Hong Kong Lawmakers Striking Down Same-Sex Partnership Bill Marks Major Setback for LGBTQ+ Rights

10 September 2025

LGBTQ activist Jimmy Sham poses outside the Legislative Council Building ahead of a discussion on the same-sex partnerships bill, allowing same-sex couples registered abroad to register locally, in Hong Kong, China, September 10, 2025. REUTERS

On September 10, 2025 Hong Kong’s Legislative Council overwhelmingly rejected a government proposal that would have granted limited legal rights to same-sex couples who had married or registered their relationship overseas. The vote was 71 against and 14 in favor. The bill was intended to give these couples rights around medical decisions, hospital visitation, and post-death affairs such as applying for death certificates or arranging funerals. It was introduced in response to a 2023 Court of Final Appeal ruling that ordered the government to create a legal framework recognizing same-sex partnerships by October 27.

The bill would have applied only to couples who had legally formalized their partnerships outside Hong Kong, with at least one partner being a Hong Kong resident. It was not a path to same-sex marriage. But for many it represented a meaningful first step toward legal recognition of LGBTQ+ relationships in a place where such rights remain extremely limited.

Opponents—including pro-Beijing lawmakers and various religious groups argued that the proposal threatened traditional family values. They described the move as undermining the foundational model of heterosexual marriage and warned of societal discord. Supporters of the bill, including civil society and rights groups, had welcomed the limited rights as essential for dignity and equality. Activists expressed disappointment that Hong Kong has turned away an opportunity to align with human rights norms and modern social expectations.

The rejection is especially significant given the legal backdrop. In Sham Tsz Kit v Secretary for Justice in 2023 Hong Kong’s top court ruled that the lack of recognition of same-sex partnerships violated the right to privacy under Article 14 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance. The court ordered the government to establish a legal alternative to marriage recognizing same-sex partnerships. That ruling came with a suspended two-year deadline. The bill was the government’s effort to meet that mandate.

Many scholars and activists say the veto sends a troubling signal both locally and internationally that court rulings and judicial mandates may be ignored or undermined when they conflict with prevailing political or conservative social currents. While some legal rights have been achieved already through court precedent—inheritance, visa rights, dependent benefits this bill would have offered recognition in everyday practical and emotional affairs. Its failure leaves many gaps unresolved.

Mental health concerns were raised by experts who warned that pushing debates over LGBTQ+ rights into public spectacle without progress can harm community well-being. Identity, dignity, and personal safety are not abstract for those affected; they are lived realities. Several business groups also flagged the implications for Hong Kong’s international reputation. In an era where diversity and inclusion are seen as factors in attracting global talent, some believe the veto undermines efforts to present Hong Kong as a cosmopolitan hub.

After the vote government officials including Constitutional Affairs Secretary Erick Tsang said they would respect the council’s decision. They also said they would work with the Department of Justice to explore how to comply with the court order before the October deadline. The government has ruled out applying for an extension. The exact next steps remain unclear but pressure is mounting from activists and legal experts to ensure that constitutional obligations are met somehow.

The public reaction reflects both frustration and resilience. Surveys have shown increasing public support in Hong Kong for same-sex rights in recent years. Proponents point to a growing gap between what society believes and what the legislature allows. For many in the LGBTQ+ community this disappointment is tempered by hope that legal pressure, public sentiment, and international attention will push change.

In rejecting this bill Hong Kong missed a chance for a modest but significant legal reform. The bill would not have fulfilled all the ambitions of marriage equality advocates but would have granted rights that many take for granted elsewhere. As the date of the court-ordered framework draws near, the government now faces a choice: propose another, perhaps stronger bill that respects the judicial mandate, or risk falling behind in both legal compliance and human rights perception. The stakes are high: not just for law, but for dignity, equality, and the trust between institutions and the people they govern.