LegCo bill rejection fails to represent public opinion on same-sex marriage

On September 10, the Legislative Council (LegCo) overwhelmingly rejected the government’s bill to establish a registration system for same-sex couples who married overseas.

The bill stemmed from the Court of Final Appeal’s 2023 ruling that obliged the government to do so and gave it two years to complete the task. What should we make of our now opposition-free LegCo’s unprecedented veto of a government proposal? 

The episode brings into sharp relief the unrepresentative nature of our “patriots-only” legislature. When the local and central authorities set up this LegCo in 2021, they claimed that it would be representative, presumably of the community.

They pointed to a diversity of occupations, life experiences (from Hong Kong, mainland, and Taiwan), and work experiences of legislators, including both political veterans and novices. Therefore, the Beijing authorities said, LegCo represents public opinion “comprehensively.”

After the bill vote, the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office (HKMAO) said that the legislature represented “mainstream public opinion.” It cited the results of LegCo’s own short public consultation exercise, in which 80 per cent of over 10,700 submissions were opposed to the proposal, a “clear and direct reflection” of public opinion.

The HKMAO did not point to some vague notion of what public opinion ought to be on this issue, but to allegedly real public opinion. However, how “real” is it?

First, consider Hong Kong’s experience of official public consultation exercises, now largely discredited. In these exercises, the government mostly seeks to sell a policy to the public and persuade citizens that the policy is appropriate and should be implemented.

Critics point out many problems with these exercises, such as the consultation period being too short, insufficient publicity on the issue, a lack of transparency on how the results are fed back to the public, and so forth.

In this case, the Hong Kong government undertook no public consultation. That is, officials did not attempt to convince the public that the policy should be adopted. Rather, in a novel twist, LegCo “consulted the public” to oppose a government policy.

The submissions tell us more about the mobilisational capacity of anti-LBGTQ proponents than about public opinion. This is because they were not interested in authentic public opinion, but in defeating the proposal.

Second, scientifically conducted survey data are available on this issue. A 2023 survey revealed that only 17 per cent of the public opposed same-sex marriage in Hong Kong, not the 80 per cent opposition reflected in the submissions to LegCo. The survey also showed 60 per cent support for gay marriage.

Neither government officials nor LegCo opponents of the policy reference this. Although LegCo may have listened “fully” to public views, as the HKMAO claims, lawmakers were not persuaded by them.

The huge gap between public opinion (as shown in the scientific survey) and the LegCo vote reflects the unrepresentativeness of our “patriots-only” legislature. It also exposes officially identified “mainstream public opinion” for what it is – the opinion only of our officially selected patriotic political elite and their narrow band of supporters. 

The government’s lack of enthusiasm for its own proposal was palpable. Remember that only after the top court “kicked” the government did it do anything at all. For years, the government ignored the results of scores of lost lawsuits that exposed official mistreatment of same-sex couples. 

Third, the HKMAO characterises LegCo’s consideration of the government’s proposal as “rational and objective.” Yet there were many irrational moments during the deliberation.

In the debate on the government’s proposal, for example, LegCo members repeatedly raised imaginary threats to heterosexual marriage, completely evidence-free. The judiciary has already rejected these views because those advocating them fail to provide evidence. In fact, there is none.

Moreover, religious belief also seems to have played a role – difficult to defend in secular Hong Kong. According to an inside source, at least one LegCo member, a devout Christian, assiduously lobbied his colleagues to reject the bill. Another legislator, as reported by local media, publicly prayed with Christian groups for the defeat of the measure.

The influential role of these religious groups, minorities themselves, is a colonial legacy. In this episode, we see one minority group actively suppressing another.  Hopefully, the government does not make policy based on such irrational considerations.

The HKMAO hopes for a “harmonious” Hong Kong where everyone is content. However, currently, this is not the situation in Hong Kong because hundreds of thousands of LGBTQ citizens are routinely treated unfairly and unjustly.

The Beijing office calls on the authorities to “actively create a more inclusive social environment” and “promote inclusiveness and harmony.” This means that the Hong Kong government’s work is not done.

Hong Kong needs to outlaw discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation. Officials can start by publicly committing to their own Code of Practice against discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation. Even this, the authorities have not done so.

Without such measures, same-sex couples face the exhausting prospect of more lawsuits, costly in terms of time, treasure, and emotional energy, each appealed by the government to the apex court – “to be sure,” officials say.

And as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, in today’s Hong Kong, these lawsuits will continue, wasting more time and public resources. Gay people are taxpayers, too.