WARNING: Vulgar words ahead. Also, this is kind of long, so grab some popcorn or something.
1. Pinoys in general just tolerate, not accept, gays.
There is a huge difference between tolerance and acceptance. I don’t see complete acceptance at all. I only see tolerance of a certain amount of the “gay culture.” So what kind of gayness do Pinoys tolerate? Filipinos like gay folks who live by their established stereotypes. Vice Ganda-esque sort of gayness, that’s what people like. If you’re gay, you have to be funny and you should work as a make-up artist or a fashion designer. If you work in the military or play with a sports team, you’re going to create a lot of fuss, so just stay in the closet if you do.
2. There’s still too much religious bigotry in this country.
“God designed you to be straight.”
“You have a dick, so act like a man.”
“Homosexuality is a sin.”
“Remember Sodom and Gomorrah.”
“It is unnatural.”
Ad infinitum, ad nauseam…
The strange thing about the Philippines is the seeming disconnect within its evolving culture. We’re taking large leaps into progress, but we keep old customs–especially ones that are either useless or ridiculous. I’m not a fan of customs and tradition. I want this country to evolve and embrace change. Enough with overrated family values. Enough with Christian values. Enough with old religious concepts of morality and stuff. We have to grow as a community, not as discrete packets of supposedly Christian families. We have to learn how to respect individual differences and accept that idea that we can be a solid community that encourages a beautiful diversity.
The old gender dichotomy needs to rest. The average Pinoy should understand modern concepts of sexual identities or at least leave people with non-conventional identities alone. After all, if you’re a straight Christian, it’s not you who’s going to face God in the afterlife and be judged for homosexuality. It’s us! I’ll ask God questions if he shows up on my funeral.
3. Pinoys confuse gay with transgender or vice-versa.
There is still a ridiculous number of people, even within the LGBT community, who think that gay men want to be girls and that transgender people are gay. I don’t blame them. The word transgender is like a new word for Filipinos. The first time you heard it was probably just a few years ago. The problem is when you explain to people what transgender is, they refuse to accept the meaning. Instead, they insist their own bias about “men wearing makeup and skirts,” that they’re still men, or that Aiza Seguerra is still a woman. Filipinos are preoccupied with sex organs. So if you have a penis, you’re supposed to be a man.
Gay means you like to be a girl, because you like men and you like a dong shoved up your turd cutter, and so gay and transgender are basically the same for many Pinoys. But can you blame them, when the gay community itself flaunts Miss Gay pageants and other drag shows that serve to create a hilarious caricature of the “gay culture”? It’s partly our fault. Maybe we should stop calling it Miss Gay because it’s a misnomer. Maybe we should call it Miss Drag or Miss Trans or I don’t know. It’s not a gay pageant per se. It’s a pageant for the gender non-conforming queer folks – drag queens, crossdressers, and transpinays. They are fabulous, and we love the flamboyance, but many of these people are not gay, and many gay men don’t do drag shows.
And please, I think it’s time we did drag shows with class. Let’s end the culture of comic drag shows that mock our community.
4. Many Pinoys think gay men spread STDs and HIV.
Look at the forums about HIV/AIDS. You’ll be astounded at the magnitude of ignorance of arrogant anti-gay people who think that HIV is a gay disease, a sort of plague nature designed to wipe out gay men–because stigmatizing HIV is better than showing concern and giving assistance.
Fr. Dan Vicente Cancino of CBCP implied in a recent article about STD cases in the country that distorted concepts of sexuality and erosion of family values may be a factor in the rise of HIV cases in the country. It’s a wild assumption that needs more study. Influential figures like him can manipulate the thinking of the less than informed members of the population, propagating wrong notions about sexually transmitted infections, like HIV.
5. Conservatives don’t like gay people to be gay.
The infamous “love the sinner, hate the sin” banner is one of my favorites. It doesn’t make any sense. The church and its blind sycophants endorse it. Maybe they think it’s comforting for us gay people to hear they love us, but then we abhor what follows. Be gay but don’t be gay. Be gay but don’t suck dick. Be gay but don’t fuck or get fucked. Be gay but don’t touch someone else’s boner. These are sins.
Sins. Big word!
We can talk about the awesome number of sins religious texts want people to avoid. For instance, you’re not supposed to engage in sex before marriage or you shouldn’t perform any form of birth control, including the pull-out method. But conservatives single out gay people in their quest to spread their gay-focused sexual morality. You don’t see these people on issues about increasing cases of premarital sex, teenage pregnancy, and rape.
