First, the Singapore government announces that they will repeal Section 377a, the section of the criminal code which sanctions indecent acts between men.
Then, in order to safeguard long-standing concerns about the protection of natural marriage, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced during the 2022 National Day Parade speech:
Hence even as we repeal s377A, we will uphold and safeguard the institution of marriage. Under the law, only marriages between one man and one woman are recognised in Singapore. Many national policies rely upon this definition of marriage – including public housing, education, adoption rules, advertising standards, film classification. The Government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage, nor these policies.
This measure does not inspire confidence. If homosexual conduct is acceptable, why shouldn't those individual actors agitate for the right to get married, to host a parade, and flaunt their gayness, as well? The notion that the Singapore government can "split the baby" so to speak, allowing for the repeal of Section 377a but at the same retain the natural definition of marriage, is asking for nothing but trouble.
However, as the law stands, this definition of marriage can be challenged on constitutional grounds in the courts, just like s377A has been challenged. This has indeed happened elsewhere. If one day such a challenge succeeds here, it could cause same sex marriages to become recognised in Singapore, and this would happen not because Parliament passed any such law, but as the result of a court judgement. Then, even if the majority of MPs opposed same sex marriage, Parliament may not be able to simply change the law to restore the status quo ante. Because to reverse the position, Parliament may have to amend the Constitution, and that would require a two-thirds majority.
It seems rather strange how judicial activism has become so prevalent throughout the Common Law, English-speaking world. Courts did not wield such outrageous authority in the past, yet jurisprudence in the Western World has stretched civil rights litigation to unfounded limits, and now judges are just creating new rights out of thin air.
The Singapore government should amend the Constitution to recognize marriage between one man and one woman, just as the Hungarian government had done a few years back.
But is that what the PAP-run government intends to do?
Minister of Law K Shanmugam appeared to throw cold water on that bold move:
In line with the move to repeal Section 377A (S377A) of the Penal Code, the law that criminalises gay sex, Singapore’s Constitution will be amended to ensure the right of Parliament to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam said on Monday (22 August).
The Parliament will move not to ensure the natural definition of marriage, but rather to ensure that only parliament can define marriage. That is not the same thing at all.
The Prime Minister said that the government would move to protect the natural definition of marriage. The Minister of Law moves away from the measure right away. What do we see here? More caving. The slipperly slope to normalize sexual perversion is real. This whole LGBT agenda does not stop with the decriminalizing of gross indecent acts between men. Inevitably, they will demand false marriage, fake adoption, and sexualized propaganda onto students and adults alike. This move will not end will for the Republic of Singapore.
The move is to guard against challenges in court on the definition of marriage, and is different from enshrining it in the Constitution, said Shanmugam in an interview with The Straits Times and Lianhe Zaobao.
It's really distressing how the government went from announcing the repeal of Section 377a to backing away from a full-force definition protecting the institution of marriage. What a shame. I fear that false marriage will become the law of the land in two years time, should the people of Singapore not push back on the government's misguided, inappropriate measure to repeal 377a.
No comments:
Post a Comment