The framework, unveiled on Wednesday, would grant registered partners rights that include involvement in medical decisions and after-death arrangements.
At a Legislative Council panel meeting, more than 10 lawmakers voiced opposition to the framework, with some insisting the government consult the public, including women’s groups, religious organisations and child protection advocates before proceeding.
DAB legislator Holden Chow said his party respects diverse sexual orientations and opposes discrimination but that the registration mechanism threatens Hong Kong’s marriage system and traditional family values.
“This will inevitably lead to issues related to child adoptions, such as situations involving two fathers or two mothers,” he said.
“Textbooks would then need to teach the next generation that Hong Kong allows the registration of same-sex marriages.
“I ask, how can we educate our next generation to uphold family values and maintain the system of marriage between one man and one woman? Ultimately, our system of marriage between one man and one woman would become meaningless.”
Priscilla Leung of the Business and Professionals Alliance called the proposal a “wrong decision”, warning that it “opens a Pandora’s box”.
“This is not just an issue of Article 14 of the Bill of Rights. It also involves the relationship between the Constitution and the Basic Law,” she said.
“It raises questions about whether, throughout the legislative process, the executive, legislative and judicial branches have crossed that line.”
In response, Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Erick Tsang clarified that recognising same-sex partnerships is not the same as redefining same-sex marriage, stressing the proposal followed extensive research.
He said the proposal complies with a court order to recognise same-sex partnerships following a landmark ruling in 2023.
“I would like to reiterate that, according to the Basic Law, marriage in our society is defined as a monogamous union between one man and one woman, and the government has no intention of undermining this foundation,” he said.
“From our government’s perspective, we hope to carry out the relevant work in accordance with the court’s instructions and regulations, as long as it is feasible. The court has not said that a delay is not allowed, but if a delay occurs, there must be a compelling reason.
“We need to consider whether this situation counts as a compelling reason or if we will reconsider it. Please allow us to go back and study this further.”
Tsang added that improvements will be made to the proposal in hopes of gaining lawmakers’ support for its passage.
