Same-Sex Union Bill Could See Vote In House: Thai Interview

[webfact]

Same-sex union bill could see vote in House
Pravit Rojanaphruk
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The House of Representatives is expected to consider a same-sex civil union bill later this year. Gender rights activist Chumaporn Taengkliang of the Anjaree group tells The Nation's Pravit Rojanaphruk about its prospects and what it would mean for Thailand. Some excerpts:

Do you think Thailand will see the bill passed into law?

Some Members of Parliament [who support the bill] have asked us to gather up to 10,000 signatures in order to make the push more substantial. This will also allow the public to become members of the subcommittee. Those in civil society think a wider discussion is needed to draft a bill that would incorporate the rights of transgender people that is not covered by the current bill. The proposed bill only recognises the rights of gay and lesbian people to enter a legal partnership.

Thailand still lacks an identity law that would guarantee the gender rights of transgender people. However, the MPs think it should start from a simple, limited step.

Do you expect any group to be particularly against the bill?

No group has come out to oppose it publicly yet, but we expect there to be opposition both inside and outside the Parliament. Parents may be worried that it will set a trend for their children and teachers might think they will have more work to do. In reality, the bill doesn't teach people to become homosexual, it merely guarantees their rights.

Some might argue that supporting such a law is 'abnormal' or goes against nature. How would you react?

Are they abnormal? We can't deny that people with different sexual preferences already exist. The World Health Organisation overturned its earlier stance stating that homosexual people were abnormal. As for the United Nations, UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon has spoken out about protecting everybody's rights. Last year, the UN set up a Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) department in New York and in March, the group launched its first study in Thailand.

What will society in general gain from the law?

More people will have their rights guaranteed. You do not lose anything if you are not lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender [LGBT]. But if your child or your friends are LGBT, they will have their rights protected under the new law.

How is the situation in Thailand compared to the rest of Asia?

There are three countries in Asia currently pushing for similar gender rights - Taiwan, Vietnam and Thailand. If we push it through first, we will become pioneers in the Asia-Pacific region. The process in Vietnam is still in its inception as they are trying to petition the court, while in Taiwan it's about rewriting the marriage law. Thailand has the best chance, if it is put for debate in the House.

Is there anything Thailand can learn from the ongoing push for same-sex marriages in the United States?

In the States, the battle has been long fought and each state can pass or amend its own law. Thailand, however, is more like France 10 or 20 years ago.

In the US, the struggle was part of Barack Obama's policy. But for us Thais, our support for gay and LGBT rights is fake.

We accept them as part of business and as tourist attractions, but in many cases, children have to leave their homes in order to assert their gender identity.


-- The Nation 2013-04-09

[justathought]

american culture import

[Publicus]

After Prez Obama's re-election, in which gay marriage was a part of his platform, same sex marriage legislation was enacted in France and the UK. No one can doubt that Prez Obama is transformative - he finally got a national health care bill enacted into law, a Democratic party issue that began 70 years ago with FDR and Prez Harry Truman.

Others in the world are trying to catch up to where Obama long has been on these and other vital issues of the present and the future. Welcome aboard Thailand. It's odd to hear a Thai welcoming fahlang ideas, policies, programs.

[chooka]

"We accept them as part of business and as tourist attractions"

What does this actually mean? Are they refering to the sex tourism industry or is there a plan to create a gay and lesbian village in the mountains like the Long Neck Villages and the elephant and monkey parks. Tourists and come and go to the gay villages where they can stare and pay 20 baht for a photograph with a gay person.

[chooka]

After Prez Obama's re-election, in which gay marriage was a part of his platform, same sex marriage legislation was enacted in France and the UK. No one can doubt that Prez Obama is transformative - he finally got a national health care bill enacted into law, a Democratic party issue that began 70 years ago with FDR and Prez Harry Truman.

Others in the world are trying to catch up to where Obama long has been on these and other vital issues of the present and the future. Welcome aboard Thailand. It's odd to hear a Thai welcoming fahlang ideas, policies, programs.

definately won't happen in Australia after the September elections as the incoming P.M Tony Abbot is a strict catholic man and follows the teachings of the catholic church very closely. There were moves afoot to allow same sex marriage but this will be put back for at least 8 yrs after the election.

[Publicus]

"We accept them as part of business and as tourist attractions"

What does this actually mean? Are they refering to the sex tourism industry or is there a plan to create a gay and lesbian village in the mountains like the Long Neck Villages and the elephant and monkey parks. Tourists and come and go to the gay villages where they can stare and pay 20 baht for a photograph with a gay person.

