The cabinet early this week finally shot down a draft of the marriage equality bill that was proposed by the Move Forward Party (MFP). The doomed destiny of this progressive pro-gender equality draft bill is not surprising under the current ultra-conservative government.
Yet, the government's justification is rather upsetting.
It explained that the MFP's proposed draft is simply redundant to the government-sponsored civil partnership draft bill that already passed the first hurdle in House in 2020. The government's draft bill is expected to be read in parliament this April.
While the explanation of the government might convince some among the general public, others such as activists and advocates of gender equality were instead disappointed. The fact is the government's version still treats matrimonial activities as those reserved for men and women, while same-sex marriage is under a different law -- civil partnership for same-sex couples.
The MFP's proposed law is different as it tried to correct the marriage at the foundation level by removing men and women, and making marriage law apply to the individual, regardless of their gender.
There is a lesson to be learned from the demise of the MFP's proposed draft bill. Last week, an expert from the Sheikhul Islam Office -- expressed concern that if the MFP's marriage equality bill is enforced in a sweeping manner, young people will disown their religious beliefs and marry those of the same sex, leading to a "crisis of faith", among other complications. The Sheikhul Islam Office's opinion on the matter is vital, given it's the major voice in Muslim communities in Thailand. While the office's concern should be taken into consideration, the issue remains debatable.
In my opinion, there is more than one reason that has led people to question their faith. There are a number of religious homosexual people and plenty of heterosexual atheists and agnostics. For me, what makes people doubt religious credos, stems from existing conflicts between teachings.
Like it or not, same-sex relationships have long existed, including in the restive southern provinces in Thailand, according to research by Samak Kosem, a Chiang Mai University anthropologist and expert on Islamic culture.
Mr Samak has done research and written articles about young pondans in three southern provinces. Pondan, a Malay term means katoey in Thai and is used to refer to someone who is homosexual. Pondans in the southern provinces have struggled to mingle in their religious communities, while those who cannot leave their hometowns.
Mr Samak stated that the term "homosexuality" is not clearly used in Islam, but expressed in different terms and statements discouraging and prohibiting such activity. Most studies refer to Prophet Lut as depicted in the Koran warning people to give up their "immoral behaviour".
When the MFP's draft legislation was reviewed in parliament in early February, some Muslim MPs such as those from the Prachachart Party suggested that the same-sex provision should not be applied to Muslims because it is contrary to their long-held belief, which assigns the definition of husband and wife to man and woman.
But it is impossible to ignore the reality that there are always those with different gender and sexual preferences in every religion.
Some might say that the constitution guarantees freedom of religious practices and any law that goes against this can't be enforced, but the problem is the right to marry is given to male and female followers only. It is therefore contradictory that the charter will endorse the kind of religious freedom which doesn't really exist.
I understand the concern over the crisis of faith, but each religious group should address the matter internally because if followers are marginalised within their religion, it raises the question of how inclusive it is. Actually, it points towards the growth of atheism and agnosticism.
However, the tenet of divine origin won't decline easily and tends to gain strength in the political sphere. The Constitutional Court's ruling in November makes it clear that marriage is when a man and a woman agree to live together for reproduction, and those whose sex defies nature can't be treated on a par with a man and a woman.
In my view, religious opposition to marriage equality is a case in point for promoting secularisation. Any religious group shouldn't interfere in politics and vice versa. Undermining excessive religious power will help promote freedom, democracy, and human rights and in turn ensure that believers can practise religion without discrimination.
Moral acts shouldn't be based on subjection to rules but on individual freedom and reason.