A High Court judge quashed activist Jimmy Sham's bid for same-sex marriages registered overseas to be recognised in Hong Kong.
But in a separate case, the judge ruled in favour of equal inheritance rights for same-sex couples.
Scroll down for the full script.
(Aired on ViuTVSix on 18 September 2020)
Full Script:
Two rulings today that impact Hong Kong's same-sex couples. But two very different results.
Judge Anderson Chow quashed activist Jimmy Sham's judicial review.
Sham was pushing for a general recognition of foreign same-sex marriage.
Marriages like his own, which was registered in New York, aren't legally recognised in Hong Kong.
And Sham argued, that's unconstitutional.
But the judge said neither the Basic Law, nor the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, gives same-sex couples the right to tie the knot in Hong Kong.
It follows then, that foreign same-sex marriages, also aren't valid under SAR law.
To clarify, a foreign marriage is generally recognised as valid here - if it satisfies these two requirements:
First, it has to be legally accepted where the marriage took place.
Second, it also has to be valid where both parties lived before the marriage.
So, for Hongkonger Jimmy Sham, his marriage in New York doesn't count in this city.
The judge also said Sham's aim for "complete parity for legal recognition" in the challenge -was too ambitious.
Sham didn't think this was reasonable.
(Soundbite, JIMMY SHAM, Judicial review applicant)
"Heterosexuals have rights without doing anything, but homosexuals who fight for their comprehensive rights in one go are labelled 'too radical.' They tell us we should fight for our rights bit by bit. It's torture."
The LGBT community in Hong Kong marked another milestone though.
The court ruled in favour of Edgar Ng, whose judicial review was to seek equal inheritance rights for his same-sex partner.
Justice Chow supported changing the wording in current inheritance laws, such as swapping "husband" and "wife" in the ordinances, "a married person and his or her spouse."
Chow said it was "illogical" to deny specific benefits to a group of people, and that the differential treatment is not justified.
- ENDS -