GLBTQIA Filipinos Unite!
Call to Action for Filipino GLBTQIAs
By M.D. dela Cruz Tan
PUBLISHED: DECEMBER 2009

	Share |

“Why should you be given rights?”

That, seemingly simplistically stated, was the question asked me by a Roman Catholic priest in a panel interview (ascertaining the viability of a study for Outrage Magazine to strengthen regional networks of GLBTQIAs to, among others, strengthen shared efforts for the promotion of equal rights, synchronization of GLBTQIA focused and related efforts, et cetera).

“You should, instead, be given responsibilities.”

I was, for a moment or two (or maybe three, to tell the truth), quiet.  Dumbfounded, even.  I wasn’t sure I heard the question correctly, and I said as much, i.e. “I’m not sure that question should even be asked.”

On the defensive, the reply was a repeat of the same: “Gays and lesbians (are not special groups deserving of special rights, so) why give them such, when what they should be given are responsibilities to govern (them).”

And this, a somewhat short exchange, remains the dominant way of considering GLBTQIA Filipinos – a move that hampers the ascendance of GLBTQIAs as equal beings (of everyone).

IN ABSENTIA

GLBTQIs are, by the way, largely inexistent in the Philippine law – except as a “state” of being, used as a ground to legally separate from a wedded partner, i.e. Section 2 of the Family Code’s Rule on Legal Separation states that “a petition for legal separation may be filed only by the husband or the wife, as the case may be within five years from the time of the occurrence of… (f) lesbianism or homosexuality of the respondent.” 

Lesbianism and homosexuality as mentioned in the Family Code, by the way, is not THAT different from “drug addiction or habitual alcoholism of the respondent,” also grounds for legal separation.

This very absence as entities easily negates (and makes lacking in substance, even ignorant) the defense of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) commissioner Nicodemo Ferrer that GLBTQIAs are already “(over)represented in the (government)” – and this is even if he couldn’t (was afraid to) name names of GLBTQIs in political office.

The COMELEC, of course, earlier on November 11, 2009 rejected Ang Ladlad, a GLBTQIA organization, for party-list accreditation on the grounds that the party advocates "sexual immorality" and "immoral doctrines" (seemingly echoing the non-spoken stance of the Family Code).  Specifically, page 5 of the ruling states that Ang Ladlad's definition of the GLBTQI sector as a marginalized sector who are disadvantaged because of their sexual orientation "makes it crystal clear that the petitioner tolerates immorality which offends religious beliefs."

The document signed by commissioners Ferrer, Lucenito Tagle, and Elias Yusoph adds: The COMELEC is "not condemning" the GLBTQI community, but "cannot compromise the well-being of a great number of people."

The approach, yet again, is the tolerance of GLBTQI existence, sans real acceptance of that existence.  We exist – just as long as we don’t.

His bigotry makes the Philippine Daily Inquirer’s claim to objectivity embarrassing, but Ramon Tulfo’s bigotry – albeit offbeam, especially since he may just have been grandstanding – summarizes how GLBTQIs are considered in the Philippines: In his “coverage” of the COMELEC homophobia, he wrote that “Gays and lesbians should be happy society TOLERATES (Emphasis ours – Ed) them. They should not abuse society’s doting attitude towards them.”

FAILING PIONEERS?

Interestingly, even if hundred (thousands even) marched to protest COMELEC’s bigotry, GLBTQIs need to ask themselves (ourselves) if they (we) came out in enough number to be noticed.  After all, much ought to be expected from the Filipino GLBTQIs – in the whole of Asia and the Pacific, the Philippines pioneered the Pride celebration, i.e. on 26 June 1994, on the 25th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots (deemed the precursor of modern day GLBTQI liberation movement), the Progressive Organization of Gays in the Philippines (ProGay Philippines) and the Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) Manila organized the First LGBT Pride March in Asia, with the participants marching from EDSA to Quezon Avenue in Quezon City (the march – and the marches since then – highlighted broad social issues, reflecting GLBTQI participation in issues affecting the Filipino as a people).

The Philippines, too, is among APAC’s first countries to have GLBTQIAs to formally organize – i.e. in 1999, Task Force Pride Philippines (TFP) was formed as a network of GLBTQIAs pushing for the positive visibility of Filipino GLBTQIAs, mainly through the Pride parade (the group became the “official” organizer of the annual event).  ‘Twas the TFP that moved the annual event from June, reflective of the Stonewall celebrations, to the more locally relevant December, aligned with the Human Rights Week, and coinciding with related human rights activities such as World AIDS Day (December 1), Philippine National Lesbian Day (December 8), and International Human Rights Day (December 10).

	1 | 2