1.1. Same-Sex Marriage Bans and Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships
As a form of structural-level discrimination, same-sex marriage bans not only socially excluded gay and lesbian individuals by differentially targeting them from heterosexual individuals but also deny them the legal, financial, health-related, and other rights associated with marriage [
1,
2,
3]. Research has demonstrated that same-sex marriage bans were associated with increased rates of psychiatric disorders in lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) populations [
4] and suicidal behaviors in men who have sex with men (MSM) [
5].
The legal recognition of same-sex relationships has been one of the major achievements of human right campaigns in the past three decades. The social and legal recognition of same-sex relationships can reduce discrimination against LGB individuals [
6]. A recent study reported that same-sex marriage legalization accelerated the reduction of both implicit and explicit antigay bias in the United States [
7]. Same-sex marriage bestows substantial psychological, social, and health benefits to individuals from sexual minorities [
8]. Its legalization also significantly reduced the use of and expenditures on mental health care services among MSM [
9]. The results of previous studies have supported the positive effect of same-sex marriage legalization on the health status of LGB individuals.
1.2. Forms of Laws for the Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships
Since 1989, several countries and regions in the world have enacted various forms of laws such as partnership registration, civil union, and civil partnership to legalize partial rights for same-sex couples. Over the first decade of the 21st century, a total of 10 countries legalized same-sex marriage to bestow same-sex couples the same marriage-related rights as those for heterosexual couples [
10]. Of these 10 countries, some, such as The Netherlands, Spain, Norway, Sweden, and Iceland first legalized same-sex relationships under civil union or registered partnership terms before upgrading to same-sex marriage. By contrast, some countries such as Belgium, Canada, South Africa, Portugal, and Argentina implemented same-sex marriage directly through direct initiatives without applying civil unions or registered partnerships first [
10]. Currently, the legalization of same-sex marriage through direct initiatives or referendums without the prior legalization of partial rights for same-sex couples has become the mainstream process worldwide, and it bestows greater benefit than civil unions or domestic partnerships [
8].
1.3. Battle for the Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships in Taiwan
People in Taiwan traditionally regard homosexuality as a challenge to the family obligations mandated in Confucianism, and in particular, they require their offspring to continue the family bloodline. Campaigners for sexual minority rights in Taiwan have strived for the legal recognition of same-sex relationships since the 1980s. The Article 972 of Taiwan’s Civil Code poses a problem for same-sex marriage campaigners by stipulating that “An agreement to marry shall be reached between a male and a female party of their own accord.” Sexual minority right campaigners have previously sued for the recognition of same-sex marriage, but the Court turned down the petition on the grounds that “homosexuality corrupts social values.” A legislator also proposed a marriage equality amendment to the Civil Code in 2013, but in vain [
11].
In the past two decades, overall, an attitude of social tolerance toward homosexuality has become widespread in Taiwan, which is mainly accounted for by improvement in education and liberal values related to gender roles [
12]. The 2012 Taiwan Social Change Survey showed that for the first time, supporters of same-sex marriage outnumber those who oppose it [
13]. In October 2016, a group of legislators proposed again a Marriage Equality Bill, which passed its first court reading and was subsequently considered by the Judiciary and Organic Laws and Statutes Committee. However, because of a lack of support from the ruling party and the main opposition party, the Marriage Equality Bill was not included into the party negotiations for further inspection.
In addition to the debates on whether same-sex relationships should be legalized, what kinds of laws Taiwan should legislate for same-sex relationship are also the focus of debates in the public hearings hold by the Legislative Yuan and mass media. Two forms of laws have been commonly discussed. The supporters of establishing same-sex couple laws outside the Civil Code argued that it takes the rights of same-sex couples into consideration and keeps the rights of heterosexual couples intact, whereas the supporters of changing the Civil Code to include same-sex marriage laws argued that establishing same-sex couple laws outside the Civil Code without changing the Civil Code itself was virtually discrimination against same-sex couples, as were the separate buses for white and black people in operation across the South of the United States in the 1950s [
14].
