A ray of hope shone across the Thai LGBTQ+ community on Wednesday when the Marriage Equality Bill (MEB) passed parliament on its first reading.
Endorsed by the Move Forward Party (MFP), the progressive MEB will amend the fundamental marriage law -- the Civil and Commercial Code 1448 -- to allow same-sex partners to register their marriage legally under this law instead of alternative legislation.
Legally wed under the Civil and Commercial Code, couples -- regardless of their gender -- will enjoy the same rights and legal benefits this law provides.
Yet in Wednesday's parliamentary session, there were two other marriage equality bills: a civil partnership bill sponsored by the government and another by the Democrat Party which also won approval.
Another organic law for the government bill was likewise approved. The next move is that all laws will be scrutinised by a House committee before being submitted to the Senate for reading.
The problem is that the government and Democrat Party's bills will not lead the country to a path similar to that envisaged by the MFP, despite the drafters insisting their versions are "sufficiently inclusive".
The content in both bills will keep systematic discrimination alive simply because they do not treat LGBTQ+ citizens as individuals like heterosexual couples.
How? Firstly, both civil partnership bills reinforce the idea of "normal and abnormal", same-sex vs heterosexual couples.
Instead of breaking the existing wall, both bills create another by giving same-sex marriage a "partnership" status. This only signifies the otherness or abnormality of the relationship, while heterosexual couples are categorised as "married couples".
Secondly, the two bills try their best to be inclusive by allowing some of the Civil and Commercial Code to be applied mutatis mutandis to give same-sex couples benefits granted by the code.
But in practice, same-sex couples might not get full legal benefits when they are applied to other laws, especially laws that state "husband and wife" as beneficiaries of social welfare or tax exemptions.
In short, even if a same-sex couple is registered under this bill, they won't be granted the same rights enjoyed by heterosexuals.
Thirdly, mutatis mutandis signifies the idea of exclusivity in which same-sex couples have to live at the expense of heterosexuals. It thus creates a gender hierarchy and discrimination in the face of inclusivity.
Fourthly, even if this bill needs to go through several improvements, it is questionable if the final draft will really be inclusive.
How can the final draft provide equality when two of three bills -- the government's version and the Democrats' version -- do not view same-sex couples like heterosexual couples right from the start?
It is not a baseless concern. Indeed, political pundits say there's a high chance that the Move Forward Party's version could be watered down in the House's vetting process.
What needs to be analysed is the Democrat Party's version. It has been hailed by their own MPs as "more inclusive" and favoured by moderates and compromisers.
The bill sounds good but it's not enough as it does not address the issue of legal rights at its core. The bill is also a semi-cloned version of the government's civil partnership bill.
It will only create another "equal" marriage law that also allows heterosexual couples to marry under it if they don't want to fall under the main marriage law.
Under this version, a same-sex couple is classified as a "partnership", not a "married couple". (You may wonder how many "straight couples" will tie the knot under this piece of legislation) In a nutshell, this bill just makes people feel that it is inclusive because the sexual majority can use it too.
Apart from legal issues, religion will again play a role when the bills are vetted and scrutinised.
Despite the House's debate on Wednesday, MPs again raised concerns that some cultural and religious perspectives have been ignored in the legislation.
Some were worried that some faith leaders may be reluctant to perform religious ceremonies for "Mr and Mr" or "Miss and Miss" or any LGBTQ+ love birds.
But Thailand is a secular state. Governance and religion are separate. It remains to be seen whether and how conservative religion will play role in the legislation vetting process.
Although the struggle for LGBTQ+ marriage equality is frequently equated to being granted the same rights as heterosexuals, it is also a struggle for human dignity and equality.
To solve this conundrum, making the Civil and Commercial Code inclusive is the only path to achieving real social justice in society.
Poramet Tangsathaporn is a reporter at Bangkok Post.