Chinese judge rules against gay couple in landmark marriage case

Source: Washington blade

A Chinese judge on Wednesday ruled against a same-sex couple who tried to apply for a marriage license. The South China Morning Post reported the judge in the city of Changsha in Hunan Province dismissed the lawsuit that Su Wenlin and Hu Mingliang filed against local officials who refused to issue a marriage license to them. The Shanghai Daily reported that Sun and Hu sought to register their marriage in Changsha on June 23, 2015. The newspaper said officials rejected the couple’s request on the grounds that Chinese law defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

The Shanghai Daily reported that more than 100 people were inside the courtroom when the judge ruled in the landmark case. The South China Morning Post said that hundreds of Sun and Hu’s supporters cheered as they and their lawyer arrived.

Sun and Hu plan to appeal the judge’s ruling.

Wednesday’s decision comes against the backdrop of the nascent Chinese LGBT rights movement that is slowly becoming more visible.

China Central Television broadcast a program last summer that examined “attitudes towards LGBT rights.”

The fourth China AIDS Walk took place last September on the Great Wall outside of Beijing. Advocates who participated in the event insisted that the Chinese government can do more to combat the epidemic. More

13/4/2016

Human genetic research with Chinese characteristics

Source: globalpost

Chinese genetic scientists must not be put off sensitive research by ethical concerns, the team behind a controversial study on modified human embryos said Wednesday as debate erupted over the paper.

Researchers from Guangzhou Medical University said they used a gene-editing technique known as CRISPR to artificially induce a mutation in human cells and make them resistant to HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

Their paper, which appeared last week in the Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, is only the world's second published account of gene editing in human embryos.

Critics said the study -- intended as a proof-of-principle exercise -- was unnecessary and lacked medical justification, and strongly cautioned against the broader ethical implications of the slippery slope of human genome modification.