No such thing

Gregorio Miguel Pallugna

THE Philippines is a Catholic country. What does that even mean? Whenever big issues come up, we hear many politicians invoke this hollow template of a phrase: “We are a Catholic country.” Perhaps a more understandable phraseology of the idea is that the Philippines is a pre-dominantly Catholic country, which simply means that majority of its citizens belong to the Catholic church. But then again, what does that even mean?

Just very recently, President Duterte talked to a crowd of Filipinos in Myanmar and spontaneously, as he always does, blurted out that the western world cannot impose upon us the western idea of same sex marriage. More particularly he said, “Biro mo, ako ang Presidente tapos you erase the great divide between a woman and a man.” I don’t usually complain against the President because so far he has been consistent with his campaign promises and that is the reason why I supported him during the last elections. So far, he has been an advocate of liberality and progressiveness and that is why I continue to support him now. But with this issue, I draw the line. There is nothing that irks me more than a person running for public office to serve the people as a whole–Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, atheists, etc.–then later invoking religion as a basis for any decision he makes! I would totally understand if the politician’s campaign was anchored on religious beliefs from the very beginning, in which case we can say that he was elected because the people expected him to vote in accordance with his personal religious beliefs. Take Eddie Villanueva for example or even Manny Pacquiao who, from the very start of their political careers have consistently quoted, and maybe sometimes misquoted, the Bible. When however a politician begins his campaign by criticizing religion and how any particular church has been wrongly imposing its personal doctrines on all people, I would expect him to consistently vote not in accordance with the beliefs of any particular religion but for the benefit of all people–faithful or not. I expect him to shun all attempts by religion to assert its own dogma to the detriment of other faiths or those with no faith at all.

I understand that the president is a septuagenarian and has perhaps been exposed to strong religious influence early on in his life, especially on gender stereotypes. But on the other hand, he has been consistently asserting the separation of the church and the state. In fact, during the campaign period, he promised to support same sex marriage during his term. The recent news therefore came as a total surprise.

I support same sex marriage, as we all should, as a matter of common interest and equal protection. The Philippines is not a Catholic country and no one religion has monopoly over state policies. The Reproductive Health Law was passed despite religious opposition. The Death Penalty Bill has been passed by the House of Representatives despite religious opposition. In fact, we even have the Muslim Code of the Philippines which allows multiple marriages and divorce for Muslims! That is totally against the beliefs of the Catholic church, but it became a law and nobody complains about it. All of these, among many others, prove the fact that there is no such thing as a Catholic country. There is even no such thing as a pre-dominantly Catholic country in terms of politics. The fact is that the Roman Catholic church, despite its obvious wide expanse of membership in the country, has long ceased to have control over the political stand of its members. It is not that people do not believe in the church anymore, but people are more critical and intelligent in making their decisions. More people have learned to accept that religion does not mean supremacy. It means acceptance, tolerance and love. People have learned to accept that in order for all of us to peacefully co-exist as Filipinos, we should learn to give each other the freedom to do what he wants as long as it does not adversely affect others.

Same sex marriage is a matter of personal choice and preference of individuals. Allowing it in our country does not mean that the Catholic church now needs to solemnize same sex marriages. It merely means that anybody who believes in and wishes to enter into such an institution now have the opportunity to be recognized by our laws and can be afforded the benefits given to those who are in heterosexual marriages. It will be too lengthy to discuss the economic and social benefits brought about by legal marriage in our country, but there are plenty. That alone should be reason enough to allow same sex marriages.

The separation of the church and state is an age-old doctrine that ensures that all individuals are protected from undue domination by any religious group. Freedom and equal-protection are the battlecries of democracy and the freedom to marry whoever one wants to marry is an example of the exercise of these democratic rights. In fact, the Philippine Constitution does not limit marriage to man and woman only. As so beautifully stated by Justice Kennedy in the US Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell vs Hodges: “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”