This week read about the passing of marriage equality in Taiwan, and the Hungarian Government ordering censorship on LGBT books.

Marriage Equality in Taiwan Moves Forward

Draft revisions to a marriage law were approved by the Judicial Yuan in Taiwan on Jan. 22, legally recognizing all international same-sex couples, excluding relationships with Chinese partners, the Central News Agency reported.

Previously, the law prohibited same-sex marriage in Taiwan if a partner involved was from a country where same-sex unions are illegal, and did not recognize marriages established within a third country, CNA reported.

The draft amendment to Article 46 would allow international same-sex marriage in Taiwan, but in situations involving a national of China, the marriage would be established based on Chinese law, according to a press release by the Judicial Yuan.

Gay marriage involving a partner from China is governed by different laws made for Taiwan-China relations, CNA reported.

Next steps include a journey through the Executive Yuan, a joint submission by the two government branches in Taiwan and consideration by the Legislature, CNA reported.


Hungarian Government Orders Content Warnings for LGBT Books


Photo via PxHere.

The Hungarian Government ordered Labrisz, a Lesbian group, to attach disclaimers on books containing behaviour outside of traditional gender roles, Reuters reported.

The action came after Labrisz published an anthology called “Wonderland Is For Everyone,” which contained LGBT stories, Reuters reported.

According to a press release from the Government Office of the Capital City of Budapest, consumers were not informed about the book’s content in advance, resulting in a violation of their rights and interests to adequate information.

Labrisz and the Háttér Society, an LGBT rights group, plan to sue the government over the order, Reuters reported.

“Háttér Society will provide legal representation in the administrative lawsuit,” according to a statement from the LGBT rights group. “We expect the court to rule that the Consumer Protection Authority acted in a discriminatory and unconstitutional way when stigmatizing works depicting marginalized groups.”