(For English, please see at the bottom
PUBLIC CONSULTATION NECESSARY BEFORE 2014 LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT TO MARRIAGE ORDINANCE )
(如閣下認同我們的立場, 請在下面填上姓名, 電郵, 及電話, 個人資料將會保密。)

《性傾向條例家校關注組》(www.tinyurl.com/fsconcern )反對倉猝通過政府提出之《2014年婚姻(修訂)條例草案》，更反對現時有人主張降低性別門檻的修訂建議，並促請政府就此草案先作廣泛諮詢。以下為本關注組之基本立場：

1. 根據終審法院就W案作出的判詞，是次裁決與同性婚姻無關。然而，政府現時提出之草案似乎並未考慮到極有可能會因此出現事實上的「同性婚姻」甚至是「同性領養」的情況，這似乎是是與終審法院的裁決背道而馳，政府在未全面考慮清楚相關問題就草率推出修訂草案，似乎並不是最負責任的做法。(有關條例修訂草案怎樣會導致「同性婚姻」甚至是「同性領養」，請參考附錄1。)

2. 婚姻的本質是一個嘉許制度，是整體社會普遍認同對社會有長遠利益關係(即婚姻關係）的一種肯定、嘉許及保護(見附錄2）。現時的社會共識是維持以出生性別的一男一女的婚姻關係，如果要把這種肯定和保護的範圍擴充，例如擴充至變性人婚姻則必須得到社會的整體共識，也要周全顧及所有潛在的可能影響，才可以進行。

3. 婚姻條例的改變是社會制度的重大改變，不應只單憑一個案例，在未有清楚了解可能衍生的社會後果前，單按照個別案例便草率修改。婚姻制度的修改很需要在社會上有廣泛的討論及共識，才可以落實。以上（１）所說的可能後果，只是關注組目前理解因條例修訂後將會出現的情況，不排除在更廣泛的討論下，我們很可能發現更多要處理的問題！

4.性別的定義、更改或重置，應考慮到不同的範疇，包括醫學、心理學、倫理、宗教、文化、社會公義，甚至是哲學方面考慮。若這「性別」是涉及婚姻制度時，尤為關鍵。
我們需要考慮的問題包括：
一個人的性別，是否單單做完手術就等如已經改變？
需要接受手術的程度如何才接納其變更性別，甚至是結婚？
日後變性人出現後悔的情況是可否以「還原」？
這些似乎都不是是次修訂草案前己經能回答的問題。（見附錄3）若在未有社會的廣泛討論及共識前，謬然把一案例中某些法官的看法，當作是整個社會的共識，未必是最合適的做法，也對司法機構及公眾不公平。

5. 最近，就政府提出的條例草案，平機會及某些議員認為不需要進行完整的變性手術，也可以更改性別，並容許可以以新的性別結婚。對於這些反建議，在社會上也同時有不少人表示反對，及表達了這種降低性別門檻的擔憂（見附錄4）。關注組一方面傾向同意這些擔憂，但另一方面，這些討論也正正表示了，在這方面，在社會上似乎存在著很大的分歧。如果在沒有充分的社會討論與共識前，貿然按照任何一方的立場修改婚姻法，很大可能會導致社會上的嚴重撕裂！

總結以上，我們恭請，各議員反對條例草案，也不要支持作任何降低性別門檻的修訂。很明顯，現時的草案, 似乎未有作經過全面及深入思考，故此，我們促請政府必須先作廣泛諮詢，經更周全的深思熟慮後，才考慮是否再提出任何對婚姻條例的修訂建議。謝謝！

附錄: www.tinyurl.com/sodo10 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION NECESSARY BEFORE 2014 LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT TO MARRIAGE ORDINANCE

(All information provided will be treated confidential. Please sign below if agreed to our position.)

The Family School SODO Concern Group (the Concern Group) ( www.tinyurl.com/fsconcern ) opposes the hasty introduction of the Marriage (Amendment) Bill 2014 and any proposals advocated by some to lower the gender threshold.  The Concern Group urges the Government to first conduct public consultation on the Bill.  Below is the stance adopted by the Concern Group:

1. The Judgment of the Court of Final Appeal makes it clear that same-sex marriages were not relevant to the issues adjudicated upon.  However, in proposing the Amendment Bill, the Government failed to take into consideration the fact that the amendments, if enacted, may lead to same-sex marriages or even adoption of children by same-sex couples.  Clearly this runs contrary to the Judgment of the CFA.  Hastily introducing the Amendment Bill prior to careful and proper consideration of the issues involved is irresponsible on the part of the Government.  (Appendix 1 explains how the proposed legislative amendment may lead to same-sex marriages or adoption of children by same-sex couples).

2. By nature, marriage is an institution recognized, endorsed and protected by society for the long term benefits it creates.  On marriage, the general consensus of our society is to maintain a union of one man and one woman based on their gender at birth.  Before one embarks on broadening the scope of such recognition, endorsement and protection to include transsexuals, societal consensus is imperative and due consideration should be given to possible implications and the impact it may have on our society.

3. Amending the Marriage Ordinance is a major change to a system within our society.  For this reason, possible implications and consequences that flow from such change should be carefully considered, instead of rashly relying on the judgment of one court case as the basis for the change.  Any legislative amendment to the system of marriage should be preceded by extensive discussions and broad consensus which may unravel more issues than those anticipated by the Concern Group and discussed in Appendix 1.

4. When determining the gender (changed or re-assigned) of an individual, one should look at it from a number of perspectives, including medicine, psychology, family values, religion, culture, societal justice, or even philosophy, and more so if it will impact on the institution of marriage.  For example, is one’s gender fully changed by means of surgery? To what degree of surgery does one has to undergo to constitute a gender change, or further, to qualify for marriage? If transsexuals are to regret the gender change subsequently, can it be “reversed”? These are not the questions that this Amendment Bill is able to address (refer to Appendix 3). Without prior extensive discussions and consensus, merely adopting for our society the views of certain judges in a court case would be inappropriate and unfair to the judicial system and the public!

5. Recently, in response to the Government’s proposed amendments, the Equal Opportunities Commission and certain LegCo members expressed the view that gender change and subsequent marriage (based on the newly assigned gender) is possible without the need for complete sex reassignment surgery.  This was met with oppositional views from a good portion of the public, while others also expressed concern about the proposal to lower the gender threshold (see Appendix 4).  The Concern Group shares their concern and it is clear that on this subject, there are serious divergent views within our society.  To adopt the proposals of a group before comprehensive discussions and consensus take place would seriously divide our society!

To conclude, we respectively request Honorable members of LegCo to oppose the Amendment Bill and resist any attempt to lower the threshold for gender change.  It is quite clear that the proposed Bill has not been properly thought through.  We also urge the Government to conduct an extensive public consultation and present any proposals for amending the Marriage Ordinance only after thorough and careful consideration.  Thank you!

Appendix: www.tinyurl.com/sodo11