(Continued from last Tuesday’s column)
Is it just homophobia that drove the Comelec to deny the petition for accreditation of the Ang Ladlad LGBT Party? Yes, but homophobia is deeper and more serious than most people think.
Homophobia is defined as the heterosexual’s extreme and irrational aversion to, and contempt for, homosexuality and homosexual people, and all behavior based thereon. It is a social prejudice and an emotional fear that has been referred to as an “intolerant personality disorder.”
Like all social prejudices, homophobia is both taught and acquired. Taught? Yes. If a person belongs to a religion that regards homosexuality as sinful, he is likely to accept the belief unquestioningly. If a person grows up in a family that does not accept homosexuality as something normal, he is likely to imbibe the attitude. It is something that one is carefully taught and it is “drummed in your dear little ears”, as the Rogers and Hammerstein song goes.
And, like all social prejudices, homophobia is not something rational. Think of sexism. There was a time when women were considered as nothing but adjuncts of men. They were raised and expected to be obedient, meek, and only spend their lives serving their husbands. Women could not inherit from the parents, women could not vote, they got paid less for doing equal work that men performed.
Think of racism. It is a social prejudice. Think of the prejudice against black people in the past. Think of how, simply because of the color of their skin, they were sold and bought as common chattel. Think of the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups. Think of how they have arrogated unto themselves a status of superiority. Think of how, until the 1960s in the United States, black people were not allowed to enter restaurants reserved for white people, how black children were segregated from the white children in school, and how black people were only allowed to occupy the back seats of buses, away from their white “superiors.”
Social prejudices are like fashion. Each era has its own. In my generation, homophobia and the fear of Muslims and people from Middle Eastern countries are in vogue. They will likely to go out of fashion in time but vestiges will remain. Sporadic, probably, concentrated among extremist groups in the same manner that all over the world, there are still people, groups and societies that exhibit prejudice against women and black people.
But how a social prejudice crosses the line from being fashionable to being obsolete is not smooth sailing. Neither does it happen overnight. And, depending on the culture, the process takes longer in societies that are less exposed to global trends. The feminist movement has been raging for more than a hundred and fifty years. Yet, in Philippine law for instance, it was fairly recent that rape was re-categorized as a crime against persons rather than a crime against chastity. In many countries in Asia and the Middle East, women are struggling even harder.
Black people had to fight for their civil and political rights and a lot of blood were shed in the process. Think of Martin Luther King Jr. and Medgar Wiley Evers. Think of Bloody Sunday in 1965 at the height of the fight of Black Americans for the right to vote.
Yes, history shows that groups that suffer from social prejudice do fight because they are marginalized. They are deprived of their rights. They are denied opportunities and so are unable to realize their potentials to become productive members of society. And when social prejudice finds its way into legislation and state policies, the “equal protection clause” that every modern society so highly regards and likes to brag about becomes a joke.
It is in this context that we should understand the Comelec’s resolution in SPP Case No. 09 – 228 denying accreditation to the Ang Ladlad LGBT Party. It is a denial of equal protection and a continued perpetration of the marginalization of lesbians, gays, bisexuaIs, and transgenders. This time, the prejudice is not about sex or skin color but about sexual preference and gender identity.
What exactly does marginalization mean for lesbians, gays, bisexuaIs, and transgenders? Many things. One is the prejudice they face in the workplace. About eight years ago, I was doing HR work for a professional organization. We were in the process of hiring a coordinator and I had been going through the applications when a board member called me up just to say that under no circumstances should I shortlist any homosexual applicant.
But, perhaps, the more serious effect of marginalization has to do with rights and relations pertaining to co-habitation. The world over, states are starting to allow same-sex marriage which carries a lot of legal consequences such as the right of married gay couples to have children and to adopt. A nightmarish situation in conservative societies, especially those still dominated by benighted and repressive religious dogma.
All of these, the Comelec thinks it is exercising foresight in preventing. It is nipping the bud right at the roots, so to speak, by disallowing the lesbians, gays, bisexuaIs, and transgenders to act as an organized group and a powerful force within our country’s legislative halls. A rational decision? Hardly. Foresight? Yes. But what good does foresight serve if it merely continues to repress and deny equal rights?