6. Conservatives are obsessed with what two men or two women do in private.
There are far too many conservatives in this country, some of them are celebrities, one of whom stated on a TV show that homosexuality is a lie from the devil. What? I didn’t know I was a devil’s lie. Ha! Anyway, look at so many threads on articles about gay, lesbian, or transgender people, and you’ll see an awful number of homophobic and transphobic comments. One thing I’ve observed about religious conservatives is that they are too obsessed with what a gay or lesbian couple do in their room together. Why is it important to know or assume what they do in private? It’s none of anyone’s business. We don’t look at a straight couple walking on a street and think about them going down on each other. It’s total perversion. But conservatives who go to church every Sunday get away with this perversion by citing their moral uprightness. They are too morally upright, they can imagine two guys naked in bed. The cognitive dissonance sickens me to the stomach. Also, how come they seem to know too much about what two gay men do in bed? Who knows, maybe they’re voyeurs or gay porn enthusiasts.
7. Two men holding hands in public can draw so much flak.
Two guys holding hands on the street, in the mall, or at school would earn the ire of nosy bystanders. If they were kissing, it would be a scandal.
Look at that Bench billboard of two guys holding hands. They weren’t even kissing in that picture. But the hands had to be painted over for some vague reason. Then followed rants from self-righteous churchgoers.
Tell me honestly. How many gay couples can you see holding each other’s hands in public? And if you’re gay and you have a boyfriend, do you hold each other’s hands on the sidewalks as you take a stroll? If yes, good. If no, then why? Ask anyone in the family or your friends what they think of two guys holding hands in public? Come back here and give me honest answers.
8. Gay tagging is fun here.
Piolo Pascual is gay. Enchong Dee is gay. Ethel Booba is gay. Everyone is gay! The gay tag remains controversial in a country where being gay is still stigmatized. Otherwise, no one would care about anyone’s sexual orientation. Piolo Pascual is notoriously accused of being gay for strange reasons that escape my logical reasoning. I really don’t care whether or not he is gay, and it shouldn’t be anybody’s business. People just like to ridicule other people, and one way is to call them gay.
Pink shirts are so gay! What? You mean pink shirts suck dicks too?
9. Anti-gay slurs abound.
People have yelled “bakla” at me so many times in the past. It was never fun, especially when you know it’s not simply an affirmation but a homophobic slur. It blighted my childhood. It blighted my teenage years. The memories stay deep in the wounds they seared. Those people are never forgiven.
I know that while a gay teenager may just let gay slurs on the streets pass, he’s just suppressing the urge to strike back for the fear of getting physically hurt or because he’s convinced he deserves the homophobic slur. I know how that feels. Ad misericordiam aside, yelling slurs at anyone because they’re different is an unnecessary showing of disrespect and miseducation. You don’t need to yell at me the word GAY. I know I am already since the sixth grade.
10. Many gay people have to stay in the closet.
Do your parents know you’re gay? How many gay people are still hiding their true identities from their families, co-workers, or wives? Why do they have to hide? A community that is completely open to gay people should encourage them to come out and just be themselves. But even today, I still know gay, bi, or transgender people who have to keep their identities from their families and live in pretense.
Coming out can be a traumatic experience.
Many LGBT people hesitate to come out because what follows after scares the shit out of them. Your family changes the way they treat you. You get misunderstood. You could lose your job. You could lose your friends.
When Charice Pempengco came out, there was a wild feast of homophobes in discussion boards and forums about her. The amount of narrowmindedness was nauseating. It was difficult to defend her in the forums without your defense getting lost in the wild convolution of disturbing homophobic attacks. The homophobia is certainly uncharacteristic of a country coined as gay friendly.
Gay friendly my arse!
11. Discrimination and bullying of gay and transgender folks remain a threat to LGBT freedom and welfare.
Without any law that protects LGBT people from discrimination, anyone can deny them of accommodations, enrollment, or service and cite their internal policy or religious freedom for doing so. It’s curious how difficult it is to pass the Anti-Discrimination Bill in a country that they call gay friendly. Schools have kicked out students who have been exposed as having homosexual affairs or teachers who have been exposed of engaging in homosexual activities. Companies can fire gay employees, if not force them to stay in the closet.
Some of the critics of the anti-discrimination bill cite their favorite dishonest line: “there are still many problems in the country that need attention.” This fallacy of relative privation annoys me because it’s like saying skip your dinner because there are hungry homeless kids in the streets right now.
12. Same sex marriage is taboo.
Conservatives and even quasi-liberals cringe at the idea of same sex marriage, citing the infamous sanctity-of-marriage argument. Marriage after all is largely a heterosexist construct, defined within the bounds of Christian religion by the law, in this case. Heterosexual partnerships, even those that are considered immoral by Biblical standards, are considered superior to homosexual partnerships. After all, a dick cannot be married to another dick, or so say the dick-minded marriage equality critics. Many people in this country seem too preoccupied with people’s sex organs. Dicks are meant for pussies. So if you have a dick, date someone with a pussy. A Catholic figure once quipped, gays are free to marry–women. You know, they say it’s because the parts fit. It’s the parts that get married after all.
