Opinion | Gay marriage would be more at home among Hong Kong’s traditions than court suggests

Marco Wan says the Court of Appeal’s invocation of ‘traditional’ marriage in Hong Kong belies the multiplicity of intimate unions practised in the territory throughout history

Reading Time:4 minutes

A flag is held aloft during Hong Kong Pride Parade in 2012. Hong Kong does not recognise same-sex marriages, but a number of court cases in recent years have put the spotlight on the issue. Photo: Nora Tam

Published: 2:00pm, 6 Jun 2018Updated: 8:46pm, 6 Jun 2018

In the latest twist in the saga of same-sex unions in Hong Kong, the Court of Appeal ruled against Angus Leung Chun-kwong, the gay civil servant who asked the government not to discriminate against him by granting him and his male partner, whom he married abroad, spousal benefits, and allowing them to file their taxes jointly. The court notes that Leung’s claims were inconsistent with the local culture, history and tradition upon which the contemporary understanding of marriage is built.

However, a closer look at Hong Kong’s unique traditions of marriage suggests that these traditions actually support Leung’s case. Decades of gay rights litigation have taught us that the past that gets evoked to resist change is often more imaginary than real, and any use of it, whether by courts, politicians or activists, should be scrutinised.

Senior immigration officer Angus Leung (left) and his partner Scott Adams leave the High Court in Admiralty in December 2017. Leung lodged a judicial challenge after his same-sex partner was refused spousal benefits. Photo: Winson Wong

In ruling against Leung, the court underscores that Hong Kong’s prevailing socio-moral values militate against any official recognition of his marriage. Crucially, it emphasises that such societal views are primary considerations for both the court and the government because they are derived from long-standing local practices and beliefs associated with marriage. Granting spousal benefits or joint tax assessment to gay and lesbian couples, then, would be tantamount to going against the history of marriage in Hong Kong.

The court is insistent on this point: phrases like “the Hong Kong context”, “history”, “tradition” and “long usage” appear repeatedly in the judgment.