Sunday, October 5, 2014

Think Twice Before You Sign the Discriminational Law Review (Because You Are Told To)

Today I am very disappointed on how some members handled the
Discrimination Law Review and publicly lobby members at church
meetings to disagree certain consultation questions in the name of
protecting traditional institution of marriage in Hong Kong. I know the risk
of posting this and it is my intention to explain why you should think twice
before signing it.

I understand the Church’s position on homosexuality and defending
traditional family. I am a Mormon, and I have been struggling to
understand how to balance loving my friends who are homosexual while
aligning my thoughts and actions with my beliefs.

This is the moment for me to speak up. 

In the circulated online message and Relief Society announcement,
members (or nonmembers) are strongly encourage to show concern for
the questions listed in the following website.

Question 6, 9, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73 

When the forms were distributed, a few who were confused with legal
jargons raised their questions indicated not knowing what they were
asked to do. The instructions given were to just check disagree on the
questions indicated above and then submit them since this would be very
urgent. Someone else spoke up and voiced concern of the basic right for
the audience which required fully understanding the content of
Discrimination Law before indicating their comments. That got shot down
pretty quickly.

In another ward, the forms were prepared with those questioned
indicating disagree while member just had to put their personal
information on. The introduction and purpose of the law review were not
given in both wards which caused my concerns.

#1 You and I have our rights as citizens to voice our concerns but not this
way. You can solicit response while you have clearly explain the purpose
of your inquiry and given a chance for participants to freely express their
options. This is basic ethics, honoring and respecting each other’s right. 

#2 This Discrimination Law Review has nothing to do with redefining the
institution of marriage but to discuss if we need to expand the scope to
protect people in other circumstances. The purpose of the review is
clearly listed in the following:

“The DLR is not intended to be a consultation on developing
comprehensive discrimination legislation for new protected characteristics
such as sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, or age. The
EOC believes that it would be preferable to conduct separate
consultations on developing discrimination laws in new areas. We note,
however, that where the scope of the existing protected characteristics
raises an issue directly connected to new characteristics, we do broadly
discuss that issue. An example of this is the possibility of protecting people
from discrimination where they are in de facto relationships and whether that
 should apply to same-sex relationships. This links to a
characteristic of sexual orientation. However we also note this is not a
consultation on whether we believe same-sex marriage should be

Honestly, I am very disappointed, dreadfully frustrated because this would
have been a major ethical violation in my profession. This is not how we
conduct scientific research studies. If someone handed me a pre-filled
form, I would have not hesitated and express the humiliation and
objectification behind that. This is not how we participate in civil

On another note, there is no contradiction between supporting traditional
marriage, accordingly to the family proclamation and reconsidering
protection for people in de facto relationship, regardless heterosexual or
homosexual. We don’t pick and choose who we love and protect even if
we don’t agree with their lifestyle. We follow Christ's example to love all. 

Pardon my conscience screaming it isn’t right.


No comments:

Post a Comment