On November 21,after a delay of five months,Raymond Chan, Hong Kong’s first openly gay legislator,finally managed to move a motion in the Legislative Council to urge the government to”study the formulation of policies for homosexual couples in enter into a union so that they can enjoy equal rights as heterosexual couples”.
在推迟了五个月之后，11月21日，香港的第一个公开的同性恋立法者Raymond Chan最终成功在立法委员会上提出动议，力劝政府“研究关于同性结合政策的构想，并就此达成共识，以便于他们也能享受与异性结合者相同的权利。”
The fact that the motion is non-binding did not stop fellow legislator Priscilla from moving an amendment to urge the government to respect”the family values which Chinese societies cherish”and”refrain from shaking the existing marriage institution as a show of respect for the mainstream values in Hong Kong society”.
这个提案不具有约束性的事实并没有阻止Priscilla提出修正案去推进政府去尊重“中国社会所珍视的家庭价值观”和“阻止现存婚姻制度的动摇，以此来展现香港社会对主流价值观的尊重。”
The debate reopened long-standing divisions in our society between the younger,more liberal,Western-educated generation who support equal rights and the older,more conservative camp opposed to equal rights on religious grounds,or concerns that equal rights would erode the “sacred”institution of marriage as the union of “a man and a woman”.
这场争论在那些更加自由，支持平权的接受西方教育的一代年轻人和那些更加传统保守，因为宗教理由而反对平权，或者认为平等的权利会腐蚀那种“一个男人与一个女人”的结合的神圣的婚姻机制的年长的人之间，重新处理了那种长期存在的社会分割。
There is no substance in the argument that marriage as union of “one man and one woman” is a Chinese tradition.Traditional Chinese society viewed women as the property of men,and allowed men to have more than on wife and concubine.
在那篇关于婚姻是“一个男人和一个女人”的结合是中国的传统的论证中，并没有什么实质性的内容。传统的中国社会认为女人是男人财产的一部分，并且同意男人们拥有不止一个妻子和妾室。
In deference to this Chinese tradition,the government did not abolish the concubine system until the enactment of the Marriage Reform Ordinance in 1970.After the ordinance came into force,in October 1971,the status of concubinage and “kimtiu”marriage(a Chinese custom which permitted the sole male heir to have more than one wife to carry on the male lines of his uncles)was abolished.Thereafter,a couple could only validly marry under the Marriage Ordinance,which defines marriage as “the voluntary union for life of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others”.
鉴于有这个中国的传统，政府直到1970年颁布婚姻改革法令才废除允许拥有妾室这一体系。1971年10月，在这个法令实施之后，纳妾和允许一家仅有的男性后嗣有不止一个妻子以此来延续它叔叔的父系血缘的传统的法律地位都被废除了。此后，一对情侣只能在新的婚姻条例下有效结婚，而婚姻条例将一段婚姻定义为“一个男人和一个女人，排斥其他所有的人，自愿一生的结合”。
The concubine system is so entrenched and widespread in Chinese societies that until recent years,”concubine village” could be found in Chinese settlements in many parts of Southeast Asia.Even in modern Hong Kong,a few tycoons are known to have famous concubines,and children by their concubines,who enjoy high social status and often grace social pages which celebrate their glamorous lifestyle.
纳妾体系在中国社会根深蒂固，影响甚广以至于直到近些年，那些“妾室村”仍然可以在一些南亚地区的中国定居地被找到。甚至是在现代的香港，一些企业大亨还会因为他们有名的情妇而为人所知。他们和情妇所生的孩子，享受着很高的社会地位，出身背景为他们独特生活方式的社会履历锦上添花。
In Hong Kong today,as in other modern societies,fewer couples stay married for life or get married for the purpose of continuing the family line.Many couples are so fond of raising pets instead of children that Chief Executive Carrie Lam had to devote one paragraph in her policy address to enhancing animal welfare.That the Judeo-Christian concept of marriage is evolving or crumbling is because of complex forces shaping modern societies and cannot be blamed on the quest for equal rights for same-sex couples.
