TOKYO - A conservative ally of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has called for discussion on revising Japan's constitution to allow same-sex marriage, annoying colleagues in the ruling party who are against it and also opposition parliamentarians who say enacting a simple law would clear the way.
Japan's laws on LGBT rights are relatively liberal compared with those in many Asian countries, although many LGBT people still conceal their sexuality.
But couples seeking to register same-sex marriages have been rejected by local authorities because there is no law specifically recognizing it.
The constitution, never amended since it was adopted after Japan's defeat in World War 2, says: "Marriage shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes and it shall be maintained through mutual cooperation with the equal rights of husband and wife as a basis."
Amending the constitution's pacifist Article 9 to clarify the status of Japan's military is a long-held goal of Abe and his ruling Liberal Democratic Party. Revising the article is highly controversial, although it has already been stretched to allow armed forces for self-defense.
Former Education Minister Hakubun Shimomura last month floated the idea of adding same-sex marriage to a list of other potential constitutional changes.
"It is important to proceed with debate without any taboo, including of the idea that a man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman," NHK public TV quoted him as saying at a meeting of local LDP members last month.
The LDP has said same-sex marriage was "incompatible" with the constitution and Shimomura's remark caused concern at a meeting of the party's general affairs committee this week, media reported.
"One should not lightly make comments such as revising the constitution to recognize same-sex marriage," the Asahi newspaper quoted former cabinet minister Keiji Furuya as saying.
LGBT activists including Kanako Otsuji of the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (CDPJ) - the country's first openly LGBT lawmaker - say no amendment is needed to allow same-sex marriage because the constitution does not explicitly ban it.
They have submitted a marriage equality bill to parliament in June, but the ruling coalition has declined to debate it.
"I think the goal is to shake up the opposition," Otsuji told Reuters, referring to Shimomura's suggestion. "If they agree with same-sex marriage, they should agree with our bill."
Shimomura's office declined a request for an interview due to his tight schedule.
A survey last year showed nearly 80 percent of Japanese in their 20s to 50s favored legalizing same-sex marriage.
"The constitution did not envision same-sex marriage when it was written... but it was not prohibited," said Gon Matsunaka, head of Pride House Consortium, which promotes LGBT awareness.
"Society and the world have changed and it is the responsibility of the legislature to pass a law in line with that."
Constitutional amendments must be approved by two-thirds of the members of both houses of parliament and a majority in a public referendum. The ruling bloc has a two-thirds majority in the lower house but lacks one in the upper chamber.
source: news.abs-cbn.com
ZHONGLI, Taiwan - Although Jovi Wu and Mindy Chiu made history last month as one of the first lesbian couples in Asia to marry legally, they are fearful that conservatives may reverse Taiwan's landmark law.
The businesswomen and their six-year-old daughter, Allison, were verbally abused when they demonstrated in support of same-sex marriage last year, ahead of a referendum that came after the top court set a two-year deadline for legalization.
One woman took a leaflet from Allison, looked at it, threw it on the ground and then called their family "sickening and dirty", 36-year-old Chiu said from her home in a suburb of Zhongli district, an hour's drive from Taiwan's capital, Taipei.
"(I asked her) do you have to say this in front of a child - that we are sickening, we are dirty? What we are trying to say is that we're just the same, like you," she told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
Hundreds of same-sex couples married on May 24 after President Tsai Ing-wen signed into law a bill endorsing same-sex marriage - a controversial move which has divided the self-ruled island, seen as a beacon of liberalism in Asia.
Although two-thirds of Taiwanese voters - some 7 million people - rejected the proposed reform in the November referendum, parliament passed a law legalizing gay marriage to beat the constitutional court deadline of May 24.
Far from signalling a shift towards broader acceptance of homosexuality, the couple fear the legal victory will spark a backlash from conservatives who believe marriage should remain between a man and a woman.
"It will be messy at the start," said 38-year-old Wu, who gave birth through in vitro fertilisation (IVF) in Thailand - using an egg from her former partner and a sperm donor - as Taiwan does not allow surrogacy.
"Anti-homosexual groups will continue to argue how can we enjoy the same rights? How can we change Taiwan's traditions and values? They will intensify their smear campaign and continue to hurt us."
