It seems that the Western World is going nuts with the success of the push to have gay marriage approved. It’s all over Facebook, Twitter and just about every other social media outlet. As of late, the craze has reached the Philippines and everyone has gotten themselves into quite a bit of a bind with the Church, the common people, the media and, of course, the LGBT community all running in circles over the issue. However, with everything that has happened so far, just what will it mean for the country if gay marriage is ever approved.
I, for one, would prefer to allow people to love who they want to love but, given the way typical Pinoys tend to screw up everything, I think I’ll to keep my reservations. I have always been tolerant of homosexuality, what with a number of my relatives being gay (pun intended) members of the LGBT community. However, when you take the behavior of the common Pinoy, the rabid nature of the local branches of religion and then add to that the conniving nature of the government and the inept legislative department, then all you really have is a good recipe for a disaster, a tragedy, a laughing stock or all three rolled into one.
| SUPPORT INDEPENDENT SOCIAL COMMENTARY! Subscribe to our Substack community GRP Insider to receive by email our in-depth free weekly newsletter. Opt into a paid subscription and you'll get premium insider briefs and insights from us. Subscribe to our Substack newsletter, GRP Insider! Learn more |
Of course, allow me to offer some points of interest on why I seem more than a little reluctant to follow the example of the West:
Pinoys Are Abusers Of Freedom
There, I said it. Typical Pinoys clamor about “freedom” even though they understand so little of what it actually means. Take for instance how people like to talk about the Philippines being “free” after the EDSA Revolution even though we have very little to show even after being “free” for more than a few decades now.
Like I said, I am very much supportive of gay rights but we have to remember that a lot of the gays around here are typical Pinoys as well. Instead of earning respect, they simply demand it from others, leading to many complications. I once remember an incident in high school when one of my teachers reprimanded a gay classmate of mine for crossdressing and my classmate quickly resorted to accusing my teacher of being a homophobic bigot even though it was clear that my classmate was violating school regulations by not being in proper uniform.
The Potential For Massive Backlash (pun not intended for the last word)
While there are a growing number of people who support the LGBT community and some religious leaders also encourage tolerance and acceptance of them. Unfortunately, this doesn’t apply to everyone. There is still a sizeable number of people in the Philippines who have rather primitive views and a feudal mindset.
If we were to suddenly adapt gay marriage on a nation-wide scale, one can only wonder how the more primitive-minded population of the Philippines might react.
My Proposition On The Matter
Well, I don’t want to sound like a bigot, so here’s my suggestion:
Let’s do something similar to the United States and just allow it in one city for the time being until people get used to it. When society becomes more tolerant, we can move on to other cities and go on to approve it throughout the country as time goes on.
Also, in the spirit of tolerance, let us not try to force religious ministers to perform or accept gay marriage if they don’t want to. It would be more than a little hypocritical to force people to conform to something they don’t agree with.
I HAVE RETURNED TO LAY WASTE TO OUR ENEMIES!
Coming from a guy with acquaintances that are openly homosexuals(and some I suspect but they don’t admit it), I personally don’t support lgbt movements. Still being a homosexual doesn’t cross you off my “possibly a good dude/dudette list”.
I don’t care who marries whom(or what?), I’m bothered why this is even illegal. Perhaps they don’t like the idea of two men or two women living together not being able to procreate the future bulk of cheap laborers?
I just don’t understand, unlike alcohols or drugs which when abused can cause physical and mental harm, homosexual people doesn’t cause any harm at all unless they are already a psycopath to begin with.
Statutorily, the Family Code defines marriage between man and wife.
Constitutionally, gay marriage isn’t mentioned specifically but if you go by Fr.Bernas’ commentaries on the framers’ intent, the constitutional mandate to protect the family contemplates the traditional sense. So one could theoretically argue that gay marriage should not be allowed if he can argue that it is harmful to the concept of family.
So gay marriage probably will never happen here unless we change the constitution and we know that probably won’t happen for a very long time.
And even if same-sex marriage is made legal in the Philippines, I wonder if the Philippine society as a whole is ready to accept it.
Do Filipinos think the US is the beginning and end of ‘the Western World?’ Many countries have had same sex marriage for a while now, why all the discussion today?
We discussed the same-sex marriage issue today because US is seen as the most powerful country in the world as of today. Many countries especially the Third World patronize them. So any change or trend made by them will technically make these countries drool over it.
So why is it being disagreed by the Catholic Church and even most of the Filipinos?
Because not every “right” is always right.
China na ang superpower. U.S. na ang may utang sa China.