13. Laws are heterosexist.
Co-habiting same sex couples do not have the same rights as co-habiting heterosexual couples. If you have been in a same sex relationship for years, you are not entitled to co-ownership rules. The legal definition of marriage is heterosexist. The Family Code is heterosexist. This country in general is run by heterosexist nuts. President Aquino once suggested that gay marriage may be inappropriate because it is undesirable to children who will be adopted under such unions. That’s how I understood what he said. It’s a vague, absurd argument.
14. You cannot see two men kissing on mainstream shows and in movies.
But you can see teenage pregnancies, marital disputes, and concubinage on TV–that and all sorts of cliché soap operas and movies that fail the Bechdel Test. A scene of people in abandoned buildings exchanging bullets is great. A car crash? Grand! But two guys showing love for each other is a no-no. The media erasure of gay romance is offensive. Save My Husband’s Lover–it’s a rarity; and the romantic scenes between the two male protagonists were limited to them sharing sweet glances and caressing each other. Gay kiss is reserved for low-budget independent films starred by actors who couldn’t act to save their lives. It’s taboo in local mainstream programs, unfairly censored by a “morally upright” local regulatory board whose “child-friendly,” “family values-inspired” cinema informercial is plain nauseating.
15. Intolerance exists within the LGBT community.
You will be surprised that there are LGBT people who dislike other members. Let’s be honest about it. Straight-looking and straight-acting (cisgender) gay/bi dudes don’t usually hang out with femmes and cross-dressers. This is an issue that I’ll leave for another article. Anyway, I think this is a result of the lingering heterosexism and cissexism in the country, which eats into the LGBT community, creating its own version of homophobia and transphobia, weakening our force as an entity that seeks justice and equality.
Yes, Nigeria, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, India, Afghanistan, Sudan, and Senegal treat gay men terribly. But that doesn’t mean Philippines is gay friendly. The society is getting better at treating LGBT people, but we’re not really at the stage wherein the community is open to understanding non-heterosexual and non-cisgender people. They just know queer people exist. And when you’re queer, you become someone else, a second class citizen. The label becomes your differentiation. It doesn’t even matter if you’re a teacher, a nurse, or a doctor. People remember you as that fellow who flicks his hand when he speaks or sways his hips when he walks. Gay becomes an adjective used to describe you. You can be a successful artist or entrepreneur, but people refer to you as that gay artist, that gay teacher, that gay whatever. Then they want you have to conform to the heteronormative culture. All right, you’re gay, but don’t act like this, don’t wear that, act decently, and so on. So much for gay friendly.
We can only be truly gay friendly when everyone stops harassing, bullying, hurting, and discriminating against gay people. When no one has to lock their true identity up in the closet because of fear of embarrassment and humiliation, that’s the time I’ll say this country is truly gay friendly.
Elmo Ellezo writes about the apathy of those who have more in life, even if – by choosing to lend a hand – they can help effect changes in other people’s lives.
Ni Elmo Ellezo
May mga taong umangat lang sa buhay,
parang naging katulad ng bahay na bato ang puso.
Kasing tigas at wala ng pakiramdam sa iba.
posteng bato na naghihiwalay sa kanilang sa sarili
sa reyalidad ng malawak na mundo.
Bingi sa mga ingay sa labas.
Binulag ng mga bakod at posteng bato,
ayaw tumanaw sa kabilang bahagi ng mundo.
Gwardyado, akala moy kaaway ang mundo,
Ayaw makibahagi oh umambag sa mga walang laman ang kaldero
Ayaw makipagkapwa tao.
Naka-kandado pati ang kanilang mga puso.
Tanging paraan na silay mamulat ay delubyo.
Kapag tinumbahan na ng mga posteng bato.
Kapag binaha na katulad ng mga nakatira sa estero.
Kapag nagutom, namatayan na katulad ng mga ordinaryong tao.
Anong klaseng mundo ang nililikha nitong mga posteng bato.
Mga kaaway ang mahihirap at walang tiwala sa kapwa tao.
Makasariling pag uugali at walang pakialam sa mundo.
Sana maibalik ang aking pagkabata.
Walang mga poste at bakod na naghihiwalay sa sinasabi kong kapwa.
Kung saan ang daigdig ay pinagsasaluhan ng lahat.
May pagkakaugnay ugnay, tiwala at pakikipag kapwa.
Munti kong panalangin ay mawasak ang mga posteng bato.
Mga posteng batong isinasara ng bakal at mga kandado.
Mga posteng batong nagpapamanhid sa kalagayan ng dumadaing na mundo.
Ang posteng batong naglilikha ng taong bato ang puso.
