The Hong Kong government’s proposed bill to recognise same-sex partnerships has failed to pass in the Legislative Council (LegCo), with just 14 out of 86 lawmakers voting in favour.
A total of 71 lawmakers voted against the bill on Wednesday, while one legislator, Doreen Kong, abstained.
It was the first time the opposition-free legislature voted down a government bill.
Lawmakers resumed the debate on the Registration of Same-sex Partnerships Bill, which sought to give limited rights to same-sex couples whose marriages or civil unions are registered overseas, on Wednesday, after a summer recess.
The bill has been met largely with opposition since it was first presented to LegCo in July.
Ahead of the vote, lawmakers took turns expressing their views on the bill.
Lawmaker Maggie Chan, who brought a sign to the meeting reading “Resolutely opposed to the Registration of Same-sex Partnerships Bill,” said the bill “rocks the foundation of the monogamous and heterosexual marriage system in Hong Kong.”
She refuted concerns that a failure to pass the bill would have consequences for the rule of law. The bill is a response to the Court of Final Appeal’s landmark ruling in 2023 that the government has to enact a framework for recognising same-sex relationships, and some have said a failure to adhere to the decision would undermine the authority of the top court.
“When the council votes down the bill, it will not give rise to a constitutional crisis. Instead, it will embody the checks and balances between the legislature and the administration. It will also show that the council is not a rubber stamp,” Chan said in Cantonese.
Junius Ho, a lawmaker known for his fiery statements against LGBTQ rights, told Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Erick Tsang, whose bureau is overseeing the bill, that it was “not too late to turn back.”
Ho said Tsang should never have proposed this bill. There are ways for same-sex couples to protect themselves without needing a framework, such as writing wills and appointing each other as their enduring powers of attorney – a legal tool that empowers one to take care of their finances when they are incapacitated – to enhance their rights, he added.
“When there are only mums in your home and no dads, or some have only dads and no mums, how do we celebrate Father’s Day and Mother’s Day? … we already have a lot of problems on our plate today,” Ho said.
“Why do we still need to worry about imaginary troubles and do all this unorthodox stuff? To plunge an entire society into turmoil for a small minority of people?”
The Court of Final Appeal gave the government two years to pass a framework for recognising same-sex partnerships. The deadline is October 27.
The government received 10,775 written submissions in response to the bill. Around 80 per cent of the submissions expressed opposition, authorities said in August.
According to NGO Hong Kong Marriage Equality, about half of the submissions that opposed the bill were based on nine standardised forms and templates, suggesting “mobilisation by specific groups rather than broad-based sentiment.”
Jimmy Sham, the LGBTQ activist who brought the consequential case to court in 2018, listened in on the lawmakers’ debate on Wednesday.
Before the debate began, Sham told HKFP outside LegCo that he urged lawmakers to support the bill. Voting it down would be an attack on the city’s rule of law and human rights, he said.
‘Discrimination and unfairness’
Lawmakers with no party affiliation and who are members of the Executive Council – the government’s advisory team – were among those who supported the bill.
Lawmaker Martin Liao, who is also an executive councillor, said almost 40 places around the world allow same-sex couples to get married, including the US, Canada, Argentina, Australia, Taiwan and Thailand.
“It cannot be denied that there is discrimination and unfairness in Hong Kong society’s treatment of same-sex couples,” Liao said in Cantonese. “When society lacks a legal framework to recognise same-sex partnerships, gay people could feel… inferior and humiliated, [knowing] their same-sex relationships are not legal and unrecognised.”
Independent lawmaker Tony Tse said he “fully supports” the heterosexual marriage system but supported the bill as it “reflects respect and acceptance of the rule of law, human rights and diversity in society.”
He continued: “The Court of Final Appeal’s judgement clearly states that Hong Kong needs to legally recognise some of the rights of same-sex partners. The government… in two years formulated the legislation, showing the maturity of the rule of law and the responsibility of the government.”
Among the major political parties with representatives in the legislature, only the New People’s Party (NPP) indicated support for the bill.
Lawmaker Regina Ip, who is also an executive councillor and the chairperson of the NPP, said she had ordered all her party’s lawmakers to vote in favour.
Eunice Yung, a member of the party, rejected views that recognising same-sex partnerships amounted to legalising same-sex marriage.
“In reality, the rights and responsibilities in the bill are very limited… it only deals with the right to make medical decisions and after-death arrangements,” Yung said in Cantonese.
The problems that same-sex partners in Hong Kong face are not just “abstract,” but “practical difficulties” in everyday life, she added.
“If one partner needs to be admitted to a hospital because they are ill or have had an accident, their partner – if they are not a legal family relative – cannot visit them or make medical decisions… even though they have been together for many years, and rely on each other, because of their identities under the law, they cannot stay by the bedside and be with [them] in their final moments,” Yung said.
Whilst same-sex sexual activity was legalised in 1991, Hong Kong has no laws to protect the LGBTQ community from discrimination in employment, the provision of goods and services, or from hate speech. Equal marriage remains illegal, although a 2023 survey showed that 60 per cent of Hongkongers support it. Despite repeated government appeals, courts have granted those who married – or who entered civil partnerships – abroad some recognition in terms of tax, spousal visas and public housing.
