Recognized(s)

6000

Postby QuietMountain » 09 Nov 2003, 21:52

tigerman wrote:Speaking of draft laws...

Here is an excerpt from a recent article by Andrew Sullivan:

Andrew Sullivan wrote:fifty one words should give us pause. What are these fifty-one words? Here they are. Read each one. They could change the direction of gay rights in this country for ever:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.


These are the words of something called the Federal Marriage Amendment.


The entire short article can be read here:

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_arti ... m=20031029


I'm still amazed at the Federal Marriage Amendment. I always thought the US constitution was something that gave and/or gauranteed the rights of its citizens. Yet many of our politicians, by support this so-called defence of marriage amendment, are planning on using the constitution to takeour away the rights of a portion of those citizens.

What if years ago someone had proposed an amendment saying that the in the phrase "all men are created equal" that the term "men" only refers to "white males of a certain socio-economic status"? The country would have been up in arms. Now, people could seem to care less because they think the "gay issue" doesn't affect them. Many of them probably believe that they don't "know" any gay people. So, why should they care. They'd probably be surprised at who around them is gay.

Another reason why I think it is important that, while we don't have to shout our sexuality from the rooftops, we act like "normal" people and stop hiding who we are from those around me. Show people just how many gays and lesbians there are out there and that we are more like them than different than them. Again, I realize it is easier to say than do... for myself included.

Ok... enough ranting and raving for tonight.
Forumosan avatar
QuietMountain
High School Triad Member (gāozhōng liúmáng)
High School Triad Member (gāozhōng liúmáng)
 
Posts: 501
Joined: 15 Jan 2002, 17:01
Location: Zhuwei, Taipei

6000

Postby Tigerman » 09 Nov 2003, 22:05

QuietMountain wrote:I'm still amazed at the Federal Marriage Amendment. I always thought the US constitution was something that gave and/or gauranteed the rights of its citizens.


The US Constitution doesn't "give" rights. It protects rights. Rights are "inalienable" and thus are not "given" by anyone.

QuietMountain wrote:What if years ago someone had proposed an amendment saying that the in the phrase "all men are created equal" that the term "men" only refers to "white males of a certain socio-economic status"? The country would have been up in arms. Now, people could seem to care less because they think the "gay issue" doesn't affect them. Many of them probably believe that they don't "know" any gay people. So, why should they care. They'd probably be surprised at who around them is gay.


Did you read the article, or at least the comments by Judge Bork that I posted previously in this thread? Judge Bork is a brilliant legal mind and I think you can find some hope in his comments and predictions.

QuietMountain wrote:Another reason why I think it is important that, while we don't have to shout our sexuality from the rooftops, we act like "normal" people and stop hiding who we are from those around me. Show people just how many gays and lesbians there are out there and that we are more like them than different than them.


That's one reason that I don't like the name of this thread. I think a thread like this can go a long way toward showing people that gays are "normal". Why the need for this silly thread title?
Forumosan avatar
Tigerman
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17250
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 12:09
221 Recommends(s)
135 Recognized(s)

6000

Postby QuietMountain » 09 Nov 2003, 23:11

tigerman wrote:The US Constitution doesn't "give" rights. It protects rights. Rights are "inalienable" and thus are not "given" by anyone.


Tigerman, I agree with you that rights, ultimately, can't be given to anyone because they are ours already. However, the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc... were written to, in essence, "give those rights" to the citizens, many of whom, till then, had been denied those rights in their countries of origin. Just look at a woman's right to vote. Ultimately, women have that right whether the government says so or not. But, unfortunately, until the beginning of the last century, the government (rightly or wrongly) didn't "give" them that right.

Did you read the article, or at least the comments by Judge Bork that I posted previously in this thread? Judge Bork is a brilliant legal mind and I think you can find some hope in his comments and predictions.


No, I didn't read the article. However, I'm not without hope. Mine was just a comment to try to put things in perspective. Sorry, I wasn't doing it with much prior thought. So, maybe it was an unecessary comment.

That's one reason that I don't like the name of this thread. I think a thread like this can go a long way toward showing people that gays are "normal". Why the need for this silly thread title?


