Hongky town

LGBT's in Hong Kong are being shaken and stirred by their judiciary, what with conflicting decisions issued by their courts.

Last June, a Hong Kong national was denied recognition of his marriage to a New Zealander. Angus Leong Chun-kwong, an employee of Hong Kong's Immigration Department, tried to get spousal benefits for Scott Adams. But alas, even being an immigration officer didn't work for him, as the Court of Appeals refused to listen to his arguments.

Doom and gloom, said the gay community. They had thought it was a slam dunk, since a lower court had already ruled in Angus' favor. But this was appealed by the government to a higher court, and this time, the Court of Appeals sided with the staid Hong Kong administration.

Just a month after, though, a British lesbian couple suddenly won recognition for their own status. In that case, lesbian QT (that's the only way she's identified in the case, I didn't make up that cloying moniker for her) applied for a visa to reside in Hong Kong because her equally lesbian wife worked there. Of course, that was denied, but never mind if this wasn't her country, she up and sued the government.

Lo and behold, the court said unlawful discrimination was fundamentally unacceptable, and asked the government to justify treating the lesbian couple differently from a straight couple. If it was about proving whether the relationship was sincere and genuine, the court opined this challenge was the same for same-sex couples as heterosexual couples.

Apparently, the business community had supported QT's case, including such blue-chip employers as Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, and Nomura. In the quest to attract international talent to this tiny dot in Asia, these employers needed the flexibility to lure LGBT employees. And without visas for their spouses, why would the LGBT professional community move to Asia, when they could stay in the more receptive climes of Europe?

(Initially, the court had denied their petition to intervene in the case. Thirty-one businesses and law firms banded together, and with Amnesty International, had tried to convey their arguments. The denial could have been a harbinger of bad news to come, but fortunately, that wasn't the case).

So now the ball's back in Angus' court. Or, put another way, he has to go back to court. Angus has to find a way to “exploit” the all-Brit decision to favor him. After all, if Hong Kong recognizes that a relationship sanctioned in Britain should be equally recognized in Hong Kong, then a Hong Kong boy's relationship with a New Zealander should be recognized as well.

Of course, their cases aren't on all fours with each other. Angus is not trying to get a visa for his husband. He's trying to get spousal benefits. But the rationale for QT's victory should sustain Angus' own case.

Developments overseas should also inform, and hopefully sway, events here in this country. Taiwan is on its way to get a marriage law. India has followed suit (perhaps that victory deserves its own column space). When will the SOGIE equality bill filed in Congress get approved by the Senate?

Meanwhile, various Philippine businesses are exerting their own uncoordinated efforts to advance the rights of the LGBT community. I hear western call centers here have diversity programs that are probably the gold standard in caring for and valuing its LGBT employees. That playbook should be shared, so that Philippine companies can benefit from the earlier experiences of their first-world counterparts.

So sad that again, the East must look to the West to lead the way.