Two years after the Court of Final Appeal’s landmark judgment in Sham Tsz-kit vs Secretary for Justice (2023) HKCFA 28, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government has finally unveiled the highly controversial proposal to recognize same-sex partnerships in the city. After registering their overseas same-sex relationships, same-sex couples will be granted some rights, such as those related to medical and after-death matters, although some LGBTQ+ activists have described the proposal as conservative and vague. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, and the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions have strongly criticized the proposal.
As lawmaker Priscilla Leung Mei-fun has insightfully pointed out, the SAR government’s proposal would open a Pandora’s box and undermine traditional family values in the city. We think there is no better time than now to bring the long-suppressed views of the vast numbers of conservative residents to the surface. According to a 2023 report published by the University of Hong Kong, the Chinese University of Hong Kong and the University of North Carolina, only 17 percent of respondents were against same-sex marriage.
We should take the findings of the 2023 report with a pinch of salt because the samples might not have been properly selected. Our think tank supports the suggestion made by lawmakers Junius Ho Kwan-yiu and Carmen Kan Wai-mun to call for a resolution to be moved that would require the government to conduct a public consultation on the proposal before submitting it for discussion or consideration.
Various high-profile legal battles taken by LGBTQ+ activists to gain spousal benefits (Leung Chun-kwong vs Secretary for the Civil Service), dependent visas (QT vs Director of Immigration) as well as housing and inheritance rights (Infinger Nick vs The Hong Kong Housing Authority) provide the necessary context without which the well-planned legal offensive taken by Jimmy Sham Tsz-kit cannot be accurately analyzed. We are of the view that the piecemeal legal offensives taken by LGBTQ+ activists in the past few years aim at laying a good foundation for promoting same-sex marriage in Hong Kong through the back door. We strongly oppose the transposition of an alien plant to Chinese soil.
Traditionally, Confucian values have emphasized the importance of heterosexual marriage for carrying on the family line and fulfilling filial duties, which can clash with same-sex relationships. In Hong Kong, Christians and Muslims justify their opposition to same-sex marriages because of their religious beliefs. Although Taiwan stands out as the most accommodative place for LGBTQ+ rights in China, the mainland, Hong Kong and Macao have preserved traditional family values. In order to raise support for LGBTQ+ rights among the younger generation, Taiwan implemented the Gender Equality Education Act in 2004. To a certain extent, it is a political attempt to reduce the cultural affinity between the Chinese mainland and Taiwan.
According to David Popenoe, Linda Waite, Maggie Gallagher, Sara McLanahan, David Blankenhorn, Paul Amato and Alan Booth, a large and growing body of scientific evidence indicates that the intact, married family is best for children (Family Research Council, Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same-Sex Marriage, available at Family Research Council website). According to philosopher Bertrand Russell, it is through children alone that sexual relations become important to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution (Ross Douthat, Marriage, Procreation and Historical Amnesia, available at nytimes.com, April 2, 2013). A number of leading professional associations have asserted that there are no differences between children raised by homosexuals and those raised by heterosexuals. But the research in this area is quite preliminary; most of the studies are done by advocates, and most such studies suffer from serious methodological problems (FRC, ibid).
As compelling as the argument of the LGBTQ+ activists may seem to be, they should not shape the recent polemics in the Legislative Council in an irresponsible way. The attempts by some lawmakers to criticize the government proposal cannot be interpreted as a hidden ploy to roll back the ruling of the CFA. To be fair, these anti-proposal legislators have deeply respected the decision of the court. Vetoing the bill should be considered as active actions in legislators discharging their duties (South China Morning Post, July 5, 2025). Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Erick Tsang Kwok-wai reminds us that CFA decisions are part of our judicial system.
Unlike local legislators, some British politicians have not shown respect for their judiciary. You may remember the provocative and irresponsible responses by some British politicians to the ruling made by the High Court in November 2016. Ruling on judicial review proceedings brought against the secretary of state for exiting the European Union by an investment banker, the High Court held that the process for giving notification to leave the EU legally required an act of Parliament. Not surprisingly, the ruling drew strong protests from some British politicians and pro-Brexit political commentators. Nigel Farage called for the public to have the power to sack the judges (The Secret Barrister, Fake Law (London: Picador, 2022), p260). In addition to sending a contemptuous message of disrespect for the judges, Farage’s message did nothing for public confidence in the integrity of the entire judicial system.
In view of the polarized viewpoints in the Legislative Council, the HKSAR government may need to apply to the court to extend the deadline for compliance with the ruling of the CFA, which falls on Oct 27. A public consultation is needed to listen to the divergent views of different sectors on these sensitive and divisive issues. We hope the HKSAR government will be able to strike a balance to avoid causing social divisions and affecting social harmony.
The author is a barrister, a part-time researcher of Shenzhen University Hong Kong and the Macao Basic Law Research Center, chairman of Chinese Dream Think Tank, and a Hong Kong district councilor.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
