The Central Election Commission announced yesterday evening (17th) to consider the three referendum proposals launched against the same group, what are the three proposals that will impact on marital equality and how can we act?
The Central Election Commission announced yesterday evening (17th) to consider the three referendum proposals launched against the same group: same-sex marriage should be enacted separately, the Civil law marriage chapter should not guarantee comrades, prohibit the implementation of gay equality education, and delivery of the second phase of the petition.
Next, the anti-group as long as in the "six months to complete the 280,000 joint petition," the referendum proposal can be formally into the case. The organization, the power and the financial resources of the Group, together with the mobilization of religious believers throughout Taiwan, are not difficult to join the 280,000-part petition within six months.
In the current referendum on the status of the election, these three anti-bill and a case, will enter the end of the national vote. And the current referendum law, the referendum passed the conditions of only two (quoted Mioboya):
1."agreed that" the ticket exceeds "the total voting power person 1/4", and
2. Consent to vote more than disagree (one more vote wins)
At present, the issue of the referendum, set up supporters must use double negative, the legal language of the topic, as well as the dazzling number of questions (not one is three), deliberately set a trap for the general public.
It is likely that people will vote against each other without knowing the state of the case. A referendum tied to a general election, with the highest turnout, the right of gay people to vote in an intuitive way, may have retreated.
Last night, Mr Chi Jiawei, the Taiwanese partner Rights Promotion Alliance and the No. 748-letter-release, also chose a pre-sessional protest in which three proposals for a referendum were passed in the resolution yesterday evening.
The Alliance and Chi Jiawei said that the three proposals against the referendum were a violation of the law, "The choice of the Constitution and the interpretation of the word No. 748 is nothing, the path passed, the killing of democracy and human rights, we express the most painful protest." 」
Vernacular translation machine: What are these three counter proposals, respectively?
1. Zeng "Do you agree to protect the right of the two sexes to operate a permanent common life in other forms other than the civil law marriage provisions?" 」。
2. Ranxinyi "Do you agree that civil law marriage provisions should be limited to one man and one woman?".
3. Zeng "Do you agree that in the national education stage (in the country and in the country small), the Ministry of Education and schools at all levels should not be required to implement the rules on the implementation of the Gender Equality Education Law of the students?" 」。
Well, what is the meaning of these three questions, let us use the vernacular translation machine to look at, do not be reversed with the group "in other words," the text of the technology led to go:
- Do you agree that same-sex marriage is not guaranteed under the civil law marriage chapter? (major addition legislation: discriminatory legislation on same-sex marriage)
- Do you agree that the Civil law marriage chapter does not guarantee same-sex marriage? (The main definition of marriage: the definition of marriage does not include same-sex marriage)
- Do you agree that there should be no education of gay equality between China and China?
Do you feel it? All these three questions should be answered "disagree".
But in the design of the three referendum proposals, it is easy to intuitively answer "consent". After all, it is logically complex and counter-intuitive to use the concept of double negation to express one's positive opinion.
Does the Chief Justice's interpretation of the Constitution and the referendum proposal contradict each other?
The proposal of a referendum should not violate the judge's interpretation of No. No. 748, and the current referendum law does not include amendments to the Constitution.
However, the anti-group has cleverly applied the legislative space of the Chief Justice's interpretation of the main text of the Constitution to the legislators, making proposals under the "seemingly not inconsistent" judge's interpretation of Word No. No. 748.
Let's review the results of the release of the Constitution first:
The relevant authority shall, within two years of the publication of this interpretation, in accordance with this interpretation of the intention to complete the amendment or enactment of relevant laws, as to what form to achieve equal protection of the freedom of marriage, is the scope of legislation, overdue completion of the relevant laws of amendment or formulation, the same sex two people set up a permanent relationship, according to the Civil Law marriage chapter, In writing with the signature of two or more witnesses, the registration of marriage shall be made to the administrative organ and the legal spouse shall be effective between the two persons registered.
( extended reading: Taiwan is the first in Asia!) 524 the same marriage interpretation of the Constitution results: civil law unconstitutional, the deadline of two years to repair the law or legislation to protect same-sex marriage.
In other words, although the Chancellor of Justice in the Constitution to recognize the freedom of same-sex marriage, but it is to amend the Civil Law marriage chapter provisions, by the civil law protection or a separate law, the chancellor said that this belongs to the freedom of legislators. However, if the legislator has not moved, two years later, the gay marriage can automatically be registered according to the Civil Law marriage chapter, and the legal spouse's effect shall occur.
Now, two years are coming soon, two years later, comrades can be in accordance with the Civil Law marriage chapter, and all heterosexual couples have the same legal spouse effect, this is not the same as the group is happy to see, and then launched a referendum proposal. What might be the effect of these proposals?
