我就《家庭暴力條例》寫了信給民主黨議員

我聽見幾個信基督教的民主黨議員﹐居然話擔心《家庭暴力條例》包括同性戀同居﹐就等於認同了同性關係為家庭關係﹐打算投反對票。
其中當然是曾經失落立法會議席後來投向基督教後再次入局的黃成智。此君曾經在所謂人權教育裡面扭曲人權的定義﹐把人權和責任掛鉤﹐給學員批評﹐在明珠台 Pearl Report 都有報導。

這次當然他是為了投部份選民所好 (歧視) 而採取此立場。

他回信說﹕到目前我與一些社會人士（包括基督徒）都認為若將同性婚姻合法，會帶來不少社會的衝擊（包括道德，教育，家庭制度及宗教信仰），而這些衝擊我們認為香港社會及大多數的市民未能接受，我反對家庭暴力修訂條例的修訂，但期望政府應另立修例保障同性同居者面對家居暴力問題或將條例名稱修改

黃議員其實回應上涉及了一個嚴重的偷換概念。修訂《家庭暴力條例》不等同是把同性婚姻合法化﹐台灣有關法例﹐把家屬關係定位一起居住而且以長久一起生活為目標﹐不提及婚姻﹐法例目標是保護這些親密關係裡面發生暴力﹑嚴重創傷的人的權益。

同性關係者面對的威脅根本和家庭暴力沒有明顯區別﹐易名只是凸顯他的歧視態度。

黃議員認同把家庭定義狹義為一些宗教徒和對同性人士關係歧視的定義﹐實在有虧一個立法會議員的責任。

同性婚姻如何衝擊道德，教育，家庭制度及宗教信仰基本上就是空洞的理由﹐如果同志是天生﹐而異性戀也是天生﹐如何會衝擊現在的婚姻制度﹖根本不會多了本來是異性戀的人去選擇同性婚姻罷﹖
當然本來隱藏的同志會公開結合﹐那又如何衝擊婚姻制度﹖好了﹐我們教育是要對人尊重包容﹐現在黃議員的觀點正好與此背道而馳。
宗教信仰更加就不能夠成為理由﹐少眾宗教人士的觀點怎可以用來強加在所有人身上﹖我們沒有強迫他們接納同性戀﹐同志結婚有他們結婚﹐宗教人士繼續可以不接納﹐正如他們不接納婚外情﹑同居﹑離婚等﹐誰去迫他們接納了﹖

黃議員只是單純為了滿足你一部份(不是全部)選民的立場﹐而不是真正從現代社會需要來看。
我們不是活在中世紀神權統治時代。

這是我原本寫的信﹕

Dear Mr. Wong,

I wrote to voice my deep concern of amendment of laws on domestic violence to include homosexual couples. You and a number of your colleagues in the Democratic Party cited your religious conviction in your opposition.

I have respect towards people choice of their religion or spirituality, but in terms of public matters, it is not a personal religious conviction that dictates.

You fear the law may pave the way of legalizing same-sex marriage.

I am very disappointed if you should vote against the amendment.

Domestic violence is about being perpetrated and traumatized by an intimate and significant other with which one shares their life, not just sharing the same flat. The trauma from it is very deep and can take years to heal.

It is why it is so important to include as many victims as possible under the protection of the law.

We are not living in the Middle Age or at a society of Feudalism, where immutable human rights are dispensed base on moral judgements or labelling -- human rights and a person's morality or responsibility has to be treated separately, so to avoid the law being turned into a tool of oppression (of people holding different values).

I know Christian groups (convservative ones) are adament about this amendment -- but let me ask, do they need means to oppress or to "legally" discriminate others in order to "witness Christ" (so to speak) ? Their opposition is their sign of weakness and fear rather a sign of the strength of their faith.

Your faith preaches love and compassion, but all I see in those oppositions are plain bigotry.

My friend has a very keen observation about Christians -- for professing Christians, once they come to believe that their set of values are superior, that their God is the only true god, and the others are inferior, false or devils, there is NO limit for them to show discrimination towards another who has another religiion different from them. Another says: religion makes good person do evil.

I wrote in a bid to convince you that you Christians don't need a law that permits domestic violence for homosexual couples or a law that is lenient towards violent perpetrators in a homosexual relationship, in order for you to uphold Christian values.

If the conservative Christians has their ways, then Hong Kong Christians will become just like their USA counterparts - bigots like George W. Bush.