If you don't already work for the Ministry of Tourism, you might consider doing so. You might even be considred a genius there. It might do wonders for we fahlangs in Thailand.

[jdinasia]

This has naught to do with the US. I mean really, the US is 20 years behind much of the Western world. I would love to see some protection laws passed here, but I think it'll take awhile since Thailand lacks the overt discrimination of many parts of the world.

[Publicus]

After Prez Obama's re-election, in which gay marriage was a part of his platform, same sex marriage legislation was enacted in France and the UK. No one can doubt that Prez Obama is transformative - he finally got a national health care bill enacted into law, a Democratic party issue that began 70 years ago with FDR and Prez Harry Truman.

Others in the world are trying to catch up to where Obama long has been on these and other vital issues of the present and the future. Welcome aboard Thailand. It's odd to hear a Thai welcoming fahlang ideas, policies, programs.

definately won't happen in Australia after the September elections as the incoming P.M Tony Abbot is a strict catholic man and follows the teachings of the catholic church very closely. There were moves afoot to allow same sex marriage but this will be put back for at least 8 yrs after the election.

I'll take your word for it, but knowing some basic differences between Labor parties generally and Liberal/Conservative parties generally, I shouldn't expect the Australia Conservatives and Liberals to move on this. (The Torries did in the UK, but that's conservatism in the UK.)

[Publicus]

This has naught to do with the US. I mean really, the US is 20 years behind much of the Western world. I would love to see some protection laws passed here, but I think it'll take awhile since Thailand lacks the overt discrimination of many parts of the world.

I see you haven't been in Thailand long, or long enough.

Much of the Western world, the western European social democratic parties in particular, are eons ahead of the U.S. in having an obese welfare state in which only a handful have passed marriage equality legislation. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule by June that the Defense of (traditional) Marriage Act is unconstitutional. The western Europeans meanwhile are watching their Euro go the way of the Dodo bird. All the while, Prez Obama is bringing more social responsibility to government and to the society of the United States without bloating the state. Transformative.

At this point anyway I'm interested to hear from the honorable Thai PM in this matter of marriage equality - Abhisit too.

[yourauntbob]

Let gay people have civil unions, they should have the right to be miserable like the rest of us

[Jingthing]

In the US, the struggle was part of Barack Obama's policy. But for us Thais, our support for gay and LGBT rights is fake.

We accept them as part of business and as tourist attractions, but in many cases, children have to leave their homes in order to assert their gender identity.

That's rather a bizarre distortion.

It seems to suggest now MAJORITY support for gay civil rights and gay marriage rights in the USA is a direct result of President Obama's opinions. That is completely false. This has been an organically developing movement going back several decades. President Obama's support has been welcome but in no way is he the REASON for the now majority support. In fact politicians are shifting towards support in many cases because it is politically beneficial for them to do now when it was the opposite in the past.

I have no idea what the writers meant calling the Thai gay civil rights movement fake. How is it fake? Perhaps they mean the issues of considering a gay civil unions law originally came from some Thai gay civil rights activists. So what? How is that fake? Now the Thai legislature has the chance to discuss on vote on this. Whatever they decide to move forward with this now or not, nothing fake about that.

The article is correct that there is not full acceptance or understanding of sexual minorities in Thai society and lots of room for improvement in that area.

The article is also correct, that thankfully for Thailand, Thailand doesn't have the thorny complications that state's rights raises in the US where you've got 50 different states each with their own unique marriage (or civil union) code.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

american culture import

More like DANISH cultural import.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Let gay people have civil unions, they should have the right to be miserable like the rest of us

Yes but back to reality this isn't about real marriage equality here as yet.

[seajae]

ah but how many partners will they be able to marry, if like a lot of thai males that are married to numerous women it will certainly be interesting. I hope they practice safe sex or we could have major repercussions.

[Publicus]

In the US, the struggle was part of Barack Obama's policy. But for us Thais, our support for gay and LGBT rights is fake.

We accept them as part of business and as tourist attractions, but in many cases, children have to leave their homes in order to assert their gender identity.

That's rather a bizarre distortion.

It seems to suggest now MAJORITY support for gay civil rights and gay marriage rights in the USA is a direct result of President Obama's opinions. That is completely false. This has been an organically developing movement going back several decades. President Obama's support has been welcome but in no way is he the REASON for the now majority support. In fact politicians are shifting towards support in many cases because it is politically beneficial for them to do now when it was the opposite in the past.