Social prejudices cut very deep wounds in the fabric of society. Yet, it is perpetrated by those in power because the marginalization of some is essential in their retention of their “superior” status. After all, no one can claim to be superior unless others can be inferior. In the case of lesbians, gays, bisexuaIs, and transgenders, the superior status is claimed by benighted heterosexuals. The good news is that not all heterosexuals are benighted. The bad news is that there are benighted heterosexuals who hold powerful positions in government.
It is in this context that I find religion so absurd. How can one espouse love and charity to others and yet be so repressive of gays at the same time? In the same manner, I cannot understand how we pride ourselves for being one of most democratic countries in the world while our laws continue to deny same sex marriage.
Robert,
Why repressive of gays? Because the 3 religions (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) referred to death as the price of homosexuality though you hardly hear from religious authorities to avoid further alienation of its declining members. It is really absurd or devoid of innate intelligence to call death upon a homosexual person just because of ones sexual orientation. So there is a limit to religious beliefs.
It was even unthinkable that a liberal state like California that passed the domestic partnership granting comparable rights of marriage, rejected the same sex-marriage twice in March 2000 and November 2008. It has little to do with religion, otherwise it would have passed parental consent anti-abortion bill which was supported by the church but lost unlike proposition 8. The rejection is across the state regardless of religion mirrors Obama’s position which he “personally considers marriage to be between a man and woman, and supports civil unions that confer comparable rights rather than gay marriage”.
Majority if not all organized religion is against gay marriage. To deny that religious prejudice against gay marriage is not present in the legislative branch of the government is a refusal to accept reality. The prejudice is there and I am speaking of the Philippine situation. I have not been to the USA but I would bet that the same sentiment is also present in the American setting.
Comelec Commissioner Ferrer is very condescending on the homosexuals as repeatedly said that they are overly represented in the House and yet failed miserably to mention even one member when asked.
This is the type of clowns in position that bring damage to both to his faith (not to prejudge others) and to the institution (equal protection clause).
Re: Social prejudices cut very deep wounds in the fabric of society.
More so about women in the Philippines. Having women in power did not change status quo which subject women to prejudices as heavily influenced by the Church.
1. It easier to prosecute infidelity by a woman than a man.
2. A woman in infidelity is viewed as damaged goods while a man enhanced his macho image.
3. In a broken marriage which is usually done by a man, the only recourse is legal separation in which the woman suffers while the man continue his pleasure.
4. In a broken marriage the wife suffers and left without any support if the husband desires unlike in the west where the wife gets half of properties acquired during marriage.
5. Church allowed no divorce but legal separation for reconciliation purposes, encouraging the woman to suffer many times, the pain of infidelity committed by the husband and second to swallow her dignity again just to welcome back the erring husband and relived all the pains and sufferings. In any case, a woman is always damaged while the man is hailed as a changed man temporarily however.
6. Adding insult to injury, the wife is always told, “You are always the Queen”, usually by the mother in law (sounds like Aling Dionisia) to level out the unfortunate fate.
7. In untimely death of a husband, the wife gets little in a big family unlike in the west where the property passes to the wife first before the children. Worse, illegitimate children of the erring husband get equal share so in 8 children plus 1 illegitimate child, the wife gets only 1/10th of the property. The wife who sacrificed everything including her human dignity to raise the family gets only a bowl of peanuts. After all the Church promised sainthood to the wife and absolution to the husband.
Not much women can do if they have to wait for men to fix the law for them in the Philippines. For men, why fix it when they are enjoying heaven on earth as supported by the Church.
The points you raise here are forcefully and articulately expressed. But a note of caution may be in order: One must be careful about labeling a person “homophobic.” Yes, those individuals are out there aplenty but a phobia is a mental illness, and not everyone who disapproves of homosexuality can be rightly said to be psychologically ill. Not by a long shot. However, the essence of your viewpoint is unquestionably valid. The negative psychological factors that continue to plague humanity and cause so much unnecessary suffering are a terribly long way from being eradicated. That is one of the salient points of my recently released biographical novel, Broken Saint. It is based on my forty-year friendship with a gay man, and chronicles his internal and external struggles as he battles for acceptance (of himself and by others). More information is available at http://www.eloquentbooks.com/BrokenSaint.html or authorautobahn.webs.com/bookpeek.htm.
Mark Zamen, author
In Christianity and Judaism – death for homosexuals?
