The Abortion Tragedy in the Philippines

I'm so tired of the gaggle of "Pro-Life" politicians in the Philippines.  You've seen them and unfortunately heard them:  Golez, Pacquiao, Enrile, and our favorite dork of the month, Sotto, harping on about the grave dangers of condoms, pills, and IUDs.  All, of course, propped up by the Philippine Mini-Popes, i.e. the CBCP.

Look, I'm a progressive liberal.  I'm about as liberal as a person can get.  When I say liberal I mean liberal in every way:  an economic liberal, a military liberal ("a dove"), and a social liberal.  I grew up in a liberal family, in a liberal culture, in a liberal country called Norway.

In my country, RH isn't an issue.  It hasn't been an issue since...well...it's never really been an issue.  This is because the Catholic Church holds absolutely no sway in Norway.  None.  The pope never visits us because we honestly don't want him to.  (We think he's a bigot, to be quite honest with you.)  In my country the government's been giving out free condoms and birth control pills since the 1960s,  and the state doesn't interfere in a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body.

HIV in the PHL. Religious Right, YOU'RE to Blame.

If you're an HIV virion in the Philippines, business is booming for you these days.

One of only seven countries in the world where HIV rates have risen 25% over the last decade, the Philippines has a very big problem on its hands.  But rather than listening to world medical experts and tackling the problem, the Philippine government is opting to listen to the Religious Right -- particularly the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) and its mother ship, the Vatican -- and taking a gamble with the lives of its own citizens.

Unprotected sex between men accounts for 87% of all new HIV cases in the country, according to the DOH and UNDP.  Ten new infections are detected each day, and nobody really knows how many silent HIV carriers are milling around the general population.  Many Filipinos remain untested for the virus, which has an asymptomatic latent period of up to 10 years, during which no major signs or symptoms are seen or felt.

When coupled with the fact that the Philippines has the lowest rate of condom use in Asia, it's a recipe for disaster.  It's a recipe that is now starting to yield some unsavory and frightening realities.

When Does Life Begin?

Implanted embryo. The start of a human, but not a human.

"Every biologist would agree that life begins at conception."

 

I heard that once during a debate, said by a passionate anti-choice person. Although passionate, he is also wrong.  I'm a biologist and I do not agree that life begins at conception, nor do any of my current colleagues, nor did any of my professors in univeristy, nor do the vast majority of doctors where I'm from.  This isn't because we hate life or babies, it's because the evidence to back up such a claim simply isn't there.

Courts, part 3: Why Equality is on a Winning Streak

The arguments for same-sex marriage are compelling; the arguments against it are hyped but hollow.  Pro-equality lawyers absolutely blow the anti-equality side out of the water.  We've seen this in court case after court case, from Canada to Israel, and from Brazil to Massachusetts.

The rulings consistently find that:

1. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry serves no legitimate state interest
2. Permitting same-sex couples to marry does not affect opposite-sex marriage, divorce, or the number of children born in marriages or outside of marriages
3. The religious or moral views held by the majority cannot decide which rights can be either withheld or granted to a minority -- the constitution is the ultimate law of the land, not religious texts.

I love reading court transcripts from various same-sex marriage cases because they're so entertaining.  When reading them, it's easy to see why the anti-equality side crashes and burns.  Their "argument" is based on four premises:  that marriage is deeply religious and has always been between a man and a woman; that marriage will be destroyed if LGBTs get to have it too; that kids in same-sex households will be molested; and that we'll go extinct as a species.  Each of those arguments are rooted in ignorance and are easily dismantled, even by inexperienced lawyers, and show that the root cause of the opposition is fear:  fear of the unknown and fear of change.

High Court Progress in Western Countries; What About the Philippines?

The wheels of equality turn slowly, and for no group of people is this more true than our LGBT brothers and sisters.  It's painful to listen to stories of so many kind, honest, and decent LGBT Filipinos whose only wish is to be treated like everyone else, rather than second class citizens.  I can't imagine what it must feel like to have to face such discrimination simply because of the sexuality one was born with.  Personally, I'm a straight man, and I believe gay rights and marriage equality are the civil rights movement of our time.  I'm proud to be an ardent supporter and advocate.