I have no idea what the writers meant calling the Thai gay civil rights movement fake. How is it fake? Perhaps they mean the issues of considering a gay civil unions law originally came from some Thai gay civil rights activists. So what? How is that fake? Now the Thai legislature has the chance to discuss on vote on this. Whatever they decide to move forward with this now or not, nothing fake about that.

The article is correct that there is not full acceptance or understanding of sexual minorities in Thai society and lots of room for improvement in that area.

Prez Obama is the first president of the United States to make marriage equality a basis of his re-election campaign, his clearly successful re-election campaign. That's significant; that's transformative.

Agreed the issue was moving along as a part of the so-called Woodstock Generation (and no I wasn't there, unfortunately), as were feminism, civil rights for African-Americans, politically correct language etc etc. However, gay rights was the laggard issue, not due to any fault of many gay activists, to include the first openly gay elected official in the U..S., San Francisco City Supervisor, Harvey Milk, but because the older generation of Americans hadn't given way yet to the Baby Boomers and the subsequent post Woodstock generations.

Something like 38% of Americans remain opposed to marriage equality, but, hey, when you've got only 38% against you in U.S. politics, you're a winner - at long last in this particular instance.

This is a major issue for Thais, which is why I'd like to hear from the PM and the opposition, Abhisit especially and in particular.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Publicus

[Jingthing]

Prez Obama is the first president of the United States to make marriage equality a basis of his re-election campaign, his clearly successful re-election campaign. That's significant; that's transformative.

Yes I agree what Obama did was very good but to give Obama unbalanced credit for the progress the USA gay civil rights movement has made over the decades (it's a movement still in progress, not nearly finished) is simply objectively false. You don't have to take my word for that. There is a massive amount of literature about that. Personally I think the the t.v. show "Modern Family" that's just one thing has been been more persuasive in moving public opinion towards majority support than anything Obama has done or said on the issue. Obama RESPONDED to the change in the public opinion. He did NOT lead it.

I speak as a fan of Obama who is indeed the most supportive U.S. president for gay rights in history.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Jingthing

[Berkshire]

Prez Obama is the first president of the United States to make marriage equality a basis of his re-election campaign, his clearly successful re-election campaign. That's significant; that's transformative.

Yes I agree what Obama did was very good but to give Obama unbalanced credit for the progress the USA gay civil rights movement has made over the decades (it's a movement still in progress, not nearly finished) is simply objectively false. You don't have to take my word for that. There is a massive amount of literature about that. Personally I think the the t.v. show "Modern Family" that's just one thing has been been more persuasive in moving public opinion towards majority support than anything Obama has done or said on the issue. Obama RESPONDED to the change in the public opinion. He did NOT lead it.

I speak as a fan of Obama who is indeed the most supportive U.S. president for gay rights in history.

JT, you have to admit that what President Obama did was rather courageous....relative to all other Presidents before him. Do you remember what Bill Clinton did? He signed the DOMA. I'm sure you know what that was about. And Clinton was among the most progressive Presidents ever with regards to Civil Rights.

[Jingthing]

Prez Obama is the first president of the United States to make marriage equality a basis of his re-election campaign, his clearly successful re-election campaign. That's significant; that's transformative.

Yes I agree what Obama did was very good but to give Obama unbalanced credit for the progress the USA gay civil rights movement has made over the decades (it's a movement still in progress, not nearly finished) is simply objectively false. You don't have to take my word for that. There is a massive amount of literature about that. Personally I think the the t.v. show "Modern Family" that's just one thing has been been more persuasive in moving public opinion towards majority support than anything Obama has done or said on the issue. Obama RESPONDED to the change in the public opinion. He did NOT lead it.

I speak as a fan of Obama who is indeed the most supportive U.S. president for gay rights in history.

JT, you have to admit that what President Obama did was rather courageous....relative to all other Presidents before him. Do you remember what Bill Clinton did? He signed the DOMA. I'm sure you know what that was about. And Clinton was among the most progressive Presidents ever with regards to Civil Rights.

It was a tiny bit courageous. I think his polling people told him it was either a wash electorally speaking or a tiny advantage. It was more courageous to do it before his election (this time). I do not believe he would have done it if his polling people told him that doing so would risk the election and I would agree with that decision for the greater good. Be clear just because Obama supports something doesn't make it so. It is very helpful to have ANY democratic president in power in terms of what really DOES matter, the political composition of the Supreme Court.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Jingthing

[yourauntbob]

Let gay people have civil unions, they should have the right to be miserable like the rest of us

Yes but back to reality this isn't about real marriage equality here as yet.