According to the nature of the referendum proposal, it is the creation or the decision of the major policy. The results of the referendum under the referendum law 30th, "the relevant major policy, the President or authority to achieve the content of the referendum necessary disposal." 」
In other words, Joha the results of the agreement, although not "directly" to produce legal effect (note 1), however, the authority should also be based on the results of the necessary disposal. Since last year's Judge No. No. 748 had not said that the possibility of "separate legislation" was dead. Moreover, at present, the Government's attitude to stand idly by and wait and see public opinion on gay marriage equality is not just "asking for fun", it is very likely to affect the practical means of gay marriage equality.
If the referendum is passed, it may change the direction of law-fixing. Once the first and second referendums are set up, it is highly likely that the government will take the "public order" as a separate law to deal with gay marriage.
It is worth considering that, after the referendum threshold has been lowered, as far as the current referendum law appears, the choice will have the right to form a review of the proposal, even if there is a violation of the Constitution, there is still no authority to choose the right to block down.
Formal review of the norms, mainly in the referendum law tenth: up to the most recent president, vice president of the election of the total number of electors more than one out of 10,000, the proposal is a referendum law of the second section of the second third " The creation or reinstatement of a major policy, the proposal has not been made in the previous two years and the written data of the referendum have been prepared to understand the true meaning of the proposal, which is to be considered through the selection of the three proposals.
How we can act
From now on, until the end of the year, we must continue to vigorously make the constitutional guarantee of gay affirmative action, the refusal of discriminatory legislation, the guardian of China's small gender equality education, refused to have the next Ye Yongji event.
1. Communication with people around you is not a "guarantee" of gay marriage, but a "discrimination" in gay marriage.
The Chief Justice explained that 22 of the Constitution does proclaim the right to marriage as a constitutional guarantee of the basic rights of the people and a part of the right of personality.
If you want to get married, you should have a complete equality with heterosexual marriage of the name and rights, rather than a separate special, that your marriage is not called marriage, called a partner. It's like a Negro in America. Before the civil rights movement, blacks have to wash their hands, yes, but we'll build you another sink, for black people. Another law is not to "protect" gay marriage, but to "discriminate" against gay marriage.
All the constitutional courts or the Supreme Court in the world must be forced to confront the nature of marriage directly when dealing with same-sex or heterosexual marriage, and the only function of marriage is to guarantee the right of both people to live together through contract and social system. The nature of marriage cannot be confused with other social functions that may be provided by marriage.
Zhang Wenjin, a professor at Taiwan University of Law, said in a constitutional debate last year that the nature of marriage was not a reproduction of offspring, and that the traditional marriage system also recognized the lack of reproductive function of heterosexual marriage, never excluding 70 or 80-year-old two heterosexual marriage. No matter what the potential function of marriage is, how much is less, can not be confused with the nature of marriage, which is the answer to all the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, the right to marriage and the right to the family to distinguish clearly.
2. You can also launch a positive referendum to support affirmative action, with a "referendum against the referendum" strategy to reverse the Meng Meng
4/20 update: "Referendum against the referendum" signed a case more than 60,000 people, so the joint form has been closed filling function
4/26 Update: Support for same-sex marriage into the Civil law marriage chapter of the referendum proposal, three days broken million people have been sent to the proposal.
Mioboya and others have launched a "referendum against the referendum," a joint petition, which is also a positive as another possibility, "we must launch a positive, positive support for affirmative action referendum, open up their own home." "More than 2000 people in Taiwan (the first phase of the proposal for a petition to the threshold) to leave the data, the group."
Why this strategy was launched, and Burson explained three reasons:
One, can create home
Directly to their own referendum propaganda "consent." Do not dance with Meng Meng, not in disguise to help Meng Meng propaganda their referendum.
Second, in the process of promoting the referendum, the whole Taiwan's affirmative supporters to scroll
A solid collection of 280,000 of letters of petition can be used as a basis for the mobilization of votes and to enrich the energy of the Future movement.
Third, the joint, the number of votes can show political power, to the ruling party's most direct backing or pressure
Now that the ruling party has been watching the polls and counting the votes, we cannot escape the challenge of "how many votes the comrades can mobilize". And Meng Meng straight ball duel, it is the most critical mobilization moment.
They are looking for people who are willing to do something together, women fans support, also invite you to join in filling out this form, leaving your data, more than 2000 people (the first stage of the proposal of the petition) leave the data, on the group.
Legislation is discriminatory, gay marriage into civil law is human rights. Human rights should not be opposed by a referendum. Affirmative action cannot be practised by means of discrimination.