 |
| Joseph 'Happily-ever-after' Abaya |
Abaya, who is the second-term Representative of Cavite's 1st District and is the great grandson of the Philippines' first president Emilio Aguinaldo, went on to say that gay couples can "live happily ever after," but mustn't insist on having equal rights like "normal" married couples.
"They are just not entitled to the rights and privileges of being married," he said. "Same sex marriage is violative of the law since the Family Code provides that marriage is always between man and a woman." Ergo, Abaya supports that same-sex unions of any kind are both illegal and unconstitutional.
What is most despicable in his statement, is his opinion that such couples must hush up and stop insisting on having equal rights like "normal" couples. You vile gay people, how dare you ask to be treated as equal citizens under the constitution?! How dare you stand up for your rights?! You must learn your place, stay out of sight, out of mind, and be quiet!
To his mind, Filipino same-sex couples are to live in silence with no rights, no protections, and no recognition. They must accept their second-class status. This is what he considers to be "happily ever after." Yes, doesn't that sound like pure bliss.
What a distasteful line of thought from a leader of a party with the word "Liberal" in it. I've written before of the apparent confusion among LP members about what the word liberal actually means. How a person can claim to be liberal, yet espouse prejudice, policies of intolerance, and oppose equality, is absolutely beyond me.
Recently, Rep. Rene Relampagos filed a bill that seeks to officially bar recognition of same-sex marriages contracted outside of the Philippines. Relampagos was a member of the LDP (a right-wing party) when he was voted into office, but last year switched his affiliation. Can you guess to which party he now belongs? That's right, the LP. Another discriminatory piece of legislation from a party that vows to "fight" discrimination.
If this is your stance, LP, please change the name of your party to something more in line with your views: The "Partway Liberal Party" perhaps? The "Not-Really-Liberal Liberal Party"? Or even the "Liberal-for-Everyone-Except-Gays Party"? So many choices.
Don't call yourself liberal unless you're actually liberal. It gives us genuine liberals out here a bad name.
Per Journal Online story.
11 comments:
What a shame. I use to like this man, I even voted for him in the last election. I won't be making that mistake again.
Sorry if this is off-topic, but I am strongly disturbed and saddened by the recent tragedies in Norway. I just have to extend my deepest sympathies to you--I hope your family and loved ones are okay.
Thank you so much. That was very thoughtful of you and much appreciated. Truly we have all been shocked by the actions of that madman.
My family was not in harm's way, though I do know someone who works at the government building where the blast occurred. Fortunately she had left her office about an hour before events unfolded, and she too is fine.
Thank you for your concern, well wishes, and prayers!
Sadly this is not a surprise. The LP doesnt know up from down, including PNoy. They're hypocrites, saying they're against discrimination and then doing and saying things like what Rep. Abaya does. Rodolfo Biazon is another homophobe who is also an LP member. It's sad.
I agree with the solon on this one. It is enough that 2 men or 2 women can live together in their relationship. They have that right here in the Phils and the government won't stop them. They are not arrested or jailed for being a gay couple. That is enough.
Giving them the rights of marriage is just too much. And Congressman Albay has the right to give his opinion on gay "marriage". The majority of Filipinos agree with his view anyway. Marriage must be defended, preserved, honored and protected.
@ Ray: You say that marriage must be protected. I wonder, is it then also acceptable for Congress to protect free speech by banning all new forms of media (thus preserving the traditional definition of speech)? Or to protect freedom of religion by banning or refusing to recognize non-traditional religions? I cannot understand why you feel that shutting people out of an institution that encourages monogamy and stability is somehow protecting it. It is similar to saying that giving women the right to vote somehow devalues the votes of men.
I also get a kick out of seeing anti-equality folks putting the word marriage in quotations, e.g. same-sex "marriage." Putting quotation marks around it doesn't mean it's not real. Same-sex marriages are marriages, with or without quotations.
1. No Mr./Miss Anonymous, I never said that gays and lesbians should be murdered or beaten. That is very unacceptable no matter what. I would never support that. But government choosing to not recognize an unconventional relationship is VERY different from murder and I think you know that.
2. You cannot understand it Erik? Because marriage is a sacrament and is ordained by God, not by the government. That's why. A government can call it "marriage" but God does not, so, it's not a real marriage. Simple lang.
Ray, unfortunately when religion enters the mix it's not simple lang, it gets quite complicated. In any case, faiths differ greatly on what constitutes a marriage (Protestants, of which I am one, do not view marriage as a sacrament, but view it as a civil institution).
The Bible really isn't much of a help to the "marriage = one man + one woman" argument because the majority of marriages portrayed in its pages are polygamous. And when it comes to civil marriages, what the government says is, in fact, all that matters. We're talking about civil, non-religious marriage. Governments define marriage based on civil laws which are always evolving. They do not take their cues from the Bible, otherwise polygamy (specifically polygyny, i.e. one man + several wives) would be both legal and the norm.
What?? These laws are not "always evolving". What are you talking about? Marriage has always been male/female since the foundation of civilization. Marriage is not an evolving thing like you say. It is foundational. Plus, God is higher than any government so His definition is weightier than a government's definition. I think even you can understand that point. What are they teaching you guys these days over in Europe??
@Ray: Oh my goodness. Ray, marriage laws have evolved throughout history and continue to evolve. Marriage is nothing like what it was two centuries ago, let alone two millennia ago.
It has evolved from being polygamous to monogamous (though in 75% of cultures today polygamy is still acceptable); marriages are no longer arranged by parents or performed between children (except in some non-industrialized, tribal societies); marriages today are based mainly on love (in centuries past they were largely economic; couples often hadn't even met until their wedding day); since the late-1800s women have been granted marital rights and not treated as a man's property; one spouse no longer needs to take the last name of the other; mixed race couples were once forbidden to marry, but today we include such couples in the wider definition of marriage; and couples today have the right to divorce...well, not in the Philippines though...
Marriage has always evolved and will continue to evolve, thank God. Marriage has only very recently been viewed as a partnership between equals, and there are still some (conservative men) who continue to object to even this most basic idea.
Look, this matter in the realm of religion is circular so I really haven't the energy to get into a back-and-forth with you, because it will likely go on and on. You can explore this blog and others like it and decide for yourself. I do thank you for your comments though.
This site is all liberal propaganda and is anti-family anyway, so don't you worry, I won't be replying here any more.
Post a Comment
Please be decent and respectful, and please post all comments in English so that everyone can understand. Thanks!