Being LGBTQ+ means nothing
Being unaware of and deviant from what that community is intentionally fighting for clearly does not make us a part of it. We have to realize that our identity does not really matter as much as what we actually say, do or stand for.
We’ve heard it all before — a woman who still espouses misogyny, Filipinos who can be insulting towards their own skin color, a devout Christian who has little knowledge about the Bible and the history of Christianity, a gay person who is against the rights of other LGBTQ+ folks. These seemingly self-contradictories show that our identity is nothing but superficiality.
Our identity does not hold the substance of what we’re all about.
Having a certain identity does not follow that we know all there is to understand about it.
More importantly, it does not immediately give us the authority or credibility to speak on behalf of a larger group we supposedly belong to. Otherwise, we only cause much harm and misinformation.
What does a community mean? Fumbling through the dictionary, we would find similar definitions that basically sum up as “a group of people sharing a commonality of interests, attitudes, characteristics, values, goals – even history – and living in a particular location or within a greater area”. Applying this to the so-called LGBTQ+ community, since LGBTQ+ persons obviously do not live in the same quarters or have exactly the same lived experiences (hence the need for the acronym with a plus sign), we need to take only the spirit of the word — that is, a community is a social state of more than skin-deep commonality.
People who label themselves as LGBTQ’s do not see the whole picture if they go against equality and the principle that human rights must be bestowed to all regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, nationality, physical appearance and so forth. Such people who proclaim they are “part of the LGBTQ+ community but…” are merely disruptive tumors. They are not part of the community but only a part of the problem, which is compounded by ignorance, indifference, hate and discrimination.
So before we open our mouths and ascribe to some sort of community or identity, let’s be truly certain first that we know what it’s all about. Being unaware of and deviant from what that community is intentionally fighting for clearly does not make us a part of it. We have to realize that our identity does not really matter as much as what we actually say, do or stand for.
“Babae po ako. Ngunit babae rin ang gusto ko. Pang-lalake man ang kilos at anyo. Sa babae pa rin naman ako nagbabanyo.”
Pilit kong iniisip
Kung inisip ko at pinilit
Kung nagbago ba ang ihip
Ng hangin noong ako’y isang paslit
Ang paghanga sa kapwa babae
Ang kilos, lakad at pananalita
Na animo’y lalake
Na nagsimula noong ako’y bata
Tinanong ako kung ako ba’y humanga
Sa mga guwapo at pogi
At ang sagot ko’y oo nga
Pagtangi ay sa babae lagi
Ni minsa’y hindi kinilig
Kahit na noong panahong
Maliit pa ang mga bisig
Suot ay bestida at hindi lontang maong
Matagal na proseso
Matagal na nilihim
Dahil sa sariling paninimdim
Hanggang ako’y namulat
At seryosong nagkagusto
At sinimulang isulat
Nilahad, ipinusta pati pamato
Wala naman kasing nagturo
Naramdaman na lang
Tapos para akong tuliro
Noong ako’y pitong taong gulang
Kaibigan ko siya
Sa ikalawang baitang
Kapag kasama’y masaya
Kapag naka-akbay ay lutang
Marami nang napusuan
Panahon na ang lumipas
Gusto’y babae pa rin naman
Sa pagkatorpe’y walang kupas
Madalas sakin ay tinatanong
Kahit hanggang opisina
Siguro sila’y hilong talilong
Kung Ma’am o Sir ang itatawag twina
Babae po ako
Ngunit babae rin ang gusto ko
Pang-lalake man ang kilos at anyo
Sa babae pa rin naman ako nagbabanyo
Lesbiyana kung ako’y tawagin
Tomboy sa kanto namin
Ate sa kapatid ko
Tita sa mga pamangkin ko
Eto ang aking SOGIE
Lesbiyana – Sexual Orientation
Babae – Gender Identity
Butch/masculine – Gender Expression
Hindi napipilit ang puso
Kusang tumitibok sa ritmo
Hindi ito parang damit na nakiki-uso
Hindi sinisino kahit amo
Masarap sanang maging malaya magmahal
Malaya sa mga matang mapanghusga
Malimit pang nasasabihan ng hangal
Madalas pang tumanggap ng pang-aalipusta
Pantay-pantay na karapatan
Dinggin sana ang aming hiling
Hindi espesyal ang aming panawagan
Sugat ng diskriminasyo’y laging nasasaling
Lungkot ay aking ramdam
Kapag hindi niyo maintidihan
Sana hindi niyo maranasan
Ang araw-araw naming pinagdadaanan
Kapag maganda o guwapo sa paningin
Sayang ang palaging sinasabi sa amin
Pero bakit sayang ang sasabihin?
Ano bang nasayang sa amin?
