Mr. Denis Chang presented his views from the legal perspective. His speech and PowerPoint were very clear and informative. We understand better why Ms. W lost her case to marry her boyfriend. Though she is anatomically a female, she does not pass the biological criteria set out in the Corbett vs. Corbett case in 1970: chromosomal, gonadal and genital. In a court of law, these three biological factors at birth is determinative of a person's sex for the purpose of marriage. Way back in 1866, the Hyde vs. Hyde case defined marriage as a voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Neither same sex marriage nor civil union is currently legal in Hong Kong. If Ms. W still wants to get married, she has to go elsewhere.
Mr. Chang continued with a sampling of Church teachings from the popes and Catechism of the Catholic Church. Before he finished with several challenges the Church has to face, he rounded off with the 10 principles of marriage and public good.
He made some off-the-record remarks which I think are more meaningful. First, he said that many present day challenges from the human rights groups are actually effected by a handful of lobbyists. This remark was followed up by the other two speakers who agreed that we should counteract by actively voicing our positions in the media. Do not let this minority monopolize the media.
Secondly, Mr. Chang said that we should speak more on the public good of marriage. Very often, we soften and show sympathy towards the human rights arguments.
Lastly, in enumerating the challenges, he showed worry about the Church being forced to obey secular laws that go against the core values of Christianity.
Dr. Lam was also systematic and pretty much philosophical. A front-line social worker turned academic, he analyzed the situation in 5 levels.
On the factual levels, he was rather optimistic in his interpretation of divorce and single-parent families statistics.
On the epistemological level, he believed that sexual preference is changeable. Gay people don't have to be gay throughout their life.
On the level of social policy, it was important to take care of the interests of the minority.
On the linguistic level, he made it clear that language could never be neutral. He warned that we should not allow gay people to hijack our language by, say demanding the Gay Parade Day to be celebrated and called Dragon Boat Festival because the patriotic poet was believed to be gay!
On the cultural level, we should follow the principle of continuity and preserve our core values. On this last level, I beg to disagree. Change is eternal. There can be evolutions, revolutions as well as paradigm shifts. The problem is, people reject revolution which when the time is ripe, will roll you over if you are unprepared.
Mr. Truscott was lively but he turned me off when he made use of his time to promote the book he wrote.
To end the seminar, Fr. Michael Yeung led the closing prayer. He did not lose the opportunity to say a few words on the topic, to enrich it theologically. He agreed with Mr. Chang that people nowadays suffer from relational poverty. Therefore, it is the more important to handle the pastoral issues with greater sensitivity. Though the pain of being imprisoned in the body of the wrong sex is genuine, we should not forget that God has a plan for all these sufferings. He finished his prayer with a reading from Romans 8 and a Hail Mary.
All in all, I think the speeches have failed to answer the question adequately. They only barely met the requirement of the sub-title --- what is traditional marriage. To deal with the question whether traditional marriage is outmoded, we need to approach it from the socio-cultural perspectives and the legal perspective is but one such perspective. Our society today is very different from the agricultural society in which the institution of marriage had served well. Outside the Church, marriage has long lost its sacramental significance. It is currently regarded as a contract, a business deal. Modern couples have long severed the bond between the unitive and procreative meanings of marriage. The kind of production activities, the mass media and our life styles have long changed. The core values advocated by the Church have been under severe attacks. But we still believe that the marriage of one man and one woman is God ordained. I am sure the dignitaries among the audience are well pleased with the speeches today. Yet, I am not satisfied.
p.s.
I was a bit puzzled about the Hyde vs. Hyde case way back in 1866. There wasn't any sexual alignment technology. I do not count castration. Therefore, the case should not be about the gender of the Hyde's. It must be something else. A simple search on the internet confirmed my suspicion. The case shows that the British legal system does not accept polygamy as a form of marriage. The British Matrimony Law only accepts the marriage of one man and one woman. Therefore, the British Matrimony Law cannot dissolve a polygamous union because such a union is not a marriage in the system. No divorce can be granted. Neither is there any alimony of one-third of husband's income etc.
September 14, 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment