In Hong Kong, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBTQ) people may face legal challenges and discrimination not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. LGBTQ rights are generally seen as poor compared to other countries, with a 2025 report concluding LGBTQ people face exclusion "in various domains, including education, economic well-being, family, health, political and civic participation, and personal security and violence."
Public opinion remains divided on the topic. In a 2022 survey, 86% of 18-40 year old respondents agreed that LGBTQ+ people should be treated fairly and should not discriminated against. However, during public consultation of the proposed Registration of Same-sex Partnerships Bill, the government received 10,775 written submissions, in which "around 80%" were in opposition to the proposal.
History After the 1967 decriminalisation of homosexuality in the United Kingdom, there were moves to undertake a similar reform in Hong Kong. Governor Murray MacLehose privately supported gay rights but he and others felt that the local community would not support decriminalisation.
Legality of same-sex sexual activity As a British colony, Hong Kong's criminal laws against male homosexual acts were initially a reflection of British law, with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. During the 1970s and 1980s, there was a public debate about whether or not to reform the law in line with human rights principles. As a result, in 1991 the Legislative Council agreed to decriminalise private, adult, non-commercial, and consensual homosexual relations.
However, an unequal age of consent was established (21 for gay men and 16 for heterosexuals) with the law remaining silent about lesbianism. LGBT rights groups lobbied the Legislative Council to equalise the age of consent law, but were told by conservative lawmakers that the legal inequality was necessary to protect youth and preserve tradition. A lawsuit was initiated to challenge the unequal age of consent in court.Phil CW Chan, "Stonewalling through Schizophrenia: An Anti-Gay Rights Culture in Hong Kong?", Sexuality & Culture, 2008
In 2005, Justice Hartmann found that the unequal age of consent was unconstitutional under the Bill of Rights Ordinance, violating the right to equality. The ruling was upheld by the Court of Appeal, but the provisions were not formally removed from the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200) until 2014.
On 30 May 2019, in the Yeung Chu Wing v Secretary for Justice case, the High Court ruled in favour of Yeung Chu-wing, an LGBT activist who brought the lawsuit against the government in 2017, and struck down four further provisions under the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200) imposing higher penalties for offences committed by homosexual men. Three further provisions were remedially interpreted such that they would no longer discriminate against homosexuals. It abolished the crimes of "procuring others to commit homosexual buggery" and "gross indecency with or by a man under 16". He also overturned "gross indecency by a man with a man otherwise than in private" and "procuring gross indecency by a man with a man". The three offences that now apply to both genders are "homosexual buggery with or by a man under 16", "gross indecency by a man with a male mentally incapacitated person", and "permitting a young person to resort to or be on a premises or vessel for intercourse, prostitution, buggery or homosexual acts". This comes after 20 years of activism to change these laws, in which the government either refused or delayed, the secretary for justice during the trial, however, conceded to nearly all the changes, and agreed that these laws targeting gay men are incompatible with the Basic Law.
Recognition of same-sex relationships
Same-sex marriage or civil unions are not recognised in Hong Kong.
Nonetheless, in June 2009, the Hong Kong Government extended limited recognition and protection to cohabitating same-sex couples under the Domestic Violence Ordinance.
In 2013, Hong Kong's High Court ruled that a transgender woman can marry her boyfriend and told the government that they had one year to draft a law that allows for post-operation transsexual or transgender individuals to marry. In spring of 2014, it was announced that though the law had not been finished, transgender citizens could start marrying in July. Some rights activists have expressed their discontent with the provision that a person must have undergone complete gender reassignment surgery to receive a marriage license. On 17 July 2014, it was announced that transgender citizens could marry and that the law will be finished after the summer recess. Some have stated that the delay of the final draft was a positive thing since the subsequent law has "lots of holes and ambiguity".