I have a gay cousin and I love him dearly, as well as his husband.  They had been a couple for a decade -- having been sweethearts since high school -- before getting married last year, and I'm grateful that we're from a country that gives them that right.  Unfortunately that's not possible in a lot of places around the world, including in the Philippines.  It is really heartbreaking to see so many wonderful LGBT couples being denied the basic right of marriage for no other reason than blind governmental adherence to heterosexist tradition.

Harmless fairytale...or EVIL GAY PORN!!

Over the past several months I have gotten quite a few questions regarding the children's book King and King, which I mentioned on my Equality 101 page.  Some are wondering what it's all about, or if it's "a threat."

My reply:  Yes actually, it is a threat.  It's a threat to bigotry and homophobia.

One rather upset email commenter said "This is nothing more than gay porn propaganda for kids!"  Interesting, considering it is neither pornographic nor propagandist.  It's a fricking fairytale, people.

This is a brief rundown of the book which, along with other books like it, can be found in elementary schools in my country.  You decide if it's evil or not.

Tolerance Growing...but not Everywhere

A fresh study from the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center shows that the greatest tolerance for and acceptance of LGBT persons and relationships is found in the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and Belgium.

Of the 31 Western countries studied in depth, tolerance levels have increased significantly over the past decade in 28 of them.  Only Cyprus, Latvia, and Russia saw tolerance drop over the past few years.  Also in Latin American countries, Southern Africa, and Turkey, tolerance levels have remained pretty much the same:  fairly low.  Nevertheless, the growth in approval ratings was stronger than the decline.

In Asia, Singaporeans' acceptance of LGBTs was found to be at 45%, while 40% found homosexuality unacceptable and 15% had a neutral opinion.  That's a very slight improvement over the last poll taken there in 2005.  Muslims and conservative Christians harbor the most intolerance (no big surprise there!), while Buddhists and Freethinkers are the most accepting.

The least tolerant places in the world are, not surprisingly, places with religious extremists either pulling the strings or exerting great influence.  There are still seven countries where the penalty for being in a same-sex relationship is death:  Mauritania, northern Nigeria, Sudan, and Somalia in Africa; and Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Iran in the Middle East.  There are also dozens of other countries around the world which have varying prison sentences for being in a same-sex relationship, including the Asia-Pacific nations of Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Papua New Guinea, and Malaysia.  In Singapore, too, sex between men is technically illegal, but the law is not actively enforced any longer. 

ILGA's 2011 world map showing the status of LGBT rights around the world can be viewed here.

.

Love For All

A great pro-equality commercial/public service ad by Björn Borg, a Swedish clothing company.  I had seen the ad on TV in Scandinavia several times, but I can guarantee you it won't be allowed to be aired in the Philippines or anywhere else in Asia -- it would cause an uproar for sure.  That's unfortunate because it's a beautiful ad, and kudos to the Björn Borg Company for making it!

("True Colors" sung by Ane Brun of Norway.)

.

Philippine Anti-Discrimination Bill: Necessary and Long Overdue

This post is partially in response to the following comment posted by ''Gary45.''  Since I was already planning to write about the anti-discrimination bill, I'll use this comment as my starting point:

"You said: "Gay rights are non-existent in the Philippines".  Really?  Are gays not Filipino citizens?  Our Constitution already guarantees respect for human rights (section 11), the rights of workers (section 18), equal access to public services (section 26), equal employment opportunities for all (section 3 article XII), and even against threats on libel, slander and sexual harassment in the Penal Code.  Merit is the basis for employment.  Education, work record, experience, performance.  If a gay is fired for wearing too much lipstick he/she (?) can make a complaint to DOLE or DOJ.  New laws and more laws aren't necessary when we already have laws for this and that, regardless of the implications to religious liberty. ..."

Excellent comment and excellent point.  Your insensitivity on the matter, however, is disappointing.  It's unfortunate that you refer to gay men as "he/she."  It is also highly unlikely that a gay man would be fired for wearing lipstick since gay men don't wear lipstick.  Some male-to-female transgenders do, however, so perhaps they are the ones to whom you are referring.

The proposed Anti-Discrimination Bill pending in Philippine Congress (House Bill 1483), is an extremely important piece of legislation.  At first glance, the points raised in the above comment may make it seem that such a bill is unnecessary.  In a perfect world that may be true, but the last time I checked Earth isn't perfect and neither is humanity, which is why the majority of democratic countries today have some form of anti-discrimination law protecting their LGBT citizens.

Anti-Discrimination = the Death of Free Speech / Freedom of Religion?

The very important comment left in the previous post, "We accept you...as long as you never find fulfillment", reads as such:

"I think it is a big question mark for you to say gay marriage would not impact on religious freedom.  I have read alot of articles about that exact thing happening in other countries with lawsuits etcetera.  I did even read about your country where a pastor has been arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin and he is in prison.  That doesn't sound like democracy and a free country to me. ...You cannot deny that this issue has negative implications for Christian speech.  That is why I am skeptical about it all.  Not because I am anti-gay but becuase [sic] I fear for the end of free speech and religious freedom."

Given the nature of the comment, and my inability to answer it effectively in the limited space provided for comment replies, I decided to address it here in it's own post.  It's quite important and worth taking a close look at.

First off, I absolutely understand your point and I agree that freedom of speech and of religion must be protected.  This is not negotiable.  These freedoms are firmly enshrined in democratic constitutions, including the constitutions of both Norway and the Philippines.  I must correct you, though, on the pastor to whom you refer.

"We accept you...as long as you never find fulfillment"

I'm not a Catholic.  Like the majority of Scandinavians I'm a Protestant, a Lutheran to be exact.  The Evangelical Lutheran Church tends to be quite liberal compared to the Catholic Church.

(A warning:  if you're über-conservative you may not want to read the next two paragraphs unless you have your heart medication nearby.)

In the Lutheran Church we have female priests and bishops.  Yes, women are just as good as men.  We also have openly gay and lesbian priests and bishops.  What's more, we allow our priests to get married (both the straight ones and the gay ones); we don't get worked up over divorce; we think condoms are cool; and we don't have a sanctimonious tantrum if two people of the same sex want to get married.  This is evident by the picture above from a recent wedding in Oslo, Norway, where two men were married (gasp!) by a female priest (double gasp!) inside a church (asthmatic gasp!).

One of our bishops recently attended the opening of a Gay Pride Festival in one of Norway's biggest cities and delivered the closing speech as well, saying "The LGBT community has fought a hard fight the last 60 years.  At the core is the fact that the love between two people of the same sex is nothing to be ashamed of."  As you can see, homosexuality is not a "crisis issue" in Norwegian society or in Northern European societies as a whole, or in the Lutheran Church.  The popular governor of Norway's Vestfold county, for example, is openly gay and married to a Lutheran priest.  I'm no fan of intimacy between church and state (pun intended), but in the case of the priest and the governor I'll make an exception. ;)

Political Ambiguity?

I received a good email question from a Filipino-American asking:  "Where do the political parties in the Philippines stand on LGBT rights and marriage?  It's impossible to find anything out from any of them!"

Welcome to the world of Philippine politics, my friend.  I'm left scratching my head as well.

Trying to get solid answers on issues (especially social issues) is extremely difficult because the parties aren't ideologically strong.  Their platforms or agendas tend to be quite vague and general, if they even list a platform at all.  It's quite strange to me actually -- I don't know how the people are able to make clear-cut decisions on whom to vote for if they can never get any clear-cut stands out of the parties.  Perhaps they merely vote based on the popularity and likability of the individual candidates rather than on the issues.

Philippine House of Representatives

Of the seventeen parties currently holding seats in the Philippine House of Representatives, only one, to the best of my knowledge, officially has gay rights as part of its platform:  Akbayan Citizen's Action Party.  They were actually the party that first filed the anti-discrimination bill back in 1999.  Unfortunately they're also one of the smallest parties, having just two representatives (out of 287) in the current House.

