Hong Kong’s top court ordered more protections for same-sex couples. Lawmakers said no.

HONG KONG — Hong Kong’s pro-Beijing lawmakers have staunchly supported the government for years. That is, until the issue of same-sex partnerships came up.

Last month, Hong Kong’s unopposed Legislative Council overwhelmingly rejected a government-sponsored bill that would have partially recognized same-sex unions in the Chinese territory.

The rejection, which LGBTQ rights advocates called “disappointing,” reignited discussions about gay rights and the rule of law in Hong Kong as its leaders move closer to China’s central government.

The bill, which would have granted limited rights to same-sex couples, was a response to a 2023 order from Hong Kong’s highest court that gave the government until October 27, 2025 to establish an alternative framework for the legal recognition of same-sex partnerships, such as registered civil partnerships or civil unions.

Marriage equality remains a work in progress in Asia, with only three countries – Taiwan, Nepal and Thailand – having fully legalized same-sex marriage. A 2023 survey of Hong Kong residents by the Chinese University of Hong Kong found that same-sex marriage was supported by around 60% of respondents.

Although Hong Kong’s legislation fell far short of fully recognizing same-sex marriage, equality campaigners said it would nonetheless have been a step forward for the international financial hub, whose global image has suffered greatly after massive anti-government protests, severe pandemic restrictions and a crackdown on dissent.

However, 71 of 86 lawmakers opposed the bill, with some calling it an attack on marriage and traditional Chinese values.

The veto marked the first major break between the legislature and the government since Beijing’s 2021 “patriots-only” electoral reform, which aimed to ensure “consistent” and “strong” legislative support for the executive following protests in 2019. The changes essentially excluded pro-democracy lawmakers who traditionally challenged the government.

The Hong Kong government said it was “disappointed” by the veto but said it would respect the legislature’s decision and turn to administrative means to protect the rights of same-sex couples. Details of his next steps are not immediately clear.

“No enthusiasm”

Hong Kong, a city of 7.5 million people, has made progress on LGBTQ rights thanks to a series of legal victories.

In 2023, Hong Kong’s highest court ruled that transgender people can change the gender on their official ID card without undergoing full gender reassignment surgery. In July, a Hong Kong court ruled that transgender people have the right to use public toilets based on their asserted gender.

And last month, a Hong Kong judge ruled in favor of a lesbian couple who wanted to include both mothers’ names on their son’s birth certificate.

But there have also been setbacks as the space for activism in Hong Kong has shrunk. Pink Dot, the city’s largest LGBTQ event, announced last month that it would hold its 2025 edition online after losing its usual venue without explanation.

The case that prompted the passage of same-sex marriage legislation was brought in 2018 by Jimmy Sham, a prominent local gay rights activist who took the government to the Court of Final Appeal to have his same-sex marriage recognized abroad.

The court’s 2023 ruling in his favor came as Sham, 38, one of 47 pro-democracy figures arrested in 2021 under a national security law imposed by Beijing, was on trial for subversion. Sham, who like most of the defendants pleaded guilty, was released from prison in May after serving more than four years.

To comply with this landmark ruling, the Hong Kong government in July proposed a mechanism for same-sex couples to visit their partners in hospital, access their medical records and make decisions about organ donation and funeral arrangements. It did not address parental or adoption rights.

The protections would also have only applied to same-sex couples who registered their partnerships outside Hong Kong, a provision that advocacy groups have criticized as discriminatory.

Yet the proposal faced strong objections from lawmakers, who cited a “lack of social consensus” in Hong Kong on the “highly controversial” topic of same-sex partnership.

They argued that the bill, even if it did not legalize same-sex marriage, would still lead to “a breakdown of traditional family ethics and values” if passed.

“Why sow trouble and break tradition for a small group, thus putting the whole society in turmoil?” said lawmaker Junius Ho, a vocal opponent of LGBTQ rights.

Sham said that while the veto was “a real shame,” he hoped authorities would restart the legislative process.

“The question is whether those in power have the courage and wisdom to resolve differences and seek consensus,” he wrote on Facebook.

Hong Kong officials said the government had done “its best” to gain support from the legislature, basing the proposal on what they saw as “societal common ground”.

However, John Burns, an emeritus professor at the University of Hong Kong specializing in city politics and governance, said he saw “no enthusiasm” from the government to create an alternative framework for recognizing same-sex partnerships.

After being forced to act by the court, Burns said, the Hong Kong government “waited virtually until the last possible moment” before proposing a “minimalist bill.”

“They had many opportunities to resolve this problem, and they sat idly and looked at the sky,” he added.

What’s next

China’s central government and pro-Beijing lawmakers, who have denied any erosion of freedoms in Hong Kong, have said the veto would not create a constitutional crisis but would instead highlight checks and balances in Hong Kong’s governance.

But legal experts say the government has yet to find a way to comply with the court order.

“The legislature made this decision in haste,” said Azan Marwah, a Hong Kong lawyer specializing in public law and family litigation.

He said lawmakers should have proposed and debated amendments to the bill if they had concerns.

“But instead of doing that, they simply abdicated their responsibilities,” Marwah said. “Now what will the court do? To be really frank with you, I don’t know.”

The Office of Constitutional and Continental Affairs, which proposed the failed legislation, did not respond to a request for comment.

The lack of legal protection for same-sex couples could lead to a “significant loss” of local or foreign talent in Hong Kong as many multinational companies value diversity and equality, said Marie Pang, deputy secretary-general of the centrist Third Side political party.

“This would directly harm Hong Kong’s competitiveness as an international city, especially when other parts of Asia already have relevant systems in place,” Pang said.

Amid the uncertainty, many members of Hong Kong’s LGBTQ community continue to look to the future.

The campaign for equality and inclusion is about much more than legal victories, said Louis Ng, a law student and gay rights advocate.

“Real change requires open communication and engagement with all parties. Only then can we convince the strongest opponents,” Ng said. “All of this takes time and effort.”