In July 2018, Chief Executive of Hong Kong Carrie Lam said that the Hong Kong government had no plans to amend the law and approve same-sex marriage in the near future following a landmark ruling in favour of a same-sex couple's dependant visa application, and said though the government respected the court's ruling, the case was not a challenge to Hong Kong's Marriage Ordinance and concerned only the city's immigration policy. In March 2019, she reiterated her position saying that the government was no closer to legalizing same-sex marriage, saying the issue was still "controversial"، but indicated that a recent court ruling in immigration arrangements for same-sex couples who married abroad "does help" to bring overseas talent to the city.
In May 2019, the Equal Opportunities Commission chairman Ricky Chu Man-kin expressed preference for a step-by-step approach, starting with anti-discrimination initiatives, and said he would not push for a legislative timetable on same-sex marriage from the government, but urged the community to "change tack" in favour of a pragmatic step-by-step approach to break the "eternal stalemate" in the city's fight for LGBT rights. He said "Instead of focusing on abstract and ideological debates that we can never easily come to an agreement on, let’s make small progress in tackling discrimination at the workplace, schools and public facilities".
In September 2023, by a 3–2 decision, the court directed the government to establish an alternative framework for the legal recognition of same-sex relationships, with equivalent rights and obligations to marriage, within two years of the ruling. However, the court also ruled that same-sex couples do not have a constitutionally guaranteed right to marry. In July 2025, the government introduced the Registration of Same-sex Partnerships Bill, which would grant same-sex couples who had entered into marriages or civil unions overseas limited rights concerning medical decisions, including rights for hospital visits, shared medical information, organ donation and dealing with a person's remains. The bill faced strong opposition in the opposition-free legislature, with more than half of lawmakers opposing or intending to abstain from voting on the legislation. In September 2025, the bill was vetoed by the legislature with 71 lawmakers voting against and 14 lawmakers voting for.
Spousal visas A British woman (referred to as QT) sued the Immigration Department after it declined to recognise her UK civil partnership and refused to grant her a dependant visa. In February 2015, a judge agreed that the plaintiff had been discriminated against and moved the case forward to the Hong Kong High Court. The court heard the case on 14 May 2015. After prolonged deliberation, it dismissed the case in March 2016. The woman appealed to the Court of Appeal, which agreed to hear the case on 15 and 16 June 2017. The appeal was led by prominent human rights barrister Dinah Rose QC.
On 25 September 2017, the Court of Appeal reversed the High Court's dismissal and ruled in favour of the woman, finding that her partner (who works in the city) should be granted a spousal visa. While the legal definition of marriage was not challenged in the appeal, chief judge Andrew Cheung wrote that "times have changed and an increasing number of people are no longer prepared to accept the status quo without critical thought". His Lordship added that the immigration department failed to justify the "indirect discrimination on account of sexual orientation that QT suffers" and that "excluding a foreign worker’s lawfully married (albeit same-sex) spouse or civil partner ... to join the worker is, quite obviously, counter-productive to attracting the worker to come to or remain in Hong Kong". The court ordered the woman and the Department of Immigration to work together on an agreement and submit it to the court within 28 days.
The Immigration Department appealed the ruling to the Court of Final Appeal. The court handed down its ruling on 4 July 2018, finding in favour of the plaintiff and mandating immigration authorities to grant same-sex partners spousal visas that were previously only available only to heterosexual couples. The panel of judges, led by Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao-li, held that the "policy [of not granting a visa] is counterproductive and plainly not rationally connected to advancing [any] 'talent' aim" and rejected the immigration director's argument that civil union partnerships differed from marriage, saying it was based on a "shaky foundation [and]...hardly satisfactory". The government stated it respected the court's ruling and would study it in detail. The ruling became effective on 19 September 2018, when the Director of Immigration announced that it will favourably consider an application from a person who has entered into "a same-sex civil partnership, same-sex civil union, same-sex marriage, or opposite-sex civil partnership or opposite-sex civil union outside Hong Kong" for entry for residence as a dependant, if the person meets the normal immigration requirements.
Taxation and spousal benefits