Isa po akong babae
Mahigit apat na pung taong gulang na
Mukha lang pong lalake
Isa pong lesbiyana
Salvation our God is extending
“With a SOGIE Law enforced, the sensibilities of some (they cannot claim to represent the majority) will be offended as has happened in legislation on women’s rights. But the tradeoff will be LGBTQ+ individuals participating more meaningfully in national development. The Philippines would foster a culture of nonviolence, and I think God would be smiling down on us.”
By Koko Alviar
The SOGIE Equality Bill is not against religious freedom. If anything, it will help us recapture the diversity of beliefs in our country.
I am Vaughn Alviar, from the Iglesia Filipina Independiente, a liberational Church that has interpreted Scripture in light of facts and God’s commissioning for charity and liberation. The Church coopted me some time in 2015 to help the Supreme Council of Bishops articulate a statement that wanted to affirm LGBTIQ+ individuals, “Our Common Humanity, Our Shared Dignity.” It was approved in February 7, 2017.
Incidentally, I am a homosexual cisgender male son of a heterosexual cisgender male priest. I say these belatedly because they have never negatively affected my craft as a writer and my practice as a good Christian, although I will not deny knowledge of my SOGIE has affected the perception of what I am capable of doing.
I am more than my SOGIE; in fact we in the LGBTQ+ community are all more than our SOGIE. Unfortunately, people have seen the physical manifestations of it and felt they could see right through us, judge and discriminate us. My classmates from Day Care in Sanchez Mira, Cagayan, to university in Baguio City had always criticized my being effeminate and emotional, my not being manly. Despite all these, I had the will power to prove my value in my communities and circles. I can’t say the same for many others, whose chances were impaired by abuses far worse than I’ve experienced and who didn’t belong to families that earned well enough to send them to good schools or who disowned them – sometimes because of the faith they profess.
Being LGBTQ+ is a choice, we are told. But, given all the disadvantages laid out before us (per the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, LGBTQ+ people experience more poverty, hunger, joblessness and depression than our heterosexual, cisgender counterparts), what would we benefit from choosing to be minoritized? Having to prove we are good, capable and beneficial workers, or hiding how we express ourselves to conform with straight environments, these are definitely burdens. Our siblings in the faith have claimed that the law sees us equally, but our lived experiences and jurisprudence claim we are not. Thus, vulnerable sectors need the State to help us claim equity, aid us in reminding everyone that we are human too, and enable us to fight back when our rights are abused.
It has also been claimed that a law protecting LGBTQ+ persons against discrimination would negate Christians’ freedom of religion. It is a preposterous claim that insults the very spirit of “freedom of religion”: that individuals will not be force-fed belief systems; and that we are all free to hold beliefs – or not – and to conduct ourselves accordingly, except when we harm others. If anything, many people, driven by their “Christian” beliefs, harmed LGBTIQ+ individuals without provocation.
While they lift from the Bible, the holy book cannot be seen as a definitive guide to what must be social convention. It has, in fact, been used to stall important laws to end slavery, and to uphold the rights of persons with disability and women.
“I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent.” (Timothy 2:11)
“Whosoever … hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or anything superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookback, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken … He shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries.” (Leviticus 21:17-23)
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.” (Ephesians 6:5)
With verses inapplicable in our time, how do we know for sure that verses chastising LGBTIQ+ individuals should still apply? In the laws enacted for women, children, senior citizens, persons with disability, among others, the justification was unequal treatment on the ground, in real life, despite the Constitutional guarantee of equality that our other siblings cite. The drawback was sensibilities getting hurt; the reward has been greater empowerment and participation in society for those sectors. We need our guarantee, too.
Another case in point: If two people are equally passionate about Bible-based beliefs, do we have objective criteria to judge which person is more righteous?
Here is an example: A cisgender man has been a top employee for years. He is the breadwinner for his family, encouraged by 1 Timothy 5:8: “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” One day, he comes out as homosexual and discloses he has a boyfriend. The heterosexual cisgender owner, who comes from a conservative background, fires the person, because of Romans 1:26-27: “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.”
Who’s to say that the business owner holds the right understanding of faith? What if the homosexual man goes to church more often? Doesn’t that make him better? The law must declare that productivity trumps sexual orientation.
One thing I’ve observed among people of faith who decide not to support the SOGIE Bill is self-righteousness – a confidence that they are to be seen as authoritative, the voice of a majority. In doing so, they downplay other peoples’ faith, among these that which LGBTQ+ individuals have forged from their lived experiences of discrimination and resilience.
While some traditions will scoff at the justness of the ordained going to protests, the Aglipayan faith believes it is a legitimate expression of Christian witness. We believe that the best way to fulfill our duty to establish heaven on earth is the full realization of human rights for all – and LGBTQ+ rights are human rights. Thus, the crusade for equality on the basis of SOGIE falls within our fight for equity, along with our advocacy for peace talks, economic equity, genuine land reform and more.
