Did PNoy leave LGBT Pinoys in a ditch?
Patrick King Pascual writes about the disappointment of members of the LGBT community with the soon to depart President Noynoy Aquino, who has not once mentioned the LGBT Filipinos in his SONA, even with their sad plight. But while there is no longer hope for the current administration to take notice of the struggles of the LGBT people, they hope that the next president will finally give them the attention they deserve.
LGBT organizations join the protest against President Noynoy Aquino, who has not once mentioned the plight of LGBT people in his SONA
Where are LGBT people in President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III’s so-called “daang matuwid” (straight/righteous path)?
As Aquino nears the end of his term, people are now asking if he has fulfilled his promises to the oft-mentioned “bosses”, the people. But – although since his election Aquino has focused on such issues as the economic growth by cutting the government spending, peace in Mindanao by talking (only) with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), and the anti-corruption campaign that saw the arrests (though still sans the needed trials) of the likes of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, and Senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada and Ramon Revilla Jr. – the issue of LGBT rights was never part of his priorities.
Looking back, Aquino’s addresses to the nation (via the annual State of the Nation Address, or SONA) contained parts that gave hope to minorities – the LGBT community included – whose lives continue to be dire solely because they are minorities.
In Aquino’s his first SONA in 2010, he said that “kaakibat ng ating mga karapatan at kalayaan ay ang tungkulin natin sa kapwa at sa bayan (together with our rights and freedom is our responsibility to our fellowmen and to our country/nation).” In 2012, “kung may inaagrabyado’t ninanakawan ng karaptan, siya ang kakampihan ko. Kung may abusadong mapang-api, siya ang lalabanan ko. Kung may makita akong mali sa sistema, tungkulin kong itama ito (if there is someone disadvantaged and whose rights are stolen, I will side with him. If there are abusers, I will fight them. If I see errors in the system, it is my duty to correct these).” And then last year, “gabi-gabi po, bago ako matulog, thank you at nakalamapas pa ako ng isang araw. Kung, sabi nga noong bata kami, ‘finish or not finish, pass your paper’, eh dumating na sa akin, palagay ko naman naramdaman na ninyo kung anong pagbabagong karapatan ng bawat Pilipinong mangyari. At bahala na kayong ituloy ito (every night, before I go to sleep, I say thanks for surviving another day. When – as it was said when we were kids, ‘finished or not finished, pass your paper’, it already reached me, and I think you already felt the changes to the rights that happened for every Filipinos. It’s now up to you to continue these).”
But in actuality, five years hence, none of these changes are LGBT-specific.
This is why, according to Murphy Red, chairperson of Kapederasyon LGBT Sectoral Organization, they are under no illusion that Aquino will do anything anymore for the LGBT Filipinos.
“Hindi na kami umaasa, hindi na kami nagiilusyon na magbibigay siya ng tulong sa huling taon niya (sa mga LGBTs). Sana lang sa huling pagkakataon, sa huling taon ng kanyang paninilbihan ay mamulat siya sa katotohanan na may LGBT sa lipunan na pinagsisibilhan niya at sa sa bayan na tinuturing niyang boss (We no longer hope, we are not under any illusion that he will give help in his remaining year to LGBT people. We hope that in the last stretch, in the last year of his office, he will finally see that there are LGBT people among the Filipino people he keeps saying as his bosses),” Murphy Red said.
Aquino’s neglect of the LGBT people may be seen in the non-mention of the need for the passage of an anti-discrimination law, with an anti-discrimination bill languishing in Congress for over 15 years now. If passed, such a law will protect the human rights of LGBT Filipinos by enforcing fines and even jail times to anyone who discriminates against LGBT people.
But, as Murphy Red said, “hindi priority ng rehimen na ito ‘yung pagpapasa ng Anti-Discrimination Bill o yung paghahain ng Anti-Hate Crime Law o Bill, para mapangalagaan sana ‘yung karapatan ng mga LGBT, at yung seguridad ng mga LGBT (this regime has not prioritized the passage of an anti-discrimination bill or an anti-hate crime law that could ensure the protection of LGBT people, and the security of LGBT people).”
Already, the lack of anti-hate laws has “nagresulta na sa sunod-sunod na pagpatay ng LGBTs (this already resulted in the numerous deaths of LGBT people),” said Murphy Red, who cited as an example transgender woman Jennifer Laude, who was brutally killed last year, with the primary suspect a US Marine.
There are already anti-discrimination ordinances in some local government units (LGUs) in the country, including in Angeles, Bacolod, Cavite, Cebu, Davao, and Quezon City. But even here, there are still reported cases of discrimination, showing that LGU-wide ordinances are not enough to ensure the protection of the rights of LGBT people.
“Ang ibang mga marginalized sectors ay kahit papaano may mga institution sa pamahalaan na nag-ca-cater sa kanilang mga interest, tulad ng iba-ibang programa ng mga LGUs o ng DSWD na tumutulong sa mga pangangailangan ng ibang minorities. Pero sa mga LGBT, wala talagang institution na nasa gobyerno na mangangalaga. Kung mayroon man, kami pa ang namimilit (Other marginalized sectors at least have institutions in the government that cater to them and their interests, such as in LGUs and the Department of Social Welfare and Development. But for LGBT people, no government body looks after our interests. And even if they end up serving us, it’s because they are forced to do so),” Murphy Red said.