I was talking about civil unions, not marriage. Many people (i have a feeling you will be one) ask me what the difference is between the two. Marriage was initially a religious thing and I think that it should stay that way. I do believe that homosexual couples that want to commit themselves to each other should receive the same treatment under the law as married couples do. I dont think that homosexual couples have the right to change the definition of "marriage." It may be a fine line, but its one that should be drawn in my opinion.

[yourauntbob]

Prez Obama is the first president of the United States to make marriage equality a basis of his re-election campaign, his clearly successful re-election campaign. That's significant; that's transformative.

Yes I agree what Obama did was very good but to give Obama unbalanced credit for the progress the USA gay civil rights movement has made over the decades (it's a movement still in progress, not nearly finished) is simply objectively false. You don't have to take my word for that. There is a massive amount of literature about that. Personally I think the the t.v. show "Modern Family" that's just one thing has been been more persuasive in moving public opinion towards majority support than anything Obama has done or said on the issue. Obama RESPONDED to the change in the public opinion. He did NOT lead it.

I speak as a fan of Obama who is indeed the most supportive U.S. president for gay rights in history.

I agree except for the Obama supporter part.

[Publicus]

Thailand, Taiwan and Vietnam in this region of the world are considering same sex marriage. In the PRChina same sex marriage is explicitly illegal. It is also explicitly illegal in - guess where in SE Asia - Malaysia and Indonesia, not to mention Brunei.

And yes, civil unions. Religions and their beliefs should not be imposed upon.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Publicus

[Rionoir]

Obama didn't champion any causes... he simply supports whatever is popular within his party. Name one tough stance he has taken on any issue. He doesn't do it.

[Publicus]

Obama didn't champion any causes... he simply supports whatever is popular within his party. Name one tough stance he has taken on any issue. He doesn't do it.

Liberals Furious Over Obama's Budget — Krugman Predicts Plan Will Blow Up In His Face

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/liberals-furious-at-obamas-chained-cpi-2013-4#ixzz2PwgPFlaq

http://www.businessinsider.com/liberals-furious-at-obamas-chained-cpi-2013-4

[Jingthing]

Let gay people have civil unions, they should have the right to be miserable like the rest of us

Yes but back to reality this isn't about real marriage equality here as yet.

I was talking about civil unions, not marriage. Many people (i have a feeling you will be one) ask me what the difference is between the two. Marriage was initially a religious thing and I think that it should stay that way. I do believe that homosexual couples that want to commit themselves to each other should receive the same treatment under the law as married couples do. I dont think that homosexual couples have the right to change the definition of "marriage." It may be a fine line, but its one that should be drawn in my opinion.

The civil unions they are discussing in Thailand are NOT as currently written carrying ALL of the rights of marriage in Thailand. Personally I have no big objection to civil union separate but equal solutions (though totally equal is best) but if they aren't legally equal to marriage, that is not good enough to call any kind of equality. I also think you are harboring a common misconception about marriage equality politics. Marriage in most countries is a CIVIL LEGAL matter. Ceremonies also may be done in religious institutions. Or both. Each country has its own customs and laws about the relation between civil marriage law and religious ceremonies. The international struggle for gay marriage equality is about CIVIL laws, not forcing religious bodies to do gay ceremonies if they don't want to. Some people WITHIN religions are fighting for these reforms WITHIN their religions but that is a SEPARATE matter from the CIVIL LAW part of it. In this Thailand concept, we are talking about civil law, not changing what any religion in Thailand should or shouldn't do; that is clearly up to them.

IF Thailand moves towards allowing same sex civil unions, Thai gay activists will probably see that as a stepping stone towards more equal to marriage civil unions and also actual marriage equality to happen over time. Nothing wrong with that. Some progress is better than nothing. Each country moves at its own pace in its own culture, and some countries have moved backwards, like Russia.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Jingthing

[tominbkk]

definately won't happen in Australia after the September elections as the incoming P.M Tony Abbot is a strict catholic man and follows the teachings of the catholic church very closely.

In that case no same sex marriage but lots of young boys running scared!

[yourauntbob]

Let gay people have civil unions, they should have the right to be miserable like the rest of us

Yes but back to reality this isn't about real marriage equality here as yet.