FAMILY VALUES
Wu's concerns highlight how socially conservative attitudes prevail across much of Asia, five decades after the Stonewall riots in the United States that are widely regarded as the birth of the LGBT+ rights movement.
The Coalition for the Happiness of Our Next Generation, one group seeking to overturn Taiwan's gay marriage law, said the public will "strike back" as it mobilized support to vote against Tsai in January elections, when she seeks a second term.
"If we can oust these legislators who supported same-sex marriage, there is a likelihood for change after 2020," said the group's president Tseng Hsien-ying.
"The only type of marriage people in Taiwan can accept is between a man and a woman. This (same-sex union) is destroying the institution of marriage and distorting our family values."
Growing up in an abusive family in Taiwan's rural west, repeatedly beaten up by her father, Wu wanted to give her own daughter the best she could.
Wu remembered her classmates called her a "tomboy", and her father pledged to "break her legs" and disown her when she started liking girls.
Estranged from her parents, Wu left her hometown for university in Taipei, where she joined lesbian clubs and eventually came out as gay.
When searching for a school for her daughter, Wu said many were simply not ready to accept same-sex parents – until the couple found one which had already hired gay teachers.
Still, Wu said, her daughter had to deal with questions at school about why she has two mothers, and called on the government to prioritise anti-discrimination legislation and overhaul its education system to champion LGBT+ rights.
"If the education ministry is not prepared, when these children go to school they will face intense pressure," she said. "How can they be treated equally and not be bullied?"
The lobby group Taiwan LGBT Family Rights Advocacy estimates about 300 same-sex families with children live on the self-ruled island, which China considers as its wayward province.
"It won't be an overnight change," said the group's spokeswoman Reese Li, adding that conservative groups are ramping up their smear campaign, including linking same-sex marriage to a potential rise in HIV cases.
"It will take time but once they see same-sex couples and families are no different than the others, they will accept it."
Two years ago, Wu and Chiu started a book club for children in their neighbourhood in an effort to spur discussions on equal rights for gay people and women, through story telling.
"People think we (same-sex families) don't exist, they accuse us of stealing our child from somewhere else," said Chiu, adding that her parents are still reluctant to accept her relationship with Wu, who she has lived with for four years.
"We never grew up with a lot of information about LGBT+ so we always felt we were different because other people are heterosexual."
Wu said she hoped their book club would go a small way in fighting the social stigma toward same-sex families.
"What I am trying to do through the book club is to let children know every family is equal," she said.
source: news.abs-cbn.com
WASHINGTON - The US Supreme Court delivered a historic but limited victory Monday to a Colorado baker who refused to design a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, in a closely-watched case pitting gay rights against religious liberty.
In a 7-2 decision, the high court ruled that while the Colorado Civil Rights Commission determined that Masterpiece Cakeshop must serve clients regardless of sexual orientation, the panel showed "clear and impermissible hostility" toward the baker's religious beliefs.
The commission's bias therefore violated baker Jack Phillips's rights under the US Constitution's First Amendment, the justices found.
But they did not definitively rule on the issue of whether a business can decline to serve gays and lesbians based on religious views, meaning the broader contentious issue is likely to simmer.
The Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015, and Colorado law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Bakery owner Jack Phillips had argued that he refused to serve the couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, when they walked into his shop in 2012 because he opposed their planned marriage on religious grounds.
The Colorado commission's "hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in an 18-page majority opinion.
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market."
He noted that the panel's "official expressions of hostility to religion" was "inconsistent" with its strict requirement for neutrality.
Two liberal justices, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, joined the conservatives in the majority ruling on the most significant case for gay rights since the high court approved same-sex marriage.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, arguing that the commission's alleged hostility played only a minor role.
"What matters is that Phillips would not provide a good or service to a same-sex couple that he would provide to a heterosexual couple," Ginsburg wrote.
US Attorney General Jeff Sessions said he was pleased with the decision.
"In this case and others, the Department of Justice will continue to vigorously defend the free speech and religious freedom First Amendment rights of all Americans," Sessions said in a statement.
Last year, President Donald Trump's administration weighed in on the side of Phillips, as the Justice Department filed a brief arguing that his First Amendment right of free expression had been violated.
'OBJECTIONABLE MESSAGE
Mat Staver, chairman of the conservative Liberty Counsel, called the decision a "huge victory for the religious rights" of private citizens.