MARRIAGE EQUALITY was approved NOT AS A RELIGIOUS RIGHT but as A LAW OF THE LAND. Get that? Rights such as enjoying tax deductions, immigration benefits, employment assistance and next of kin (for the children) and so on are RIGHTS that no Religion can bestow. Clearly, you didn’t know what you were talking about when you wrote “not every right is always right.”
THINK and re-think because hating and discriminating in the name of your God is just rich.
Going to the mass-scale, since most of the Filipinos are really freedom-abusive, chances are they can or will switch partners from one another once the “love” they once knew is gone. Since men, primarily, don’t have female reproductive system, they can actually express their love on the highest form which is sex, in an anal way. Could be a faster way of spreading diseases.
Marriage by itself doesn’t cause deseases. People can have sex outside of marriage.
Even straight people have anal sex. Straight people are also promiscuous. One can also get STDs from a woman. Nag-iisip ka ba talaga?
Blu,
you are correct. A lot of heterosexual couples have anal sex, even lesbian couples have anal sex using butt plugs and dildos.
It could be one way, to slow the exploding population in the Philippines. Homosexuals don’t reproduce. They recruit…
So, let them do their thing…
Exactly why I’m not against it. Agree with this twice.
The homosexual lobby groups here in the US have become quite powerful. People have lost their jobs or have been sued just because their view doesn’t agree with their company’s support of the nationwide gay movement. Organizations like the Anti-Defamation League and the American Civil Liberties Union are pushing to have LGBT exposure in schools and churches.
Right now it’s not about tolerance anymore, they want forced acceptance and acknowledgement everywhere. America, just like Europe, has become so liberal and politically correct you cannot even do or say anything that appears to criticize any minority group without severe repercussions. This was bound to happen given liberalization, but I hope things will stay civilized.
The rights and definition of marriage hasn’t stopped there either. Now I believe the polygamists in the country want their nationwide right to have marriage licenses to marry multiple partners. We’ll see what happens in the future. Filipinos, are you ready to handle such a scenario if the Philippines were to undergo the same winds of social change?
The Filipino Muslims have several legal wives. Filipino Christians/other religious affiliates, are legally married to one wife; but have several concubines (“Kabits”). Ask most of our political leaders…How many “wives” they have? That is, irrespective of their religious affiliation; if the have any religion, at all..
Grimwald,
If I am not mistaken you are a single man. Meaning not married, right?
Now suppose that in 2016 you get a president stating that all single guys will be put in a ghetto, then what will you say and do?
Will you start shouting and screaming about your individual human rights? Or will you blindly follow the dictate of your new president?
I would resist but I would also accept my death.
In 2001 the Netherlands was the first country in the world to legalize same sex marriages. And it didnt make us less economically and/or otherwise. So I really dont understand all the fuzz about human rights for gays and lesbians.
Now that Ireland has legalised gay marriage Australia is discussing it. Some there are saying they should do it because Ireland did. Why should they legalise it just because other countries have? This is errant and dangerous logic.
Australian urban society has a far more tolerant attitude towards LGBTs than either Ireland or the United States.
This I agree
To illustrate my point let me use a simple example. Suppose Ireland legalised murder. Should Australia follow suit? Should we see a wave of similar law changes the world over? Or would murder still be wrong?
Whether or not to legalise gay marriage should not be based on what other countries are doing.
To head off and defuse an obvious point of contention — no, chris isn’t equating same-sex marriage to murder, nor is he insinuating that same-sex marriage is harmful to society as a whole. At least not yet.
I did some comments on rappler.com after the SCOTUS ruling with some notes on the petition submitted to the Philippines Supreme Court, the Family Code and other issues I tied together with the dissenting opinions of the other justices. I’d like to share it here:
“Our laws are clear. The Family Code only recognizes the marriage between a man and a woman,” presidential spokesman Herminio Coloma Jr said on June 26. “Same-sex marriage by Filipinos in a foreign country will not be recognized in the Philippines.” He said the Civil Code of the Philippines states that “laws relating to family rights and duties or to the status, condition, and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines even though living abroad.”
Like in the US and elswhere, Atty Falcis is asking the Supreme Court to re-define marriage from it’s common sense meaning evident in the Family Code.
“Falcis… argued that limiting civil marriages and the rights attached to these unions to heterosexuals violates…”:
1. “the constitutionally guaranteed protection for equal treatment”
Chief Justice Roberts dissent in Obergefell, quoting Justice O’Connor in Lawrence v. Texas, he argues that “the marriage laws at issue here do not violate the Equal Protection Clause, because distinguishing between opposite-sex and same-sex couples is rationally related to the States’ legitimate state interest in preserving the traditional institution of marriage.” In fact the only reason why the state is interested in marriage is because whether intentionally or not, children (new citizens) come from a complementary sexual union of a man and a woman. Thus, the state understands that marriage is a lifelong union between one man and one woman to be husband and wife to each other and father and mother to their children. By this, the state recognizes the right of a child to be nurtured by those responsible for her existence.