In this year’s SONA, Aquino’s motherhood statements abound, such as when he said that “kaya gaya sa lahat ng iba pang suliranin, pagkakaisa po ang tanging susi para mapangalagaan ang ating karapatan (like when dealing with all problems, unity is the key to look after our rights).” But while many LGBT people dared join his sloganeering for “daang matuwid“, thereby joining in his fight, Aquino’s administration didn’t show any concrete efforts for the LGBT community in the last five years.
“Wala talaga siyang nagawa. Nakalimang SONA na siya pero ni minsan hindi niya binanggit and mga LGBT. Wala sa agenda niya ang kalagayan ng LGBT (He hasn’t done a thing for LGBT people. He already had five SONAs but he did not even mention LGBT people once. The plight of LGBT people is not in his agenda),” Murphy Red said. “Zero ang marka ni PNoy sa buong termino niya (He gets zero mark for his entire term).”
Aquino’s 2015 SONA lasted more than two hours – one of the longest delivered by any President. And as he concluded his speech, some militant lawmakers, staged their protest inside the plenary hall by showing placards that read, among others, “Human Rights Violator”, “Serbisyo Palpak”, and “Pork Barrel King”.
As if Aquino couldn’t do any wrong, those who did not agree with him were booed.
And now the countdown begins for the last months of Aquino’s presidency.
For some LGBT groups like Kapederasyon, there is no longer hope for the current administration to take notice of the struggles of the LGBT people. But as is routine, every six years, they can’t help but hope that the next president will finally give LGBT people the attention.
“Sa mga tatakbo sa 2016, para masiguro nila na makukuha nila ang boto ng mga LGBT, kailangan may malinaw silang agendang ilalatag para sa kagalingan ng mga LGBT. At ‘yun lang talaga ang hihilingin namin sa mga susunod na kandidato (To those who will run for office in 2016, for them to get the votes of LGBT people, they should have clear agenda to better the lives of LGBT people. That’s the only wish we have for these next candidates),” Murphy Red ended.
Transgender woman Claire laments how her life as a working LGBT person has worsened – not only did she experience discriminatory practices in her workplace because of her sexual orientation and gender identity and expression, but she also continues to face difficulties because of the pervasive contractualization of workers that empower private companies like her former employer to illegally dismiss her before she can be regularized. For Claire, it’s “layer after layer of difficulties that continued under the presidency of Noynoy Aquino,” she said in Filipino.
PHOTO BY AARON BONETTE
At SONA 2015, local LGBT organizations highlighted how much remains to be done to better the plight of LGBT people in the Philippines, such as the urgent passage of the Anti-Discrimination Law that has been languishing in Congress for over 15 years.
PHOTO BY AARON BONETTE
Various LGBT organizations also joined those who expressed their discontent with the administration of Pres. Benigno Aquino III, particularly since – almost six years after taking office – the plight of LGBT people has not progressed, with, among others, the lack of an anti-discrimination law.
PHOTO BY AARON BONETTE
Literary Pieces
Posteng Bato
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.
Op-Ed
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.
Literary Pieces
Babae. Lesbiyana.
“Babae po ako. Ngunit babae rin ang gusto ko. Pang-lalake man ang kilos at anyo. Sa babae pa rin naman ako nagbabanyo.”
Op-Ed
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.
For example:
“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.
Op-Ed
‘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.
Op-Ed
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.”
Addressing perceived stigma about HIV preventive meds key to helping women at risk
3 in 5 employees experienced or witnessed discrimination
Family support reduces chance of school and workplace bullying
Cry freedom
Study pinpoints barriers to preventive care for people at high risk for HIV
Best LGBT nightspots in Vegas
LGBT athletes who have been an inspiration on and off the field
Posteng Bato
Tinder is a waste of time for most people
International Money Transfer will cost few cents
Intersex community holds first summit in Phl
Cebu Pacific hires transwomen flight attendants
Baguio marks 13th LGBTQIA Pride
First case of sexually transmitted dengue confirmed in Spain
‘We need inclusive responses to HIV’ – Bahaghari Center
Sexual minority adolescents more likely to experience mental health problems
Do open relationships really work?
Posteng Bato
Improved support after self-harm needed to reduce suicide risk
Study highlights fluid sexual orientation in many teens
Cry freedom
‘Ang laban ng LGBT ay laban ng mamamayan’
‘Kitilin ang diskriminasyon’
Surrounded by art
Divided US Supreme Court to decide whether Civil Rights Act should also protect LGBT workers
Coastal appeal
‘Labanan ang hamon ng buhay’
‘Practice what we believe without inciting hate’
‘Patuloy na itaguyod ang SOGIE Equality Bill’ – LGBTQIA activists
Perya ng buhay
