Same-Sex Marriage in Taiwan Achieved Neither Equality Nor Liberation

While same-sex couples were granted more rights as a result, full marriage equality was not achieved because various legal provisions⁠—which neither the Executive Yuan nor the Legislative Yuan seem eager to amend⁠—still treat different-sex and same-sex couples disparately. Taiwan’s new law notably limits adoption rights for same-sex couples, along with restricting same-sex marriages between a Taiwanese citizen and a foreign national whose country does not recognize same-sex unions.

Regardless, the legal recognition of same-sex marriage in Taiwan means that the state is now further empowered to regulate the family and private lives of a group of people whose relationships were previously outside the purview of the law. This notion that the proper way to start a family is two people entering into a marital contract is now solidified for those with same-sex attractions, even though the boilerplate contract accessible to them is second-rate.

This was not the inevitable result. While there is a long history of advocacy for equal rights for same-sex couples in Taiwan, the word “marriage” was not used in any bill in the Legislative Yuan until 2014. This bill, proposed by DPP legislators, was essentially identical to the bill drafted by the Taiwan Alliance to Promote Civil Partnership Rights (TAPCPR), a non-profit organization founded in 2009. This was not the only legislation the organization drafted, as the same-sex marriage bill was part of its “Three Bills for Diverse Families” package that also included proposals on civil partnerships and unions for multi-person families. According to the TAPCPR, the latter legislation:

“[…] seeks to shift the concept of “family” from being strictly based upon the existence of a biological relationship to being founded on a lasting, communal relationship. Multiple-person family members may be friends or romantically involved, those related by blood or by marriage, as long as they are seen as family, expect to look after each other, and if they legally register their relationship to one another, they would be legally recognized as a family.”

Given that the goal of same-sex marriage has largely been seen as achieved on May 24, 2019, and same-sex couples are now also “normal” in the eyes of the state under the rubric of marriage⁠—an inherently patriarchal institution anyway⁠—the prospects for unions for multi-person families are dim. A liberating idea that allows people to choose to live their lives in ways that are consistent with their values, comfort, and notion of normality while being able to obtain the recognition of the state required for legal protection, the concept of multi-person families has been wiped from the consciousness of the average person, if it ever resided there at all.

During the struggle for same-sex marriage, there may have been fear that emphasizing the multi-person families idea could have alienated moderate supporters who were only prepared to extend rights to partnerships that resembled marriages with which they were familiar. But, in hindsight, the strategic decision to abandon advocacy for multi-member families so quickly may have been a mistake, as its continued reminder could have pushed the conversation and nudged supporters and legislators toward a formulation of same-sex marriage that is more equal than what eventually passed. Keeping it as a viable option could have also ensured that the idea would remain in the consciousness of the people that could be rekindled at any moment.

Yet, the way things played out means that the dream of a more liberating future is hazy, with the only clear result being the state’s further encroachment into private, intimate relationships in exchange for narrowly-defined, second-rate protections. In our quest for equality, we may have lost our chance at liberation.

(Cover photo by Marek Kubica via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0)