Another Christian community is the Metropolitan Community Church, which has a presence in the Philippines. It casts more importance on love, genuine relationships and nondiscrimination than on punishment and fear. Many of their members are victims of SOGIE-based discrimination even in their own Christian homes, or are people living with HIV who have the added burden of stigma. One member told me that her family attends a Church that has a ministry helping LGBTQ+ individuals possessed by the devil – she worships with her family in the morning, is occasionally prayed for; she worships at MCC in the afternoon, is welcomed fully as a gender-nonconforming woman. There has to be a policy to guard LGBTQ+ lives against torturous conversion rituals if and when they occur. The SOGIE Bill has that.
The above instances illustrate that a single religion on its own has variations and pluralities. But, if regardless of this, lawmakers side with the more conservative Christian belief that tends to put LGBTQ+ lives in the way of harm and indignity, what compels the State other than to reward the conservatives and, thus, violate the Church-State separation?
As faithful Christians, too, we stand on the passage of the SOGIE Law because we believe God wants us to exist in a community of love, and because it will permeate our lives beyond Church. “We love the sinner not the sin,” some anti-SOGIE Christians say, in an attempt to deem the law irrelevant. If we do love the sinner, however, shouldn’t we recognize the person of that sinner who has the secular, universal right to a job, education and healthcare, among others. None of these are about “the homosexual act.”
It is a shame that some religious have led crusades based on falsehoods: from alleging we do not need the SOGIE Equality Bill because the law already pronounces equality; to criticizing our advocacy as an issue of restrooms and third spaces only; to misleading people that the SOGIE Equality Bill will allow same-sex marriage; to stretching religious freedom – weaponizing it to homogenize the nation when the measure actually protects diversity.
The “definition of terms” in the proposed bills says that bad behavior – discrimination, stigma, hate crime and marginalization – will warrant punishment. Some religious are worried that LGBTIQ+ individuals will be empowered to file cases of discrimination simply because we “felt discriminated.” But suing should be within our rights as citizens, and with wisdom the courts should be able to decide which ones are nuisance and which ones bear sense.
In IFI, the statement has affirmed and validated the faithfulness of LGBTQ+ members, some of whom serve as ordained ministers. Through it, the faithful have been oriented on SOGIE and SOGIE-based discrimination; began to openly discuss sexuality, mental health and sexual harassment; and revisited the situation of women as part of the greater gender minority in a patriarchal society. We are now more equipped to counsel LGBTQ+ individuals and people living with HIV. The Church became more inclusive.
At the end of “Our Common Humanity, Our Shared Dignity,” the SCB stated a hope that our small act could spark bigger changes leading to greater inclusion for outcasts. The more accepting parents, you will note, express worry for their LGBTQ+ children based not on the worldview of conservative Churches but on the question: “How will you be in this world that is harsh on LGBTQ+ individuals?”
While some LGBTQ+ people are born to parents who are unequipped and would abandon their children, some are born to parents who are ready to understand and nurture them, and would worry that the world at large is not hospitable. Let’s lessen the legitimate fears by enacting a safeguard.
While the SOGIE Bill languishes, men could be raping homosexual and bisexual women to “convert them,” gay guys could be looking for their next boxing match or Miss Gay (for visibility and extra income), brilliant transgender individuals could be flying out to find career advancement elsewhere.
With the SOGIE Law enforced, the sensibilities of some (they cannot claim to represent the majority) will be offended as has happened in legislation on women’s rights, but the tradeoff will be LGBTQ+ individuals participating more meaningfully in national development. With the SOGIE Law, there will be no special LGBT bonuses or leaves, just jobs and schools and communities that value us as humans, and that hone and harness our skills as citizens.
The Philippines would foster a culture of nonviolence, and I think God would be smiling down on us.
On social media, there’s a viral post saying SOGIE means “Satanic Organization of Godless people who are Inspired of Evil”, which is so grammatically wrong. To me, it means “Salvation Our God Is Extending” – and I should enjoy a Constitutional guarantee to claim you can’t tell me I’m wrong. That is freedom of religion for you.
‘Members of LGBTQIA community should be afforded the same protection that others enjoy’
An open letter to Bro. Eddie Villanueva, now a politician, who continues to claim he supports equality but is fighting against the protection of LGBTQIA people from discrimination.
Sir, I am Posit Bo, a proud member of the LGBTQIA+ and PLHIV community in the Philippines. I was once a follower of your faith; I am still a believer of the Almighty God but no longer of your faith.
This letter is made as rebuttal of your privilege speech against the SOGIE Equality Bill. This is not intended to convince you and your group to vote for the proposed law; but rather, a letter that aims to see a future where there can be mutual respect.
You raised two constitutionally supported arguments against the SOGIE Equality Bill, to wit: (a) it imperils academic freedom, and (b) it endangers freedom of speech and religion.
