Gay used to be a happy word

Rhona Canoy .

SO… The recurring discussion over the controversial “gay marriage” bill is heating up. It looks like it has a possibility of becoming law, and the religious right wing is in a tizzy. It has always amused me just how prejudicial and judgmental we Filipinos prefer to be on pretty much everything. Why should same-gender “marriage” be any different?

I just make this comment because traditionally-minded people will rush to defend their children’s so-called rights and stomp all over a teacher’s face when they feel they have been violated. They will storm into a guidance counselor’s office wildly ranting and screaming about how their children are allegedly being bullied, citing all sorts of republic acts where these rights have been defined. And these selfsame defenders of civil rights will turn around and be bullies to those whose lifestyle doesn’t conform with theirs.

I mean, let’s face it. Somewhere in my not-so-distant past I’ve touched on this subject. But since it has come around again, then my compulsive nature pushes me to touch it again. How can a non-religious matter be so divisive? What is it that we really fear? Are we afraid of what will happen if we give same-gender people the civil right to enter into a binding contract which defines and upholds their rights and privileges to sharing of properties, inheritance, recognition as a legal partnership, among other things?

We enter into legal partnerships all the time. We unthinkingly sign documents that specifically define these partnerships. With the power company, with the security guard agency, with the cell service carrier, with banks when we borrow their money, with our apartment landlord, with the car rental people. Partnerships. Marriage. For after all, isn’t that all a marriage is? A partnership of sorts?

Our regard for the distinction between a civic union and a religious one is already well-established. How frequently have we heard the comment, “Naminyo na sila pero civil ra” (“They got married but only civil”). Insinuating that the marriage doesn’t gain value until it is done in a church, officiated by a man wearing a dress, in front of who people profess to be their preferred God, and witnessed by many. On a side note, isn’t that the better kind of marriage — the civil kind?

And yet, the intrinsic legal value of a marriage is determined by law, not by religion. At least that’s how I understand it. No matter how specifically any religion defines its perception of a marital union, none of that really matters without the legal contract which makes it binding. So what, really, is the furor all about?

Let’s talk about the H word for a minute. Uh-huh. Yeah. Homophobia. The fear of homosexuals. Which really is at the root of all this dissent. When one brings up the topic of same-gender marriage, homophobia rears its ugly head. And the name-calling begins. Sinners. Spawn of the devil. Condemned to eternal fire at Satan’s side.

We will consort with corrupt government officials and willingly pay them illegal bribes to achieve a beneficial end before we even consider the twinkling of a possibility that two people who check the same gender box on an application form could be permitted to enter into a legal partnership. I ran out of breath on that one. It’s true. We form friendships with people who we know are cheating on their marriage vows, from religious standpoint. After all, a common marriage contract doesn’t say “never fornicate with anyone other than your legal partner.” Only religion mandates that.

Perhaps it is the fear of the unknown that drives this violent opposition. I don’t know. It’s the only thing that I can come up with at this point. And it pays too much attention (I think) on the physical aspect of the union. This opposition doesn’t pay attention to the love shared by two people. It doesn’t pay attention to the desire of two people legally to share a home. It doesn’t honor the willingness to share material assets equally and without question with their partner.

It’s just a legal contract, for your God’s sake. And the biggest confusion this argument brings into my already-cramped brain is that I don’t think the mental picture of same-gender marriage brings to mind two females. I’d call that sexist. So, maybe we should get real. For people who are religious proponents of a deity who they claim teaches them to love, have compassion, be generous — are they? I’m just asking. For a religion founded on forgiveness, some practitioners can be quite unforgiving. And I still go back to my constant claim — the Bible was written, after all, by ancient homophobic men. So, maybe it needs a new edit. Please, Christians, if you must curse me for stating what I profess to be my perspective, then let me thank you. I’m just using the brain that the deity gave me to work with, to ponder this civil question.

The solution to this conflict is actually rather simple. Should the same-gender marriage bill be passed into law, then just be sure you aren’t neighbors with “those” people. Don’t let “those” people fix your hair. Don’t break bread with “them.” Don’t transact bank business with “them.” Don’t consult “them” for medical advice even if they happen to be the best in their field. Don’t look “them” in the eye. Leave the room when “they” enter. Get as far away from “them” as humanly possible.

Who knows? Maybe it’s airborne. “They” might be contagious.