Hong Kong can’t keep dodging marriage equality – gov’t must act proactively to protect same-sex couples’ rights

The legislature’s tone-deaf rejection of the Registration of Same-sex Partnerships Bill was more than a missed opportunity.

It forces Hong Kong to reckon with two urgent questions: Will we continue to be led by conservative religious elites, and how will we protect the rights of minorities in the face of persistent discrimination?

The Legislative Council (LegCo) vote last month – 71 opposed and 14 supported the bill – did not reflect public sentiment. A 2023 survey showed that 60 per cent of Hongkongers support equal marriage, and only 17 per cent are opposed.

Public attitudes have shifted decisively over the past decade, driven by generational change, global experience and the lived realities of rainbow families in our city. In short, marriage equality now enjoys mainstream support.

The bill’s defeat displayed the outsized influence of a powerful and entrenched social conservative bloc, often cloaked in traditionalism and religion.

That a modest measure consistent with both public opinion and constitutional principles could be blocked so dismissively raises troubling questions about how well our institutions safeguard minority rights.

While the legislature drags its feet, the courts have repeatedly affirmed equality and inclusion as Hong Kong’s values and core constitutional principles, striking down discrimination in areas ranging from dependent visa and taxation to public housing and inheritance.

Yet each step forward underscored the same problem: progress arrives only after years of costly litigation, not through proactive legislation. This piecemeal approach drains resources and breeds inconsistency. 

Recognising this, the Court of Final Appeal in 2023 gave the government two years – until October 27, 2025 – to create a framework that would provide recognition and non-discriminatory treatment for same-sex couples.

Responsibly, if cautiously, heeding its constitutional obligations, the government at least took the first step, far short of marriage, by proposing a very limited registration system. The legislature balked at even that. 

But the rule of law in Hong Kong relies on constitutional protections, not political whims. As noted by the then chief judge of the High Court, Andrew Cheung, in Chief Executive v President of LegCo, “The supremacy of the Basic Law means that no one – the legislature included – is above the Basic Law.”

Safeguarding the rights of minorities cannot be left to petitions and populist smears. Constitutional protections exist precisely to shield vulnerable groups from the tyranny of the majority. 

Lawmakers are not mere rubber stamps for court rulings, but neither are they free to place political expediency above the rule of law. This distinction becomes especially critical when constitutional rights are at stake.

To disregard judicial determinations that protect these rights is not an assertion of independence, but an act that undermines the constitutional promise. As lawmaker Paul Tse rightly pointed out during the LegCo debate, the rule of law demands respect for “the rules of the game” and for outcomes mandated by those rules. 

The government must now take proactive steps to ensure fair treatment for same-sex couples.

In the short term, administrative measures can provide limited protection. But these are stopgaps, not solutions. Ultimately, legal recognition and full protection require a comprehensive framework developed in consultation with stakeholders.

Meanwhile, the private sector is already leading the way. Many multinational and large companies provide equal benefits to same-sex couples, not out of charity, but because it helps them attract and retain top talent.

In fact, inclusive policies have become a strategic advantage in today’s competitive, talent-driven economy. When businesses move ahead of the law, government inaction only widens the gap. Exclusion is not just a moral failure – it’s a liability. 

The simplest, fairest and most respectful framework is the one that already exists: marriage. This is not a clash between Western and Chinese values. It is about human dignity, fair treatment, and social inclusion – values Hong Kong has long claimed as part of its global identity.

Courts have affirmed that same-sex relationships share the same attributes and aspirations as opposite-sex couples find in marriage: committed partnerships where both parties pledge their lives together.

Same-sex couples already live with these responsibilities. There is no legitimate reason to deny them equal protection.

The evidence is overwhelming. Equal marriage strengthens families, societies, and economies.

A 2024 RAND study found no negative effects on heterosexual marriage after 20 years of marriage equality in the United States. The Boston Consulting Group estimated that same-sex marriage had contributed US$25 billion to the US economy. In Asia, Thailand expects legalisation to boost tourism revenues by US$2 billion annually.

Equality, quite literally, makes dollars and sense.

At its heart, this debate is about dignity and fairness, family and constitutional protection in an inclusive, harmonious society. The recognition of rainbow families is about ensuring that couples who share their lives together are treated with the same respect as everyone else. To continue denying them this recognition is to deny their humanity.

Now is the time to move forward – not dig in our heels. Lawmakers must align our laws with constitutional principles, not factional religious agendas.

Business leaders should speak out, recognising that inclusion and equality are not only constitutional imperatives but also competitive advantages. And members of the public must demand that dignity and fairness remain core values our institutions are duty-bound to uphold.

Hong Kong’s LGBTQ+ residents are not going away, nor are their families. The majority is ready to welcome them on equal terms, and the courts have spoken. It is time for our government and legislature to end their exclusion from marriage. As the saying goes, equality delayed is equality denied.