I) ON ACADEMIC FREEDOM
You cited Article XIV, Section 5, par (2), of the 1987 Constitution, which states that: “Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning.” This provision’s meaning can be viewed from two perspectives, namely: (a) Freedom of a Faculty member, and (b) Freedom of an academic institution of higher learning.
Certainly, faculty members have the freedom to discuss subjects with the responsibility not to discuss matters not related to the subject matter and with respect to the opinions of others. In the same manner, the academic institutions per se are given the freedom to decide what is the best manner to attain its aims and objectives.
You seem to fear that religious academic institutions being compelled to accept LGBTQIA+ students or employees, against the institution’s dogma on gender.
Under Section 5(c) of Senate Bill 159, it has two portions, to wit: (a) it declares discriminatory when educational or training institution refuses admission by reason of SOGIE, and (b) the right of educational and training institutions in determining qualifications for admission shall be duly upheld.
It is clear under the second portion of the aforementioned provision that religious institution’s right to determine qualification for admission shall be duly upheld. Compulsion to admit against dogma on gender by religious institutions cannot be feared when in the Bill itself it is protected, not to mention, in our very own Constitution as you cited, Sir.
The bill cannot obviously be made to circumvent the Constitutional guarantees as it echoes the very essence of this Constitution that is – Equality. Moreover, I would like to believe that in proposing this law, the case of Ateneo de Manila v. Capulong, was taken into consideration, wherein the Court beautifully fleshed out the concept of academic freedom. The Court held that: “Academic institutions are free to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study.” The Court further held in Isabelo Jr. v. Perpetual Help College of Rizal that: a school of higher learning has the discretion to admit or not to admit students. The Court further stated that: Admission is not a right but merely a privilege.
No, Sir. Religious academic institutions cannot be compelled to admit LGBTQIA+ students or employees. As these juridical entities are protected under our Constitution based on the very law you cited. But the likes of KJ T. Lorenzana and the students of Bulacan State University are not protected against discrimination based on SOGIE in a secular educational institution; no, they are not protected for this particular kind of discrimination, not even by the Constitution. While sectarian institutions enjoy protection under our Constitution, what about the protection of the LGBTQIA+ students and employees who have been and still are being discriminated in secular educational institutions.
The LGBTQIA+ community, more than the letters, consists of individuals, of humans who should be afforded an equivalent amount of reasonable protection that you enjoy in professing your religious beliefs, protection against any form of discrimination without engendering violation of constitutional guarantees.
II) ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION
There are three principal parts of the Constitutional provision for Religious freedom under Article III, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution.
First, the NON-ESTABLISHMENT Clause: No law shall be made respecting the establishment, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The SOGIE Equality Bill does not establish LGBTQIA+ community as a religion, neither does SOGIE Awareness prohibit the free exercise of any religion, including yours. Hence, the proposed law does not violate the non-establishment clause.
Second, the FREE EXERCISE Clause: The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed.
The SOGIE Equality Bill is in fact adherent to religious sensitivities that despite of it being both a secular and social legislation, the proponents had the basic human decency to hear sectarian opinion on issues of a marginalized community on account of being exposed to daily discrimination of all forms.
There are two aspects of religious freedom, which are as follows: (a) Freedom to believe; and (b) freedom to act on one’s belief. The freedom to believe is absolute but the freedom to act on one’s belief is not absolute. The freedom to act may be regulated if its actualization clashes with accepted norms of social behavior and established order of decency.
Therefore, you can absolutely believe that being an LGBTQIA+ is a sin in view of your religion as a part of your freedom. But to act upon it by spreading or imposing such belief upon nonbelievers or believers of a different sect may be regulated.
Status quo dictates that freedom to exercise can be regulated; unfortunately, even if it could be regulated, Christians have continuously condemned this community. Our community has been continuously ridiculed for no reason, discriminated for being diverse, and hated for merely loving; we, suffer all these, based on your religious beliefs. While we suffer, you continuously enjoy being guarded by your religious freedom.
This is the saddest part of our reality: Family and friends who exercises christian faith act upon their religious belief on gender through: sharing hate messages; treating us indifferently; laughing at our struggles; and being considered as an abomination. While you are guarded by your religious freedom, why does it have to be at our expense? When you speak of equality it must be uttered in fairness to everyone and not at the expense of others.
The SOGIE Equality Bill does not force upon people to become a member of the LGBTQIA+ community neither does it influence people to change dogma on gender; but this merely seeks to spread awareness and understanding of an existing community, which should neither be treated differently but your fair equal.
Lastly, Sir, finally now that you are elected, as a member of the House of Representatives of the 18th Congress, I would like to congratulate you. You are indeed an inspiration to the LGBTQIA+ community, just like you did, no matter how long and how many failed attempts there may be, we will never say it’s over ‘til it is done.