In May 2017, Taiwan’s Council of Grand Justices announced that the current Civil Code that barred same-sex relationship was a violation of human rights to equality and was unconstitutional. It also stipulated that same-sex relationship should be legalized within two years in Taiwan. This announcement brought a new ray of hope to same-sex marriage campaigners. It was reasonably assumed that the Taiwanese government would be adjusting the Civil Code to include same-sex marriage laws for the sake of human right equality. However, the group against same-sex marriage, mainly supported by Christians, looked unfavorably upon the progress of same-sex relationship legalization. In response to the decision of the Council of Grand Justices, the group against same-sex marriage drafted two referendums arguing that legal reforms should be conducted outside the Civil Code without changes being made to the Civil Code itself. These two referendums were the following: “Do you agree that marriage as defined in the Civil Code should be restricted to unions between a man and a woman?” (Case No. 10) and “Do you agree that the protection of the rights of same-sex couples cohabiting on a permanent basis should be conducted through ways other than changes to the Civil Code?” (Case No. 12). By contrast, the group lobbying in favor of marriage equality drafted a referendum (“Do you agree to the protection of same-sex marital rights through marriage as defined in the Civil Code?”—Case No. 14) arguing that separate legislations amount to a form of discrimination. The results of the vote released on November 24, 2018, indicated that 70.12%, 57.60%, and 30.27% of voters supported Case No. 10, Case No. 12, and Case No. 14, respectively, suggesting that the two referendums against same-sex marriage received overwhelming support compared with the referendum supporting same-sex marriage. Finally, the Taiwanese government enacted the Act for Implementation of Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 748 outside the Civil Code in May 2019. This law was the effort of Taiwanese government to seek a compromise between the Constitutional Court’s interpretation and the referendum results by guaranteeing most of the same rights entailed in a heterosexual marriage for same-sex couples.
Taiwanese people’s preferences of laws shown in the referendums deeply influenced the final result of legislation. It is important to survey what factors related to the preferences of laws and what changes of the preferences happened during the social debates on legalizing same-sex relationship. The results of the survey may provide an explanation for the people’s attitudes toward the legal recognition of same-sex relationships, as well as may provide knowledge and experiences for other countries that may hold referendums to determine what forms of laws should be established for the legal recognition of same-sex relationships in future.
1.4. Aims and Hypotheses of This Study
The present study used data from the Investigation on the Attitude Toward Same-Sex Marriage in Taiwan, which is a two-wave online survey of Taiwanese people’s attitudes toward same-sex marriage [
15,
16]. The first wave (Wave 1) was conducted from January 1 to 31, 2017, 1 week after the first reading of the Marriage Equality Bill was passed in the Legislative Yuan and 23 months before the referenda for the legalization of same-sex relationships. The second wave (Wave 2) was conducted from December 1 to 31, 2018, 1 week after the referenda.
The three aims and corresponding hypotheses of the present study are described below. The first aim was to compare the rates of preference about laws legalizing same-sex relationships between people who supported the legalization of same-sex relationships in Taiwan and those who did not. Given that establishing same-sex couple laws outside the Civil Code is virtually a discrimination against same-sex couples, we hypothesized that those who did not support the legalization of same-sex relationships preferred establishing same-sex couple laws outside the Civil Code and reserving the rules on marriage as stipulated in the Civil Code for heterosexual people only.
The second aim was to compare the rates of preference of laws legalizing same-sex relationships among people who supported the legalization of same-sex relationships between the first and second waves of the survey. Because of the results of the referendums and the social hostility toward sexual minorities provoked by the rumors spread by the anti-gay group supported by Christians, we hypothesized that the rate of participants that preferred changing the Civil Code to include same-sex marriage laws significantly dropped between the first and second waves of the survey.
The third aim was to examine the factors related to the preference of laws legalizing same-sex relationships among heterosexual and non-heterosexual people who supported the legalization of same-sex relationships in the first and second waves of the survey. Because that legal recognition of same-sex relationship is directly related to the rights of non-heterosexual people, it is apparent that the aspects and attitudes toward this issue in non-heterosexual people will be different from those in heterosexual people; therefore, the present study examined the factors related to the preference of laws in heterosexual and non-heterosexual people separately. Given that individuals’ attitudes may be influenced by their environment [
17], we hypothesized that differences existed in the demographic factors, personal belief in the importance of legalizing same-sex relationships, and the perceived attitudes of others toward the legalization of sex-same relationships between participants, leading to their preference of different legal recourse to legalize same-sex relationships.