How is that again? Are Christians repressive of gays (or gays using the religion to push their agenda?)? Where is that in the bible? (Gays are even claiming that being gay is tolerated in the bible. Google it.)
Why it has to be same sex marriage? Nobody and there is no law preventing them to live together.
Hah, perhaps it has something to do with the division of whatever wealth this couple has once they want to part ways. Or whose surname will be adapted by a child that they will adopt. How will you call them formally as Mr. and Mrs. (Nah, that is PCsm. There is no such thing as Mr. and Mrs as there is no Dad and Mom in their world. Who will be the Dad and who will be the Mom?).
Or it is just an ego trip?
Maybe, we can ask a question to ourselves – what is the average duration of gays cohabitation?
Additional comment (my comments are in parenthesis) -
1. It easier to prosecute infidelity by a woman than a man.
(You have a data on that one? My perception is that woman tends to bring into court the infidelity issue. The man tends to use violence. I don’t have a data on that except for the frequency of hearing them in newscasts. I don’t know the batting average of infidelity case scores in our country.)
2. A woman in infidelity is viewed as damaged goods while a man enhanced his macho image.
I thought this one happened only on those who are not married yet. As I see it, the women have all the upper hand in infidelity cases.
3. In a broken marriage which is usually done by a man, the only recourse is legal separation in which the woman suffers while the man continue his pleasure.
In a legal separation, the woman most likely will not suffer per se. Legal separation is an amicable settlement. The woman suffers most if there is no legal separation.
Just my two cents.
That almost all the major religion is repressive of homosexuality is a fact. Where is that in the bible you ask? Sodom and Gomorrah immediately comes to mind but that is so wrong. And precisely the point: Christians have misqouted the bible so often to justify social prejudice against homosexuals. I have long ago realized that the bible is a great story book, no more, no less. It is not for me to justify its own quirkiness but for the religious zealots – (death for people who egage in sex during menstruation, anyone?)
What is wrong with a gay couple who want to be married and enjoy all the legal ramifications of marriage? What has the period of cohabitation got to do with marriage?
Bigotry comes in many forms and color. It is sad when you do not realize your own prejudice.
Robert, here you are again. Commenting without backing them with FACTS,
“Sodom and Gomorrah immediately comes to mind but that is so wrong. And precisely the point: Christians have misqouted the bible so often to justify social prejudice against homosexuals.”
Where is that in the bible? (Your invention again?)
BTW again, read my previous comment on why gays want to legalize their unionship. Palagay ko, denial stage ka ulit.
BTW, bading ka ba?
BTW, I can prove that you’re a number 1 bigot.
What of it if I were? Would that add or detract from the views I am espousing? Your prejudice reeks so much you make me want to puke and yet you can’t even have the intellectual honesty to admit what you are. My father used to say the head is not merely decorative. With you around, I’d say you’re the exception.
I believe that Robert is talking about the passages in the book of Genesis that narrate why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorah.
Christian fundamentalists tend to use these passages as their excuse for why the bible is against homosexuality.
On the other hand, other theologians I have read point out that a careful reading of Sodom and Gomorah reveals that God destroyed the city not because of their homosexuality, but because of their inhospitality and greed. To quote the book of Ezekiel 16.49:
“This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.”
Then there is the book of Leviticus (20:13), which condemns homosexuality
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.”
…alongside eating of shellfish (Leviticus 18:9-12)
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
Although to be fair, these are Old Testament laws, so a modern Christian – one who adheres to the Jesus’ teachings in the New Testament – have no business attempting to use these laws.
In case you’re wondering – no, I’m not a Christian.
I’m a deist – I gave up on being a Catholic about a year ago because I couldn’t put up with the Vatican’s oppresive Dogma
Robert,
There you are again. Commenting and making accusation without basis except perhaps telling us your make-believe world. Facts man, facts. What is that make it hard for you to back your comments with facts.
Let’s have a very simple one – me and my prejudice? Where is my comment that I have my prejudice? Another of your make-believe? You’re an a!@hole if you can’t produce just one.
Your comment -”What has the period of cohabitation got to do with marriage? ” Ang babaw na nga nito hindi mo pa rin naintindihan.
I’m asking if you’re a “bading” not because of the quality of your opinion. I’m just curious. Don’t flatter yourself