More steps needed to protect rights of sexual minorities
The Supreme Court on Thursday overturned a military court's conviction of two male soldiers sentenced to suspended prison terms for their same-sex relationship. In a landmark ruling hailed by human rights groups, the top court opposed the punishment of the soldiers under the military criminal code as they engaged in consensual sex in private while off duty.
The two men, a first lieutenant and a master sergeant, were indicted in 2017 under Article 92-6 of the Military Criminal Act for having sex in 2016. The court said punishing the men for the acts violates their "sexual autonomy" and infringes upon their rights to pursue equality and happiness as guaranteed by the Constitution. It referred the case to a lower military court.
The court's ruling is meaningful as it judged that the same-sex relationship does not constitute an "indecent deed" that causes sexual humiliation and disgust as noted in the military code. We welcome the court ruling as it defies the pervasive discrimination and stigmatization faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) people in the country and the military, in particular, and supports their rights for equality and happiness.
Human rights groups welcomed the verdict, describing it as a "triumphant victory" for sexual minorities. Article 92-6 has been a target of criticism as it subjects same-sex people who engage in sexual intercourse to a maximum two-year prison term, citing the need to protect morale and discipline in the military. It stipulates the punishment of relevant people regardless of a consensual relationship. It has been described as the most "archaic" law that discriminates sexual minorities in the military and infringes upon privacy.
It is proper that the Supreme Court ruled that it is hard to believe the two men directly and specifically undermined military discipline with their sexual relationship. The court said many judges pointed out that same-sex relationships have been accepted as a natural inclination in Korea and other nations. Amnesty International also hailed the verdict, saying, "Today's ruling should pave the way for military personnel to freely live their lives without the threat of prosecution." In a statement, Amnesty East Asia researcher Boram Jang said the article of the military code was a "shocking violation of human rights."
The United Nations called on the Korean government to abolish the article in 2012 through its Universal Periodic Review and renewed its recommendation in 2015 via the Human Rights Council. Yet, the Constitutional Court acknowledged the constitutionality of the article due to the need to safeguard military discipline and maintain combat capabilities in 2002, 2011 and 2016. Numerous petitions have been filed calling for the abolishment of the article. The suicide of a transgender woman who was expelled from the military after her gender-reassignment surgery last year also ignited debate over the rights of sexual minorities in the military.
The article was enacted following the example of the United States. Yet the U.S. Supreme Court abolished it with a ruling in 2003, citing its unconstitutionality. We urge the Constitutional Court to make a wise ruling in view of the circumstantial changes. The National Assembly should also embark on efforts to do away with the outdated article.
The Supreme Court on Thursday overturned a military court's conviction of two male soldiers sentenced to suspended prison terms for their same-sex relationship. In a landmark ruling hailed by human rights groups, the top court opposed the punishment of the soldiers under the military criminal code as they engaged in consensual sex in private while off duty.
The two men, a first lieutenant and a master sergeant, were indicted in 2017 under Article 92-6 of the Military Criminal Act for having sex in 2016. The court said punishing the men for the acts violates their "sexual autonomy" and infringes upon their rights to pursue equality and happiness as guaranteed by the Constitution. It referred the case to a lower military court.
The court's ruling is meaningful as it judged that the same-sex relationship does not constitute an "indecent deed" that causes sexual humiliation and disgust as noted in the military code. We welcome the court ruling as it defies the pervasive discrimination and stigmatization faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) people in the country and the military, in particular, and supports their rights for equality and happiness.
Human rights groups welcomed the verdict, describing it as a "triumphant victory" for sexual minorities. Article 92-6 has been a target of criticism as it subjects same-sex people who engage in sexual intercourse to a maximum two-year prison term, citing the need to protect morale and discipline in the military. It stipulates the punishment of relevant people regardless of a consensual relationship. It has been described as the most "archaic" law that discriminates sexual minorities in the military and infringes upon privacy.
It is proper that the Supreme Court ruled that it is hard to believe the two men directly and specifically undermined military discipline with their sexual relationship. The court said many judges pointed out that same-sex relationships have been accepted as a natural inclination in Korea and other nations. Amnesty International also hailed the verdict, saying, "Today's ruling should pave the way for military personnel to freely live their lives without the threat of prosecution." In a statement, Amnesty East Asia researcher Boram Jang said the article of the military code was a "shocking violation of human rights."
The United Nations called on the Korean government to abolish the article in 2012 through its Universal Periodic Review and renewed its recommendation in 2015 via the Human Rights Council. Yet, the Constitutional Court acknowledged the constitutionality of the article due to the need to safeguard military discipline and maintain combat capabilities in 2002, 2011 and 2016. Numerous petitions have been filed calling for the abolishment of the article. The suicide of a transgender woman who was expelled from the military after her gender-reassignment surgery last year also ignited debate over the rights of sexual minorities in the military.
The article was enacted following the example of the United States. Yet the U.S. Supreme Court abolished it with a ruling in 2003, citing its unconstitutionality. We urge the Constitutional Court to make a wise ruling in view of the circumstantial changes. The National Assembly should also embark on efforts to do away with the outdated article.
![[ANALYSIS] Tesla, BYD's price cuts unnerve LGES, Samsung, SK](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/b1cf8ba68d474cb69352bfe7ea9d14f0.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
![[INTERVIEW] How ATEEZ achieved worldwide success](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/c7723b56dde94eb4b260950d368fe8fb.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