I was talking about civil unions, not marriage. Many people (i have a feeling you will be one) ask me what the difference is between the two. Marriage was initially a religious thing and I think that it should stay that way. I do believe that homosexual couples that want to commit themselves to each other should receive the same treatment under the law as married couples do. I dont think that homosexual couples have the right to change the definition of "marriage." It may be a fine line, but its one that should be drawn in my opinion.

The civil unions they are discussing in Thailand are NOT as currently written carrying ALL of the rights of marriage in Thailand. Personally I have no big objection to civil union separate but equal solutions but if they aren't legally equal to marriage, that is not good enough to call any kind of equality. I also think you are harboring a common misconception about marriage equality politics. Marriage in most countries is a CIVIL LEGAL matter. Ceremonies also may be done in religious institutions. Each country has its own customs and laws about the relation between civil marriage law and religious ceremonies. The international struggle for gay marriage equality is about CIVIL laws, not forcing religious bodies to do gay ceremonies if they don't want to. Some people WITHIN religions are fighting for these ceremonies but that is a SEPARATE matter from the CIVIL LAW part of it. In this Thailand concept, we are talking about civil law, not changing what any religion in Thailand should or shouldn't do; that is clearly up to them.

As i stated in my post, i am all for equal treatment and i will add that it should be on all fronts in the face of the law. this is the way it should be in all counties including Thailand.

Jing, you struck an important point. Marriage today has been so far separated from its origins that most people dont even recognize what it is supposed to be anymore. I think more people should start getting civil unions and less should get married; straight or gay couples. Dont get me wrong either, I am not very religious. The problem is that we have been sliding down the slippery slope for way to long and I think its time we as a society started checking our bearings and stopped being so sensitive and demanding everything be equal. If people do not have faith in a religion than they should not complain when they dont enjoy the benefits of that institution. Cherry picking benefits is easy and feels good but eats away at the traditions of thousands of years that created what makes a "marriage" so special. They should by all means start their own traditions and build them up as strong as possible.

[Jingthing]

Well you should be happy with the Thai situation. They aren't even talking about legalizing gay MARRIAGE as yet. I have no idea of the chances of this civil union law passing in Thailand in the near future. Does anyone know? It is encouraging that it has been introduced by the majority party (PTP).

I don't think this thread should really be about a gay marriage vs. gay civil union semantics argument. That topic has been done to death both on this forum and all over the world, and it isn't even an issue as yet here in Thailand as they're not going for actual marriage equality.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Jingthing

[BrianCR]

definately won't happen in Australia after the September elections as the incoming P.M Tony Abbot is a strict catholic man and follows the teachings of the catholic church very closely.

In that case no same sex marriage but lots of young boys running scared!

The problem for Catholics' is really very simple - either way priests can't marry so they must block gay marriage so they can keep young boys for themselves! 'Thank you Father"

[jdinasia]

This has naught to do with the US. I mean really, the US is 20 years behind much of the Western world. I would love to see some protection laws passed here, but I think it'll take awhile since Thailand lacks the overt discrimination of many parts of the world.

I see you haven't been in Thailand long, or long enough.

Much of the Western world, the western European social democratic parties in particular, are eons ahead of the U.S. in having an obese welfare state in which only a handful have passed marriage equality legislation. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule by June that the Defense of (traditional) Marriage Act is unconstitutional. The western Europeans meanwhile are watching their Euro go the way of the Dodo bird. All the while, Prez Obama is bringing more social responsibility to government and to the society of the United States without bloating the state. Transformative.

At this point anyway I'm interested to hear from the honorable Thai PM in this matter of marriage equality - Abhisit too.

I have no idea

1) What you base your first statement on which provides nothing to suggest I am wrong nor any basis for thinking the length of time I have lived in Thailand has any bearing .......... and

2) what you are blathering on about afterwards

[KuhnPaen]

"We accept them as part of business and as tourist attractions"

What does this actually mean? Are they refering to the sex tourism industry or is there a plan to create a gay and lesbian village in the mountains like the Long Neck Villages and the elephant and monkey parks. Tourists and come and go to the gay villages where they can stare and pay 20 baht for a photograph with a gay person.

The short answer is yes. The top earning bars at Nana Plaza are the ladyboy bars. In turn, they send money back to their villages to support mom and the gang. Not to mention the som tam vendors they support, plastic surgeons and cosmetic sales. If it weren't for ladyboy's, there would be a lot more hungry, angry mouths of the red shirt persuasion out there. As far as paying to stare at a gay person--it's called Patpong (not sure which street as I don't go there, but I'm sure someone on here can clarify).

Edited April 9, 2013 by KuhnPaen