2. “undue interference to liberty rights”
Justice Thomas in his dissent states how wrong liberty was understood by the majority opinion. He says “in the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.” Taken to mean privacy and noting precedents, Chief Justice Roberts notes that “the privacy cases [such as Griswold, Lawrence] provide no support for the majority’s position, because petitioners do not seek privacy. Quite the opposite, they seek public recognition of their relationships, along with corresponding government benefits. Our cases have consistently refused to allow litigants to convert the shield provided by constitutional liberties into a sword to demand positive entitlements from the State.” Claiming marriage to be an “undue interference to liberty” and yet seeking to join this institution is wrongheaded and absurd.
3. “and marital autonomy”
So which one is it really? You want the government out of the marriage business, by asserting autonomy (self-governance with respect to marriage) and yet you want in that very same state-sanctioned institution? These are contradicting claims as well as some noted that in the sloppy SCOTUS majority opinion maintains an “antiquated view of marriage” as something like a magical nobility and dignity-conferring spell, as if their constitution has a clause on it let alone government grants these (Justice Thomas), “utterly disconnected from the realities of America today” moving towards “a post-marriage future.” Others note it’s odd that all the same leftists who think marriage is an evil patriarchal institution want its “dignity” extended to gays and lesbians.”
The Family Code states in Art. 11: “Where a marriage license is required, each of the contracting parties shall file separately a sworn application for such license with the proper local civil registrar which shall specify the following:…(3) Age and date of birth; (4) Civil status; (5) If previously married, how, when and where the previous marriage was dissolved or annulled… ” and Art. 35 (4) “Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not failing under Article 41.”
In effect, the Family Code discriminates against (3) minors getting married, (4) (5) and Art. 35 (4) already married person who may love another – polyamory and adulterous relationships, regardless of how much love these consenting adults have.
Also, in Art. 37: “Marriages between the following are incestuous and void from the beginning, whether relationship between the parties be legitimate or illegitimate…” and Art. 38 enumerates not only consanguinity but even non-blood-related (illegitimate) persons, the code considers it incestuous.
In effect, the Family Code in Art. 37 discriminates against incestuous relationships, regardless of how much love these consenting adults have.
To summarize, in effect, the Family Code, brought to the logical conclusion of Atty Falcis’ claims, violates “the constitutionally guaranteed protection for equal treatment, undue interference to liberty rights, and marital autonomy” of not only LGBT but persons in incestuous, adulterous, polyamorous and polygamous sexual relationships. This is an inescapable conclusion that follows from a ruling like Obergefell.
Once again, Chief Justice Roberts catches the SCOTUS majority opinion in this saying: “Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one. It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” ante, at 13, why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” ante, at 15, why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” ante, at 22, serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?”
Now, we do recognize polygamy (with mutual consent) and almost-child marriages with (minimum 15 years old, with parental/guardian consent) in the Philippines when our country recognized Shari’a Law with PD 1083 of 1977 for our Muslim countrymen. This did not extend to Mormons though and it does not apply to the rest. The Family Code enshrines this existing law in its Art. 33.
Atty Ferdinand Topacio proposed amendment to the Family Code based solely on Art. 147 (common law marriages and cohabitation) to expand the law. Note that here he is arguing for same-sex civil unions for the “recognition and acceptance by the law of such type of relationship – the protection of the civil rights of the partners in a same-sex relationship as it pertains to assets and properties that may have been accumulated during such coverture.”
Chief Justice Roberts in his dissent parallels this idea of a narrow ruling saying:
“It is important to note with precision which laws petitioners have challenged. Although they discuss some of the ancillary legal benefits that accompany marriage, such as hospital visitation rights and recognition of spousal status on official documents, petitioners’ lawsuits target the laws defining marriage generally rather than those allocating benefits specifically.
The equal protection analysis might be different, in my view, if we were confronted with a more focused challenge to the denial of certain tangible benefits. Of course, those more selective claims will not arise now that the Court has taken the drastic step of requiring every State to license and recognize marriages between same-sex couples.”
Finally, and interestingly, the Family Code does not include, in Art. 11, Art. 35 etc, a prohibition based on gender, obviously because it already deems common sense, that marriage is between a man and a woman: “Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation…”
So I think we always have to be clear what we mean when we say “marriage” that it is, as the state recognizes for its purposes, a life-long union of one man and one woman to be husband and wife to each other and father and mother to their children. The state recognizes that more than just a unique biological union that produces new citizens, it is best environment in which these new citizens are nurtured, and the people, through the state, do not and should not want anything less.