"A person should be free to refuse to be used as a mouthpiece for an objectionable message," he said.
In December, Phillips's lawyers argued before the court that while the baker was perfectly willing to sell ready-made products to anyone, a wedding cake can be considered artistic expression, and such creations can express a message -- something Phillips was not prepared to do for a gay couple.
The cake case became a flashpoint in American political circles in recent years, with Republican lawmakers eager to plant the flag of religious freedom in backing the baker.
"Today, the Supreme Court took a stand for religious liberty against the unconstitutional demands of an oppressive bureaucracy," Senator Ted Cruz said in a statement.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which argued the case on behalf of Mullins and Craig, said the ruling represented a victory for the core principle upholding fair business practices for all.
"The court reversed the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision based on concerns unique to the case, but reaffirmed its longstanding rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace, including against LGBT people," said ACLU deputy legal director Louise Melling.
The Supreme Court's punt on the broader issue of whether a business can invoke religious objections in order to refuse service assures that the subject will remain a major American debate.
Mullins and Craig said in a statement that their fight against discrimination would continue.
"We brought this case because no one should have to face the shame, embarrassment and humiliation of being told 'we don't serve your kind here' that we faced, and we will continue fighting until no one does," they said.
source: news.abs-cbn.com
LOS ANGELES - A California court has recognized a pastry chef's right to refuse to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple, as the Supreme Court debates a similar case with weighty implications.
A court in Bakersfield, located in a conservative region of central California, ruled in a judgement Monday night that the shop owner was able to deny baking a cake specifically for a same-sex couple.
"No baker may place their wares in public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification," the ruling said.
But "the difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked."
The court said to make the baker "use her talents to design and create cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of marital union her religion forbids" would violate the US first amendment that protects free speech.
Cathy Miller, the baker in question, said she was "so joyful" upon receiving the news, according to US media.
The couple, Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez, however deny that they wanted a special-order cake.
They said they went in August 2017 to taste cakes for their wedding and anticipated ordering a pre-existing model without special decorations.
But after they returned with other people to the bakery Miller directed them to a competitor, Gimme Some Sugar, saying she does not approve of same-sex marriages for religious reasons.
The Supreme Court is expected to render a decision later this year in a similar case involving a Colorado baker who cited his devout Christian faith in refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.
The case pitting free speech, religion and artistic freedom against anti-discrimination laws is the most significant for gay rights since the high court approved same-sex marriage two years ago.
ved/mdo/mdl
source: news.abs-cbn.com
SYDNEY - Australia became the 26th nation to legalize same-sex marriage on Thursday, prompting cheers and singing from a packed parliament public gallery in a country where some states ruled homosexual acts to be illegal until just 20 years ago.
Lawmakers, who had cast aside a conservative push to allow religious objectors to refuse service to same-sex couples, waved rainbow flags and embraced on the floor of the chamber, where earlier in the debate a politician had proposed to his same-sex partner.
Fewer than five of 150 MPs voted against the law.
"What a day. What a day for love, for equality, for respect," said Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. "...It is time for more marriages."
The laws, which will also recognize same-sex marriages solemnized in foreign countries, take effect from Saturday. Because a month's notice is required for the state to recognize a marriage, the first legal same-sex unions will be in January.
Australians had overwhelmingly endorsed legalizing same-sex marriage in a postal survey run by the national statistics agency.
The bill cleared the upper house last month and had been expected to pass on Thursday after Turnbull's Liberal-National coalition government and the main opposition Labor Party had previously said they wanted to pass it by Dec. 7.
But religious organisations and conservative lawmakers had voiced strong opposition and proposed dozens of amendments.
During parliamentary debate, they pressed for broad protections for religious objectors, among them florists and bankers, to refuse service to same-sex couples.
"These amendments, rather, are a shield for people and organisations that hold to a traditional view of marriage. They are not a sword to be wielded in the service of bigotry," government MP Andrew Hastie said in parliament.
Amendments to permit lay celebrants to decline to solemnise same-sex marriages and businesses opposed to the unions to refuse service at wedding receptions were all defeated, one after the other, during three days of debate.
"Love has won, and it's time to pop the bubbly," Greens MP and same-sex marriage supporter Adam Bandt said.
source: news.abs-cbn.com