Another party, the Liberal Party of the Philippines (LP), has just one mention of fighting discrimination based on (among other things) sexual orientation, tucked within the long "Social program policy" page of its website.  That's all it says though -- no specifics, no details, no list of bills supported, opposed, or proposed which would aid in the fight against said discrimination.  But that's not uncommon in Philippine politics.  You basically have to guess, because you're more likely to be abducted by aliens than to get a definitive answer from them on LGBT issues (...or divorce, or the reproductive health bill, or abortion...)  But hey, at least they actually mentioned the words "sexual orientation."  That's a lot more than other parties do.  It's a nice first step I suppose.

A Reproductive Health Bill Headache

A more recent post discussing RH (and abortion) in the PH can be read by clicking here.

Apparently for the past few years there has been a lot of hubbub in the Philippines over a proposed Reproductive Health Bill.  As a non-Filipino I never really gave it much thought, until it was brought to my attention in an email I received from a concerned man who is worried that gay rights will lead to legalised abortion via the passage of what he called the "liberal reproductive health law."  His premise was that same-sex marriage causes numerous societal problems, listing drug legalisation and abortion as examples.  He also cited Norway as an example of a country where both abortion and drugs are legal because of same-sex unions.

Honestly the argument he makes is confusing.  First, there is no evidence from any country that legalizing same-sex marriage leads to drug legalisation or other social problems.  Second, drugs are actually not legal in Norway.  He may be confusing Norway with the Netherlands, a country to the south of Scandinavia, where personal use of marijuana is legal but other drugs are not.

As far as abortion goes, it has been legal in Norway since 1979 (and in the Netherlands since 1981) -- 22 and 29 years, respectively, before same-sex marriage became legal in the two countries.  The two have no bearing upon each other; same-sex marriage did not cause abortion legalisation, nor has it caused an increase in abortion rates.

This brings us to the Philippines' controversial Reproductive Health Bill: House Bill No. 03.  Based on a reading of the full text of the bill, it seeks to promote information on and access to both natural and modern family planning methods that are medically safe and legally permissible.  It seeks to ensure an environment where both women and couples have the freedom of informed choice as to which type of family planning they choose to use, according to their needs, personal convictions, and religious beliefs.  That's the extent.

This is what all the fuss is about?  This is what is deemed as a scary, liberal, "D.E.A.T.H." (pro-death, euthanasia, abortion, two-child policy, homosexuality) bill?  Really?? 

What's strange is that some people say Europe is evil because we have abortion.  But you don't have to investigate very deeply to discover that Western European abortion rates are actually the lowest in the world.   In the Netherlands, there are nine abortions per every one-thousand pregnancies. In Norway there are roughly fifteen abortions per one-thousand pregnancies.  But did you know that the abortion rate in the Philippines is averaged at twenty-seven per every one-thousand pregnancies?  Abortion is illegal in the Philippines, yet its abortion rate exceeds even that of the United States (23:1,000).

In Norway the parliament passed a reproductive health bill of its own last year. Well it actually wasn't a new bill, it was more of an upgrade.  We've already had very liberal reproductive health policies since the 1960s.  The new Act is an initiative to cut the abortion rate in half by 2013, by making birth control pills absolutely free to girls aged 16 to 20.  The law now states that it is every young woman's reproductive health right to have access to a free supply of birth control pills, paid for by the government.

A study conducted in two Norwegian cities in 2008 showed that providing women aged 20-24 with free birth control (the pill, injection, patches, spirals, and vaginal rings) cut the abortion rate in those cities in half.  The government was so impressed that it drafted a new bill to subsidise the cost of hormonal contraceptives, with the aim of halving the national abortion rate.  The bill had wide support from all political parties and became law on the 1st of January, 2011.

I'm quite surprised that some Filipinos, including the man who emailed me, think House Bill 5043 is "liberal" and "wicked."  It looks like a very conservative and cautious bill to me.  I understand full well that the Catholic Church doesn't like the bill, and I know that H.E. Archbishop Oscar Cruz says it will "lead to the implementation of an immoral policy."  If they honestly believe that, they are within their right to say so, but I for one cannot see how giving Filipinos the basic option to decide family planning matters on their own is either liberal, wicked, or immoral.  The Filipino people are not children, and they should not be treated as such.