In James Imbong etc. v. Hon. Paquito Ochoa, Jr. et al., the court held that: the state cannot meddle in the internal affairs of the church. On the other hand, the church cannot impose its beliefs and convictions on the state and the rest of the citizenry. It cannot demand that the nation follow its beliefs, even if it sincerely believes that they are good for the country.
Sir, there would be no confusion even if you both act for both the state and the church by simply applying the time-honored State policy under Article II Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution, that the separation of church and state shall be inviolable. Inside your church, you are your peoples Pastor. You don’t preach to them matters of legislation; but instead your bible. While in the House of Representatives, you are to act as a legislator not as a Pastor. Sir, in your privilege speech you interjected a biblical passage. I would like to humbly remind you that you now belong in a Secular institution. Inside the very ‘august chamber’ to where you belong, are muslims; agnostic; and heck may be even atheist congress(wo)man, who are being alienated by your interjection. Sir, you do not merely answer to your representation but to the entire secular electorate.
I could not still imagine a day where we can live harmoniously even in diversity, when there’s no willingness to reach a compromise, taking into consideration: fairness and respect for everyone regardless of gender, age, race, ethnicity, color or religion. Religious freedom is a fundamental right under our constitution, it will forever be guarded and no legislation can circumvent this constitutional guarantee. You have exemplified in your privilege speech, that in the exercise of your religious freedom, there can be three options: (a) purvey discrimination based on scriptures; (b) exhaust available laws without state intervention in protecting a minority and marginalized group; and (c) when there is no law available, blame it on our SOGIE.
It was once said that we cannot normalize the culture of LGBTQIA+ despite its historical precedent being a cultural norm pre-colonial year of the Philippines; therefore, this being the case, incidents of discrimination by reason of SOGIE in the workplace and educational institutions may rise in the absence of any law that prohibits it. This is the very reason why an anti-discrimination policy should be enacted not by reason of entitlement but by reason of being exposed in an everyday struggle to surpass all forms of SOGIE-related discrimination.
Tulungan ang bawat isa na magmulat at mas mamulat pa
Pastor Carleen Nomorosa: “Tulungan natin ang bawat isa na magmulat at mas mamulat pa. Huwag tayong mapako sa mga sarili lamang nating pagdurusa, magsama-sama tayo at magtulungan. Huwag din tayong malunod sa mga pribilehiyong tinatamasa dahil marami padin ang hindi ligtas.”
By Carleen Nomorosa
Program Coordinator, National Council of Churches in the Philippines (NCCP)
Isa sa mahal ko sa buhay, na-rape. Ng paulit-ulit.
Sabi ng isang ahensya ng gobyerno noon sa amin nung nagpapatulong kami: Mabuti nga at nakauwi pa ng buhay ang nanay mo.”
Wala pa akong sampung taong gulang noon, seven years old pa lang ako, panganay. Probinsyana. Walang alam sa siyudad. Litong-lito ako bakit ganoon.
Kaya umuwi na kami, at sinubukang hilumin ang lahat ng pait na pinagdanan, hindi lamang ng aking ina, kundi ng buong pamilya.
Ang lupit ng lipunang ito, sa mga mahihirap at walang kakayanan.
Sana tulungan nyo ang mga katulad namin, para lumaban at makapag patuloy sa paglaban.
Tulungan natin ang mga magulang nila Eileen at Allan, hindi lang para panatilihin ang sentensya ni Antonio Sanchez.
Kundi imulat din ang henerasyong ito sa kalagayan ng bayan. Huwag nating hayaang gawin tayong manhid sa lahat ng pagpatay sa mga dukha at maralita. Huwag nating hayaang magdiwang ang mga panginoong maylupa na nagpapahirap sa magsasaka. Huwag nating hayaan na manatiling kontrakwal ang mga ordinaryong manggagawa. Huwag nating hayaang may inaaping sektor dahil minorya sila. Huwag nating hayaang marami ang nagkakasakit ngunit hindi makapag pa-ospital.
Tulungan natin ang bawat isa na magmulat at mas mamulat pa. Huwag tayong mapako sa mga sarili lamang nating pagdurusa, magsama-sama tayo at magtulungan. Huwag din tayong malunod sa mga pribilehiyong tinatamasa dahil marami padin ang hindi ligtas.
Wala na tayong ibang aatrasan, kundi ang paglaban. Sana bukas wala ng rape. Wala ng papatayin. Wala ng gutom. Magtulungan tayo.
Ang pananampalatayang napapako na lamang sa pag-pikit, pagluhod o pagtaas ng kamay sa pananalangin ay hindi makakabangon sa ikatlong araw. Walang resureksyon and ganitong pananampalataya.