Again, I agree with you. It is also one reason why I hate it when the media only shows the half-naked men, drag queens, etc... during pride parades. It only shows people the "wilder" side of the gay community. It is a fun side, but definitely not representative of all gays and lesbians.
[/i]
Forumosan avatar
QuietMountain
High School Triad Member (gāozhōng liúmáng)
High School Triad Member (gāozhōng liúmáng)
 
Posts: 501
Joined: 15 Jan 2002, 17:01
Location: Zhuwei, Taipei

6000

Postby Tigerman » 09 Nov 2003, 23:57

tigerman wrote:The US Constitution doesn't "give" rights. It protects rights. Rights are "inalienable" and thus are not "given" by anyone.


QuietMountain wrote:Tigerman, I agree with you that rights, ultimately, can't be given to anyone because they are ours already. However, the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc... were written to, in essence, "give those rights" to the citizens, many of whom, till then, had been denied those rights in their countries of origin. Just look at a woman's right to vote. Ultimately, women have that right whether the government says so or not. But, unfortunately, until the beginning of the last century, the government (rightly or wrongly) didn't "give" them that right.


I'm not going to argue this point with you, because I understand what you are saying and agree, partly. Let's just say that the US Constitution in principle does not "give" rights as those rights are inalienable to begin with... however, at different times in our history, our nation has not always "recognized" those rights. Yes, I know... what's the difference? Thre is, I think, a difference... but we needn't go into it here.

Did you read the article, or at least the comments by Judge Bork that I posted previously in this thread? Judge Bork is a brilliant legal mind and I think you can find some hope in his comments and predictions.


QuietMountain wrote:No, I didn't read the article. However, I'm not without hope. Mine was just a comment to try to put things in perspective. Sorry, I wasn't doing it with much prior thought. So, maybe it was an unecessary comment.


No need to apologize. I just wanted to bring the article to your attention in case you had missed it.

That's one reason that I don't like the name of this thread. I think a thread like this can go a long way toward showing people that gays are "normal". Why the need for this silly thread title?


QuietMountain wrote:Again, I agree with you. It is also one reason why I hate it when the media only shows the half-naked men, drag queens, etc... during pride parades. It only shows people the "wilder" side of the gay community. It is a fun side, but definitely not representative of all gays and lesbians.[/i]


Yes. I agree... As important as our sexualities are and as fun as sex is, its rarely what defines any of us. Even sexual hedonists hold jobs that they perform every day and have ideas that they espouse and regard certain values as fundamental... all quite separate from their notion of sex and sexuality.

IMO, the title, "Pink Martini Salon" is somewhat of a mockery. I think the best title would be something dull, such as "GLBTs in Taiwan"... but that of course would be best suited for an entire forum... and in such a forum I think a thread titled "Pink Martini Salon" might be appropriate... so long as other threads were devoted to more serious issues such as marriage rights, etc...
Forumosan avatar
Tigerman
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17250
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 12:09
221 Recommends(s)
135 Recognized(s)

6000

Postby Tigerman » 02 Dec 2003, 10:17

LittleBuddhaTW wrote:I didn't think Maoman's or BFM's comments were insulting or offensive. I think you'd be pressed to find two other straight guys who are so gay-friendly out there


Say, so what am I... a homophobic gay-basher? :wink:

In other news:

Republican and US VP Dick Cheney wrote:Amending the Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman would be unwise for two reasons. Constitutionalizing social policy is generally a misuse of fundamental law. And it would be especially imprudent to end state responsibility for marriage law at a moment when we require evidence of the sort that can be generated by allowing the states to be laboratories of social policy.


Andrew Sullivan wrote:This is the Cheney position. And it's the right one. I'm struck by how so many of the truly excellent conservative writers - Will, Goldberg, Brooks, Horowitz spring to mind - oppose this amendment. Some endorse same-sex marriage; others don't. But they all see how dangerous the proposed amendment is to sane constitutionalism and robust federalism. Let the states decide.


