i remember weeks ago, i caught out lesbian personality aiza seguerra on QTV's One Proud Mama. jaya asked if aiza's mom is okay with her lesbianism, and she said they passed through a lot of tough times dealing with it but now, she's fine.
but when asked about aiza marrying her girlfriend, biglang kabig si nanay caring at sabing huwag na lang. short of saying, "tama na nga na ganyan, kasal pa!" and no, hindi ito naitago ng bad editing ng show heheh (which it kinda suffers a lot from, perhaps ang hirap kumuha kasi ng matinong soundbytes from the interviewees, ano eva?).
goes to show that the mama ain't that proud of aiza's love life, after all. sad.
a US anchorman and political commentator made this comment on the approved Proposition 8, the law that would repeal the marriage rights of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders na approved na. sadly, it passed in california. and now, people like me can't marry there anymore.
i share this guy's sentiment. it's all about love. homosexuality is not a sin, a burden, a disease. it's about another decision to love someone you want to love. what's so freaking wrong about that?
kung mainlab ka sa pangit, puwede kayong magpakasal kahit magalit sa yo magulang mo (anak, ano na ang mangyayari sa lahi natin?). kung mainlab ka sa 30 years older sa yo, puwede kayo magpakasal kahit pandirian ka ng mga kapatid mo (matanda, mayaman, maapit nang mamatay? ate, bili mo ko ipod pag namatay asawa mo ha.). kung babae kang na-rape, pipilitin kang magpakasal kahit ayaw mo, mapanagutan lang ang nasa tiyan mo, at puwede kayong makasal kahit labag sa loob mo (ano na lang ang sasabihin ng mga kapitbahay kapag lumobo ang tiyan mo?). puwede ka pa ngang mainlab sa pari at siya na mismo ang didiborsyo sa kanyang sariling "marriage" kay god para makasal kayo at magkantutan hanggang lumupaypay ang titi niyang tigang (go forth and multiply, father, but learn how to give your wife an orgasm first).
paano naman kami? kung mainlab kami sa kapwa namin na gender, bawal magpakasal? bakit? hindi ba ang kasal ay ritwal ng pagmamahalan?
sige nga. ano ang gagawin mo kung IKAW ang tinanggalan ng karapatan na makasama ang mahal mo sa buhay sa habangbuhay? paano kung sabihin sa yo ng society, ng simbahan na BAWAL KANG MAGPAKASAL. BASTA.
hindi kami humihingi ng special rights. humihingi kami ng human rights na dapat lahat ng tao ay meron at i-uphold.
hindi namin dinudumihan ang sanctity ng marriage. bagkus, mas pine-preserve pa nga namin ito dahil sa seryoso kami kapag nagmahal. tapat. pangmatagalan. kaya naming i-commit ang "til death do us part."
o, sabi mo, "e kami rin a!"
kaya nga. e bakit ikaw, puwede ikasal, kami hindi?
yun na nga.
this is partly why i turned my back on catholicism and organized religion ages ago. it reeks of injustice in many counts.
think about it.
original video link here. emphasis mine.
Keith Olbermann delivered a rousing, emotional, 6-minute special comment on Prop 8 Monday night. Olbermann, who has never married, vehemently disagrees with its passage and the ban on gay marriage.
"I am not personal vested this," he said, "yet this vote is horrible. Horrible... This is about the human heart." After going through the history of marriage in the United States, and reminding viewers not only that marriage between black and white people used to be illegal in 1/3 of the country, but illegal between slaves, he made a plea for love and the spread of happiness.
"The world is barren enough... with so much hate in the world, so much meaningless division... this is what your religion tells you to do?... this is what your heart tells you to do?... You are asked to stand now on a question of love."
Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.
Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8. And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.
And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics.
This is about the... human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.
If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not... understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want -- a chance to be a little less alone in the world.
Only now you are saying to them -- no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights -- even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?
I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage.
If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal... in 1967. 1967.
The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry...black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.
You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are... gay.
And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing -- centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children... All because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage. How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?
What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.
It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.
And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?
With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness -- this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness -- share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of...love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate. You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know...It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow **person...
Just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.
This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.
But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:
"I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam," he told the judge.
"It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all:
"So I be written in the Book of Love;
"I do not care about that Book above.
"Erase my name, or write it as you will,
"So I be written in the Book of Love."
Good night, and good luck.