Of course there are other "grave concerns" surrounding the bill, including the much-feared implementation of sex education in the schools.  This seems to be the boogeyman under the bed for many conservatives.  I suppose the status quo of teenagers swapping STDs and getting pregnant is the best way to go? 

I know that if you already don't like Norway, this next bit of information will really seal the deal.  Not only do we have comprehensive sex education in the schools, but students are able to get free condoms from the school nurse anytime.  Birth control pills for girls are also available for free from school nurses, starting at age 16.  Condoms and pills are also available for free from government-run Youth Health Centres which can be found in every community.  What's more, teenagers can order condoms online for free and have them delivered to their home two days later (up to 20 condoms at a time), paid for by the Norwegian Health Department.  Imagine that ever happening in the Philippines.

But in all seriousness, there are very big differences (obviously) between the policies of our two countries. Nordic governments tend to base their policies on research rather than religion, and provide extensive public education programs using a wide range of media. The end results speak for themselves: lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower abortion rates.  Teenage abstinence-only education doesn't do that, by the way; proper sex education and access to contraceptives does.

If the goal is to protect the health, dignity, and well-being of the people, then it is high time to use methods that show results. Hopefully for the Philippines, the Reproductive Health Bill will pass, and soon.  And if it does it will at least be a step in the right direction.

A Brief Comparison

Anti-discrimination law
In the Philippines: No
In Norway: Yes 

Anti-hate speech law
In the Philippines: No
In Norway: Yes 

Same-sex civil unions or marriage
In the Philippines: No
In Norway: Yes (civil unions from 1993-12/31/2008; marriage equality since 1/1/2009) 

Adoption for same-sex couples

In the Philippines: No

In Norway: Yes 

Immigration rights for same-sex couples
In the Philippines: No
In Norway: Yes 

Artificial insemination available for lesbian couples
In the Philippines: No
In Norway: Yes (the government even pays for it)

Representation of same-sex couples in advertising and on TV
In the Philippines:  No
In Norway:  Yes

Other areas of contrast:

• Abortion:  Legal in Norway, illegal in the Philippines
• Divorce:  Legal in Norway, illegal in the Philippines
• Free contraceptives in schools:  In Norway yes, in the Philippines no
• Corporal punishment (e.g. spanking):  Legal in the Philippines, illegal in Norway
• Scientifically-accurate information on sexuality/sexual orientation taught in schools:  In Norway yes, in the Philippines no

I am not listing these facts in order to gloat about Norway, but simply to show the stark contrasts between the two countries.  It may also help explain why it has been such a culture/society shock for me as a very liberal Norwegian being in a very conservative place like the Philippines.

The Philippines is a beautiful country with beautiful and hospitable people whom I respect very much, so this is not any kind of Philippines-bashing I assure you.  I'm merely stating the facts of the matter as they stand today on the issue of LGBT rights.

Personally, Filipino conservativeness is a culture shock for me, but I understand entirely that culture shock goes both ways.  Filipinos and other Asians who have been in Scandinavia experience the shock as well, just in the opposite direction.

BigBroNorway: These two have a bedsheet over them... most don't!

I remember when a Filipina housemate of the Pinoy Big Brother TV show did a housemate exchange and went to the Big Brother Finland house.  She was shocked that the house was so sexually open and “free.”  She said her head was spinning because she had seen two housemates having sex...and the two had only just met about five hours before that.  She also saw two guys in the house having sex, which really set her mind spinning.  And then of course on Scandinavian TV we show it all, no holds barred!  (We don't censor language, nudity, or sex on TV.)  The picture shown here, by the way, is the most G-rated example I could give from Big Brother Norway!

So of course going from the more wholesome Pinoy Big Brother house to a much more liberated Big Brother house in Scandinavia left that Filipina in a state of culture shock.  I recall one of the housemate's comments about her: “What's her deal? --- is she a nun in training?'”   There was a similar culture shock experienced when a Big Brother Thailand contestant came to the Big Brother Norway/Sweden house.  He was wide-eyed most of his time there. ;-)

In the Philippines, by contrast, the MTRCB (the Philippine censoring board) issued a warning to Pinoy Big Brother because the housemates were merely talking about contraceptives and were kissing.  Oh no!  Talking and kissing!  Those heathens!  Yes the MTRCB thought that was too provocative for TV.  What?!  (Take a look at the letter; it's pretty hilarious!)  They actually even suspended the show for one week...for a kissing scene and a bikini!  Wow, our two countries are really polar opposites in so many ways.

Exposure to other cultures and ways is a good thing though, so no harm no foul.  I'm not saying that being sexually “loose” is either good or bad; that's for each person to decide for themselves.  Some cultures are open, some are not, and it is what it is.  Live and let live I say.

Okay, "Bigmanoncampus91" asked for it so here you are:  a segment from one of the episodes of a TV show called Paradise Hotel Scandinavia, a popular reality show similar to Big Brother.  This is not a special web version -- this is a clip from regular prime-time TV.  If you didn't believe me that our TV is much more "liberated" in Scandinavia, now you will.  I think the MTRCB would have a heart attack if they saw this!

See also:  Philippine Status Quo

Welcome!

Homosexuality is a hot-button issue to say the least. Not many issues are able to create as many sparks and fiery debates as this one.  Many countries around the world are moving ever forward, increasingly granting more and more rights and protections to gays and lesbians. Others are not.

As a Norwegian living in the Philippines, I happen to be caught between the two. I come from Norway, a very progressive country in Europe, and I now find myself in the Philippines, a very conservative country in Southeast Asia. The contrasts are overwhelming at times. My own country is cold, the Philippines is hot; Norway is developed, the Philippines is developing; Norway has a small population, the Philippines' population is quite large; Norway is a secular society, the Philippines is still highly religious in the home, the school, and even the halls of government.

The contrast in the two countries' laws is immense as well. While Norway has very liberal laws regarding, for example, divorce, abortion, and gay rights and same-sex marriage, the Philippines is a stronghold of conservatism, a place where both divorce and abortion are illegal, and where gay rights are still seen as something "foreign." Having been raised in an open, liberal society, the way things are in the Philippines can be admittedly frustrating.

I personally am heterosexual, but I have a cousin who is gay. He recently married his partner and they have since adopted a baby. Perhaps the fact that I have a gay family member has spurred a desire in me to see that he is entitled to all the same rights under the law. Perhaps the fact that I am from a staunchly egalitarian society plays a role as well. Perhaps the fact that I am also a biologist has something to do with why I am writing this blog. As a man of science, accurate information based on facts are of great importance to me. The amount of misinformation on homosexuality floating around the planet has stirred the disdain of myths and inequality that I have inside me.

I have often heard said to gay and lesbian people, "Oh you're gay?...well, there's a cure for that." Being that most people who say that are religious conservatives, the assumption is that they mean you can "pray the gay away." Cute but incredibly naiive when viewed through the lens of modern science.

Biology, which is my field of expertise, together with neurology, embryology, and genetics, are on the front lines of this issue.  While theologians and armchair moralists quibble over doctrines and Hebrew Old Testament verses, we in science are afforded to work with powerful "little" things called facts.  And while doctrines are open to interpretation and verses written in ancient languages must be scrutinized ad nauseum in light of historical, cultural and linguistic contexts, scientific facts are purely scientific facts.  One cannot ponder them into obscurity if one doesn't like what they show evidence of.  They are facts, not opinions, and by their very nature they are concrete.  

This blog's posts and pages will explore those facts, which each day grow more and more numerous and convincing.  The data and peer-reviewed research from all corners of the globe are showing one thing:  a homosexual orientation is no more of a choice than a heterosexual orientation.  Again, this has nothing to do with opinions, feelings, doctrines, or beliefs.  The scientific evidence speaks perfectly well enough for itself.

For those who believe "there's a cure for that," this blog is for you: to shed light, facts, and broaden understandings. It is also for the many gays and lesbians who daily struggle in the face of prejudice, discrimination, and bigotry at the hands of people who just don't know any better. It is to let you know that there are many straight people - including many straight Christians - who are not against you, but who stand with you and fight for you. It is to let you know that you are not strange, disordered, deviant, or abnormal. That is why I'm writting this blog: to say to people who push a "cure," that knowledge is actually the best cure.