Both above quotes are from http://www.andrewsullivan.com/
Forumosan avatar
Tigerman
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17250
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 12:09
221 Recommends(s)
135 Recognized(s)

6000

Postby LittleBuddhaTW » 02 Dec 2003, 10:32

I don't think this kind of constitutional amendment would ever get off the ground, the religious fundamentalists aren't nearly as powerful as they once were despite all the noise they make (just the last gasping moans of a dying beast)... what I find much more interesting to follow is the current debate of the human rights bill here in Taiwan ... any more news of what's going on? I think it's supposed to be presented to the cabinet for final revision this month ... and I've heard that the opposition (namely KMT and PFP) say that they also support "protecting gay rights" or something along those lines ..... whether or not this means that they'll support the gay marriage law here or not isn't clear ... but if this does go through, this is a BIG step forward for Taiwan!
"Rude, vile pigs!" -- Elton John (screamed at the Taiwanese media in September 2004)
Forumosan avatar
LittleBuddhaTW
Martyr's Shrine Guard (zhōngliècí wèibīng)
Martyr's Shrine Guard (zhōngliècí wèibīng)
 
Posts: 1795
ORIGINAL POSTER
Joined: 16 Sep 2002, 18:24
Location: Washington, D.C.

6000

Postby Tigerman » 02 Dec 2003, 11:01

Here's another thing...

Taiwan accepts valid marriages from the US. So, what if a gay couple, say a Taiwanese national and an US national, got married legally in Massachusetts and then returned to Taiwan to live? I wonder how the Taiwan government would react to their attempt to register their married status in Taiwan?
Forumosan avatar
Tigerman
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17250
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 12:09
221 Recommends(s)
135 Recognized(s)

6000

Postby magnolia » 02 Dec 2003, 11:11

LittleBuddhaTW wrote: ... any more news of what's going on? I think it's supposed to be presented to the cabinet for final revision this month ... and I've heard that the opposition (namely KMT and PFP) say that they also support "protecting gay rights" or something along those lines ..... whether or not this means that they'll support the gay marriage law here or not isn't clear ... but if this does go through, this is a BIG step forward for Taiwan!


It WILL go through, I feel it in my waters!

Apart from that, who here will consider getting married if it does?

I quite fancy one of those magic visa things the straight white guys get (although we ALL know they're not perfect, before anyone starts!) Not sure about getting the same (lack of) rights a non-Taiwanese Asian woman gets though. Will it be legal for my boyfriend's mother to beat me? :shock:

Seeing as we haven't heard a THING about the admin of this same-sex marriage law, it may only be available for locals in the first draft, but then I hope we get pleasantly surprised - I'd LOVE to be free to just shop, cook, tend my garden and shampoo my dogs, and do a little freelance fashion consultancy on the side. AND have multiple entry (the visa type, I have the other already!)

So, who wants to get married, and what sort of rights do you want from it?

Tigerman: I don't think Taiwan would feel obliged to recognize anything not legal yet under their own law - only 27 countries actually "recognize" Taiwan actually exists - unless there's some sort of gay marriage diplomatic incident and we all have to go to war... now THERE'S a thought... :wink:
Forumosan avatar
magnolia
Chair-throwing Legislator (rēng yǐzi de lìfǎ wěiyuán)
Chair-throwing Legislator (rēng yǐzi de lìfǎ wěiyuán)
 
Posts: 317
Joined: 24 Sep 2002, 18:19
Location: Xizhi foothills
7 Recommends(s)
2 Recognized(s)

6000

Postby Flicka » 02 Dec 2003, 20:01

magnolia wrote:Will it be legal for my boyfriend's mother to beat me? :shock:


I've heard of that actually happening here, and I am sure you've heard that story, too.

magnolia wrote:I quite fancy one of those magic visa things the straight white guys get (although we ALL know they're not perfect, before anyone starts!)


Well, you can always marry the ROC like I did and get one of the magic visas.
Forumosan avatar
Flicka
Wild Chicken Bus Driver (yě jī chē sī jī)
Wild Chicken Bus Driver (yě jī chē sī jī)
 
Posts: 1976
Joined: 22 Jan 2002, 17:01
Location: Taipei County
1 Recommends(s)
4 Recognized(s)

6000

PreviousNext




 
 
 x

Return to Marriage



Who is online

Forumosans browsing this forum: No Forumosans and 1 visitor

I wasted time, and now doth time waste me -- WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE