A Thunderous Applause for Jiangsu's Abolition of the "Strict Prohibition on Unmarried Men and Women Cohabiting" Regulation

At the third session of the Jiangsu Provincial 10th People's Congress held at the end of June this year, the Standing Committee of the current Jiangsu Provincial People's Congress revised and passed the new "Jiangsu Province Temporary Residents Management Regulations." Notably, the previous clause "strictly prohibiting men and women without marriage certificates from cohabiting" was abolished. It is reported that when 50-plus members of the Standing Committee discussed in groups whether to abolish this clause, all expressed understanding and support. When it was finally put to a vote, it passed unanimously.

It turns out that this regulation, born of a specific historical period, has absolutely no legal basis in today's context. According to general principles of jurisprudence, behavior not prohibited by law should be considered permitted, and the government should not intervene. Furthermore, the scope of "men and women without marriage certificates" is very broad—fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, brothers and sisters all fall into this category. When they go out, are they not allowed to share accommodations? This regulation was mainly intended to prevent prostitution, drug use, and other suspected illegal and criminal activities, but in practice it was extremely difficult to enforce. Moreover, logically, while some people may use mixed-gender cohabitation for prostitution or drug use, one cannot conclude that mixed-gender cohabitation necessarily constitutes prostitution or drug use, and therefore prohibit it. Besides, if it's drug use, can't same-sex individuals do it just as easily together? As for prostitution, can't same-sex individuals engage in prostitution? Does restricting opposite-sex cohabitation amount to encouraging same-sex activity?

Every adult has the right to exercise the rights granted by the Constitution, yet in the past, many regulations clearly contradicted the Constitution. This strict prohibition on unmarried men and women cohabiting clearly violated the spirit of the Constitution. Every citizen has the right to choose to live with anyone they feel is appropriate—does this really need any explanation? Every person's every organ belongs to them personally. No person or institution has the right to restrict anyone from using their own organs, provided no harm is done to others—is this really questionable? Any adult, on a voluntary basis, using their own organs to achieve corresponding physical and mental pleasure without affecting others—is there really a problem with this?

The boundary between law and morality must be clearly defined. Law cannot replace morality, and vice versa. But in the past, we often had this tendency, where law ultimately became morality's accomplice, while truly illegal behavior was left unaddressed. If a country's laws are still obsessing over controlling its citizens' certain organs, it can only indicate serious immaturity. Jiangsu's abolition of the "strict prohibition on unmarried men and women cohabiting" regulation has set a good precedent, worthy of thunderous applause. Additionally, the abolition of this regulation directly cut off a revenue stream for certain corrupt police officers, indirectly accomplishing a great good deed. In short, Jiangsu's abolition of this regulation shows us a progressive trend in society, one that deserves strong advocacy.