在今天的香港，以及其他的一些现代化的社会，越来越少的情侣一生维持一段婚姻或者结婚仅仅是为了延续家族的血脉。更多的夫妻会更加喜欢养宠物而不是孩子，以至于首席执行长Carrie不得不用她政策中的一段来表明应当增加政府对于动物的福利。那种犹太教与基督教所共有的概念是婚姻的进化或者崩溃只因为构建现代社会的复杂强制力，而不应该去责备对于同性情侣对平等权利的要求。
Nor is there any scientific evidence supporting allegations by anti-gay groups that homosexual orientation is a sickness or an aberration that needs to be cured.Although no consensus can be reached among scientists about the exact reasons for such orientations,most lesbian,gay or bisexual people “experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation”.
没有任何的科学证明支持反同性恋组织对于同性取向是一种病或者一种需要被治疗的异常行为的主张。虽然关于大多数女同性恋者，男同性恋者和不了解或对自己性取向知之甚少的双性恋者性取向的确切原因，科学家们并不能够达成共识。
Although the government has been coy about taking even small steps forward in recognizing the equal rights of gay couples and transgender people,the Court of Final Appeal,acting as usual as the beacon of liberalism and custodian of human rights,has been far more progressive in recognizing the equal rights of the LGBT community.
虽然政府对于承认同性情侣和变性人的平等权利的小小进步有所保留，但是表现得像往常一样的自由主义之光和人类权力的监管者的终审法院，在承认LGBT这个群体的平等权利方面更加先进和开明。
While making it clear it does not wish to arrogate to itself the power to change laws,which should rest with legislature after thorough community-wide debates and consultation,the Court of Final Appeal has been making judgments in favor of equal rights.
然而需要清楚的是，它不希望有这个权利去擅自修改法律，法律应该是取决于在完整的全组织性的辩论和磋商之后的立法机关，终审法院已经做出决议支持平权。
In the case of W versus the Registrar of Marriages,the court ruled in favor of W’ s right to validly marry because she had undergone irreversible sex reassignment surgery.To deny her the right to validly marry would be a violation of her fundamental right to marriage protected under the Basic Law.
至于香港变性人婚权案，法院裁决W有权利拥有有效的婚姻，因为她经历了不可逆转的变性手术。否定她结婚的权力侵害了她在基本法保护之下的基本权力。
In QT versus Director of Immigration,the court ruled in favor of issuing a dependent visa to the same-sex civil partner of SS,a British national working in the city.The court ruled in favor of SS because the denial of a dependent visa to her same-sex partner amounted to indirect discrimination based on sexual orientation.
在QT与入境事务处的案件中，法院裁决支持发给在这个城市工作的英国国籍同性伴侣SS从属的签证。法院决定支持SS，是因为拒绝给她的同性伴侣发放从属的签证相当于对性取向的间接歧视。
Raymond Chan’s motion was narrowly passed in the geographical section of the legislature-with support from myself and two other liberal-minded legislators from the pro-establishment camp-but overwhelmingly defeated by legislator in the functional constituencies.
Raymond Chan的提案在自身和另外两名来自亲建制派的自由主义者的支持下，勉强通过了立法机构的地理部分，但是完完全全被来自功能选区的立法者所打败。
The situation in Hong Kong mirrors that in Taiwan,where the court ruled in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage,but the proposition was defeated by a wide margin in a referendum last month.
在香港的这种情况也反映了台湾的相同处境，法院裁决支持同性婚姻合法性的立法，但是这个议案在上个月被较大范围内的全民投票所否定。
However,as gay couples continue to seek equal rights through applications for judicial review---for equal civil service benefits in one case and for equal access to public housing in another---our Court of Final Appeal is likely to continue to rule in favor of upholding equal rights,while the conservative bastions of our community will persist in airing their senseless condemnations and the government in hiding behind legislative divisions.
然而，同性恋情侣仍然持续通过司法覆核申请来争取平等的权利——为了平等的公务员权益和公共住房使用权——我们的终审法院仍然是支持平等的权利，然而我们团体中保守的捍卫者将会坚持公开发表他们不明智的谴责和躲在立法部门背后的政府。
Translator:Ouyang Dieyu
From:Sunday Morning Post
Time:2018.12.4
