Straight or Gay, Domestic Violence Affects Us All
South China Morning Post
By Holning Lau
May 17, 2007

In March, Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan extended domestic violence protections to same-sex couples. Coincidentally, the legislature  in  Hong Kong is reviewing its Domestic Violence Ordinance. One of the many important questions that the Hong Kong legislature  faces is whether it should follow Taiwan’s lead and protect  same-sex couples, too.

Victims of domestic violence often propel legal reform by sharing their  stories of debilitating experiences. Individuals abused by same-sex partners, however, are in a Catch-22. They uniquely suffer two perverse incentives to remain silent.

First, Hong Kong law does not prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in the private sector. Thus,  same-sex couples are pressured to stay closeted and remain silent on their relationships. After all, coming out might expose them to discrimination that the law does not remedy.

Second, even if same-sex couples do come out, they are pressured to brush under the rug any problems with their relationships. The last thing  they want  is to fuel  stereotypes that their relationships are inherently dysfunctional.

Considering this Catch-22, Hongkongers must look beyond personal stories  to take domestic violence seriously. Social science research from abroad suggests that domestic violence between same-sex partners is a grave problem. Research from the United States, for example, suggests  the rate of domestic violence in male couples, female couples, and opposite-sex couples are all comparable.

In 1999, Leslie Burke  and Diane Follingstad,  from the University of Southern California,  reviewed 19 studies on partner abuse among gays and lesbians. They found that gays and lesbians are just as likely as heterosexual women to be abused by their partners. In 2003, an updated literature review by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programmes  confirmed the 1999  findings.

Despite the statistics, some Hongkongers might oppose extending domestic violence protections to same-sex couples, claiming it  would encourage sexual orientations that they disagree with on a moral basis. Such uncritical moralism is troubling in and of itself. Turning again to social science, we should also realise that “encouragement” arguments are empirically flawed.

Research suggests that efforts to change people’s sexual orientation are futile. Indeed, the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Academy of Pediatrics, and American Counselling Association have  adopted official policy statements against so-called “conversion” therapies – clinical efforts to change people’s sexual orientation.

If clinical efforts cannot change sexual orientation, it is highly unlikely that any law would cause people to convert from one sexual orientation to another. To say the least, people are not going to decide whether to enter same-sex relationships based on a domestic violence provision.

It is in all Hongkongers’ best interests to protect same-sex partners from domestic violence, especially since people are going to continue forming these  relationships regardless of what the law says.

Domestic violence directly hurts those who are abused, but the rest of society suffers indirectly as well. Victims of abuse – regardless of sexual orientation – cannot be productive citizens without rehabilitative support.  Victims generate numerous costs to society, for example, lost wages. Moreover, friends and family of domestic violence victims also suffer emotional harm, which could lead to reduced productivity.

Looking to objective evidence from social science leads one to conclude that, in order to take domestic violence seriously, Hong Kong should indeed follow Taiwan’s lead.

 Holning Lau teaches law & sexuality at the UCLA School of Law. He is currently a visiting fellow at the University of Hong Kong’s Centre for Comparative and Public Law