346
submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

Hong Kong must provide an alternative to marriage in order to legally recognise the rights of same-sex couples, the city’s highest court has declared, opening the way for civil unions.

However, it rejected appeals against current laws which restrict marriage to heterosexual couples and refuse to recognise overseas same-sex marriages, despite majority support among the population.

The ruling said Hong Kong’s government was “in violation of its positive obligations” under the bill of rights to provide a legal framework to recognise same-sex couples outside the institution of marriage, and gave it two years to establish a system.

all 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 44 points 10 months ago

That’ll last maybe a few years until the CCP’s crusade against “bourgeois decadence” spills over from the mainland.

[-] Aatube@kbin.social 10 points 10 months ago

I’m pretty sure they gave up fighting the bourgeois three decades ago.
Also, in the mainland, it’s more of a cultural thing. For some reason there’s a lot of tension and lack of interest around the topic and the CCP doesn’t go against or advertise against it either, but they don’t provide for LGBT either. Wikipedia says it may be due to Westernization during early modern China.

[-] CIWS-30@kbin.social 9 points 10 months ago

Wait until the population declines further and the CCP tightens its grip even more over Hong Kong. I doubt this'll last. It's just how authoritarian communist regimes work. Look at Putin and co. for examples.

[-] Solarius@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 10 months ago

you guys have a really weird fantasy of what China is actually like

[-] SlikPikker@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 months ago

China has increasingly gone the direction of official cultural conservatism.

[-] bobman@unilem.org -3 points 10 months ago

Yeah. A lot of people here live in fantasy worlds.

I'm always just laughing to myself whenever I see them speculate wild things like this. They're just not rooted in reality.

[-] Rachelhazideas@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

I'm from Hong Kong. This is reality.

Condescension and smugness doesn't make you sound correct. It just makes sound misinformed and willfully ignorant.

[-] bobman@unilem.org -2 points 10 months ago

I'm from Hong Kong too and he's completely wrong.

Condescension and smugness doesn’t make you sound correct. It just makes sound misinformed and willfully ignorant.

Are you talking about yourself?

[-] Rachelhazideas@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

Spoken like a true pro-CCP mainlander who's mom came over to give birth and reap all the social benefits while actively voting to tear down all the democratic institutions.

[-] bobman@unilem.org -1 points 10 months ago

Nope. I'm none of that. Stop with your assumptions and try again.

Lol, the fantasy worlds on this subreddit. Or lemmy thing.

[-] Rachelhazideas@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Go back to hexbear or wherever you came from and kindly defederate yourself.

[-] bobman@unilem.org 0 points 10 months ago

Lol, I came from lemmy.world.

[-] Joncash2@lemmy.ml -1 points 10 months ago

China allows same sex relationships. This HK ruling actually puts it in line with what China already does for 4 years now.

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-08-09/LGBT-couples-in-China-file-for-voluntary-guardianship-J15eC8QcrC/index.html

It's saying HK needs recognition similar to what China already does with mutual guardianship. So your argument makes no sense. As HK is following China on this one.

[-] Marsupial@quokk.au 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Mainland:

An adult with full capacity for civil conduct may, in prior consultation with his/her close relatives, or other individuals or organisations who are willing to act as his/her guardian, determine his/her guardian in writing. The agreed guardian shall perform the guardianship duties when such adult loses or partially loses his/her capacity for civil conduct."

HK:

The ruling said Hong Kong’s government was “in violation of its positive obligations” under the bill of rights to provide a legal framework to recognise same-sex couples outside the institution of marriage, and gave it two years to establish a system.

These are vastly different things.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 7 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Hong Kong must provide an alternative to marriage in order to legally recognise the rights of same-sex couples, the city’s highest court has declared, opening the way for civil unions.

The ruling said Hong Kong’s government was “in violation of its positive obligations” under the bill of rights to provide a legal framework to recognise same-sex couples outside the institution of marriage, and gave it two years to establish a system.

The court challenge was lodged in 2018 by LGBTQ+ rights and pro-democracy activist Jimmy Sham Tsz-kit, who had argued Hong Kong should legally recognise his and his husband’s marriage, which took place in New York five years earlier.

On Tuesday, the court’s panel of judges were unanimous in upholding the current laws which restrict marriage to heterosexual couples, and which do not recognise overseas same-sex unions.

Recent polling has found support for same-sex marriage has grown from 38% to more than 60% in a decade, however activism of any kind has become increasingly difficult under the government’s security crackdown after the 2018 pro-democracy protests.

Leung urged to government to note the popular support of same-sex marriage, and “work proactively with stakeholders to formulate a robust legal framework … as soon as practicable”.


The original article contains 611 words, the summary contains 203 words. Saved 67%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] Pat12@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

hong kong's govt is just a ccp lapdog

[-] Joncash2@lemmy.ml -3 points 10 months ago

Sure this is why this ruling puts HK in line with China on gay rights.

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-08-09/LGBT-couples-in-China-file-for-voluntary-guardianship-J15eC8QcrC/index.html

HK was improperly not recognizing gay relationships before. I have no doubt the CCP made them accept the gays.

[-] Marsupial@quokk.au 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

No it doesn’t.

Mainland:

An adult with full capacity for civil conduct may, in prior consultation with his/her close relatives, or other individuals or organisations who are willing to act as his/her guardian, determine his/her guardian in writing. The agreed guardian shall perform the guardianship duties when such adult loses or partially loses his/her capacity for civil conduct."

HK:

The ruling said Hong Kong’s government was “in violation of its positive obligations” under the bill of rights to provide a legal framework to recognise same-sex couples outside the institution of marriage, and gave it two years to establish a system.

These are vastly different things.

China is not as LGBT friendly as the west, that’s a fact you chuds cannot deny.

[-] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago

What are you talking about, did you read what you quoted?

to provide a legal framework to recognise same-sex couples outside the institution of marriage

An adult with full capacity for civil conduct may, in prior consultation with his/her close relatives, or other individuals or organisations who are willing to act as his/her guardian, determine his/her guardian in writing

That's the legal framework that answer's the judge's positive obligation.

Thus, mainland has already created what the judge is telling HK they need to do.

Also what does this have to do with the west? I said HK is following the mainland, not the west.

[-] randon31415@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago

Sees name of plantif.

A lot of fuss over what would be a Sham marriage.

this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
346 points (98.3% liked)

World News

37361 readers
1631 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS