Almost one year ago, I boarded a series of flights eventually bound for Athens. Later that same day, Taiwan’s council of grand justices (essentially Taiwan’s Supreme Court) would rule on whether marriage equality would be considered a protected right in Taiwan. I shifted in my seat for the long haul to London, nervously watching movies and tapping my armrest, annoying the daylights out of my husband. I had asked my friends to keep me abreast of the news so I could know as soon as we landed.

We went through the horrors of international transfers at Heathrow and I connected to the wifi. I was on an escalator when the messages came pouring in – rainbows, thumbs-up, “it’s a yes” – and I turned around and screamed “It’s a yes! Marriage equality in Taiwan!” far too loudly, jumping up and down and nearly falling down the escalator while my (similarly elated) husband said that that was fantastic but maybe I shouldn’t injure myself.

But I didn’t care – the courts had ruled in favor of marriage equality. I sat in an overpriced airport cafe with tears streaming down my face. I’m not LGBT; the ruling didn’t affect me personally. However, it is important to stand up for what is right.

That was a good day. There haven’t been many good days since.

Two days ago, three anti-marriage equality referendums were approved by the Central Election Commission, as they’d met the threshold necessary to go forward. Progressive activist groups seemed shocked that this had happened, and some questioned the constitutionality of such referendums (which may, indeed, be in doubt: can one propose referenda that seek to reverse the court’s ultimate interpretation of constitutional rights?) Social Democratic Party member, Taipei city council candidate and LGBT rights activist Miao Poya proposed a competing pro-equality referendum to counter the reactionary tide.

The debate is not over yet

That it happened is not surprising, however. Not only do progressive activists tend to overestimate how progressive Taiwanese society as a whole actually, but the issue had lost momentum since the ruling, with many assuming equality in Taiwan was essentially decided (when in fact Taiwan’s civil code legal system requires a legislative act to formally legalize marriage equality). Pro-equality groups had dispersed, again focusing on their original core issues and some set aside their public engagement on marriage equality in particular.

I have personally observed that most people not affected by the ruling assume that the court’s decision was immediately effective. It was not: the court gave the government two years to either amend the civil code or pass a law recognizing marriage equality. If nothing is done by the deadline, same-sex couples will be allowed to register their marriages under the current civil code. Regardless, many now believe that marriage equality is already a reality and there is no need to continue discussing it as a social issue. They are not aware that same-sex couples are still unable to access the full breadth of human rights, nor basic benefits such as the right to make end of life decisions for each other, in Taiwan.

Running parallel to the fundamental misunderstanding of the status of marriage equality among many citizens, activist groups do not seem to agree on the best path forward: some argue that passing a law promptly confers equal rights sooner, and therefore is preferable. Others point out that such a “band-aid” law might not include the full range of rights (for instance, the right to adopt) available to opposite-sex couples, and is not as powerful a legal tool as amending the civil code (the interpretation of which vis-a-vis specific rights such as adoption is also unclear). Some criticize the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) for failing to act. Others point out that there is no perfect path forward for the DPP: they don’t necessarily have the support to push through a change to the civil code, and so they may well be allowing the two-year deadline to pass in order to effectively change how the code is interpreted.

It is surprising, however, that the progressives who successfully pushed for changes to the referendum law – and in another example, the rules governing recall votes for elected officials – do not seem to have considered that these tools can be weaponized against them. The changes to the referendum laws were justified and important, but it could have, and should have, been predicted that these changes would be used by both sides to advance their agenda.

That anti-marriage equality groups sought to take advantage of the slipping of marriage equality from public discourse, and build public support among conservative elements in Taiwanese society while progressive activists let the movement lie fallow is not only unsurprising, it is to be expected.

Rallying for the final showdown

Although it’s hard to tell from my perch in relatively progressive Taipei, it does seem unlikely that the anti-equality measures will succeed. It seems unlikely that the general consensus of Taiwanese citizens has changed in the year since the courts ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. At that time, research indicated that support for marriage equality greatly outweighed active opposition (neither side held a majority, but taken with those who claim not to have an opinion on the issue, the numbers still have tended to favor pro-equality beliefs). This is supported by the physical evidence of the dueling rallies held over the issue, with the pro-equality side attracting an estimated 200,000+ attendees, and the anti-equality rally attracting half that number or less. Those opposed to marriage equality still tend to identify as Christian, a faith practiced by a small number – estimated to be less than five percent – of Taiwanese.

Just because anti-marriage equality activists garnered a sufficient number of signatures does not mean they will be able to draw enough votes. In order to pass, a national referendum requires 25% of all eligible voters to vote in favor of it. With only a slightly higher percentage than that actively opposed to marriage equality, and the unlikelihood that all of them will turn out to vote, the chances of an anti-equality referendum passing seem slim. More likely, anti-equality groups are hoping to send a message to the government that they have more support than they seem to.

Social Democratic Party’s Miao Poya at the parade (by William Yang)

With that in mind, there are three fronts on which pro-equality activists must engage with this new challenge. The first is to raise awareness that marriage equality is not yet a reality, and remind people that the ruling last year did not take immediate effect. Otherwise, the turnout they need to ensure that same-sex couples will be given the rights they have been promised won’t materialize. We must re-engage the public on the importance of equal rights for all – not just through rallies or a competing referendum but in the arena where compassion and human empathy tend to win the day: through engagement with friends and family, storytelling and experience-sharing with those who might no longer hold in the forefront of their minds the knowledge that they have friends and family who are treated as second-class citizens. We must ask the society at large to remember that whether they realize it or not, they certainly know and care about an LGBT person, meaning that the issue is not as “distant” or “unimportant” as they might think.

If these votes happen, we need to once again outnumber the opposition, just as we did on Ketagalan Boulevard in 2016. To do this, LGBT rights groups will have to reconvene and re-center their efforts on building momentum for marriage equality, and show lawmakers that the consensus remains on our side. In 2016, anti-equality activists had to receive help from abroad and work through religious networks to seem relevant and bring about even modest turnouts to events, whereas pro-equality progressives engaged a pantheon of local Taiwanese celebrities and notable figures, and created far larger turnouts without the help of religious networks. If we could capture the zeitgeist then, we can do it again now.

Secondly, it is time to push in earnest for the government to settle the legal right of all to marry. Once this right is accessible and actively used by same-sex couples, preferably through an amendment to the civil code, those “on the fence” will see that there is no harm in equal rights regardless of sexual orientation. It will then be far less likely that anti-equality groups will be able to build the necessary momentum to take it away. Finally, we must seek to challenge the constitutionality of an anti-equality referendum in light of the decision of council of grand justices nearly one year ago. The legal grounds of such a measure may only be considered if a lawsuit brings it to the attention of the court.

These referendums are a challenge, but they are not yet a setback. Our future strategy depends on understanding that our own tools may be used against us, and acting accordingly. Failure may not be likely, but neither is it impossible. If progressive activist groups can remind the public that the battle is not yet won, remind the government what the national consensus truly is, and make it clear that the courts have decided that human rights in Taiwan include the right of all people to marry, by this time next year we will be one month away from equal rights for all, if we won’t have won already.

(Feature photo by William Yang)