If you're misinformed, confused, unsure, ignorant of the facts on the matter, unaware of what modern science has to say, well...there's a cure for that.

______________________________________

It is important of course to remember that the Philippines is a very socially conservative country -- a place where divorce is not yet even legal. The powers that be, and always have been, are deeply religious. Though they may be sincere they are often sincerely wrong, and more and more frequently they find themselves on the opposing side of modern scientific findings.

I read a newspaper opinion piece written by an outspoken Filipino Catholic priest, in which he asserted that the Philippines is "the last bastion of family and life in the world." Though slightly misguided, this priest, and throngs of other like-minded religious conservatives, wholeheartedly believe that to be true; and they are willing to resist tooth and nail any agenda they believe may alter the status quo.

They are the very embodiment of conservatism: defend and uphold the thoughts and ways of old, and resist change at any cost. It would be admirable if only it weren't so narrow and impractical, for to do so requires one to either deny or altogether ignore scientific facts. Many place their beliefs above everything else, ignoring all evidence that contradicts them. It has been said that one should not have to surrender one's mind in order to be a faithful believer. I couldn't agree more.

But I must take caution not to become the very thing I take a stand against: intolerant. I have neither disrepect nor disdain for Catholics or any religious person. I myself am a Christian, and my faith is an important part of my life. Religious conservatives have just as much a right to voice their opinions in good conscience as anyone else, and I am not nor have I ever been intolerant of those views.

The issue for me arises in the way those views are often voiced and propagated, that being to the exclusion of all others. Furthermore, many religious conservatives have a desire to take their private beliefs and transfer them upon everyone else through legislation or the ballot box. This is where I take issue.

It is one thing to believe in and follow the teachings and edicts of one's faith in one's own life; it is another thing altogether to insist that your neighbor must also live their life according to your beliefs. Such an attitude is both irresponsible and damaging, and has no place in a modern, pluralistic democracy. We went down that path in Europe in the middle ages and the end result brought nothing but oppression, disunity, and eventually blood-shed. Please learn from our mistakes.

Speaking of ballot box morality, I am reminded of the Proposition 8 fiasco that took place in California in 2008. The Supreme Court of California had found it unconstitutional for the state to deny same-sex couples the right to marry, and social conservatives thought the sky was surely falling. Then, in November of that year, a California-wide initiative was placed on the general election ballot: it was called Proposition 8, and the intent was to allow Californians to vote on whether or not same-sex couples should be barred from marrying under state law. The measure passed by a margin of 52-48%, and gay Californians saw a constitutional right stripped away from them in an instant.

When news of this broke, I was practically sick to my stomach. I was home in Norway at the time, and when my family, friends, and colleagues discussed the matter we were all utterly disgusted by it. We weren't entirely shocked that the measure passed - after all, America has its fair share of social conservatives that's for sure. What was really shocking to me and most other Norwegians (indeed many Europeans overall), was that Prop. 8 made it on the ballot in the first place.

Imagine, citizens in a democratic nation going to the voting booth to decide the civil rights of their fellow citizens! It literally boggled my brain. It would be a tropical day in Norway before anything like that would happen there. That's almost offensive to even imagine. It's equivalent to asking people to vote on whether or not interracial couples should be "allowed" to marry, or whether Asians should be allowed to move into "white neighborhoods."

I think it will go down as one of the great social injustices of our time, but hopefully it will be found unconstitutional before too much longer.

Oscar Wilde put it well: "Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live; it is asking others to live as one wishes to live."




UPDATE ~ August 4, 2010:  a 9th Circuit US Federal Judge ruled that Prop 8 violates the US Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional and overturned.  The matter will most likely go to the US Supreme Court after a ruling on appeal by the 9th Circuit Appeals Court, which is scheduled to begin December 6th, 2010.  It looks as though America is finally edging ever closer (slowly) to nationwide marriage equality, and it seems the days of discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans are numbered.