Liberal Party candidate Mar Roxas is certainly in the habit of making not only unfounded statements, but incomplete ones. On his televised interview with veteran journalist Mel Tiangco, Roxas bared his opposition to legalising divorce and same-sex marriage. Although he quoted some cliché platitude about the family being the foundation of society to substantiate his position on divorce, he stopped short of articulating why exactly he is opposed to same sex marriage. Instead, he said this…
Bilang public policy para sa akin ay hindi ako pabor dito. Subalit… may mga kamag-anak ako na close na close na have partners and nirerespeto ko sila, minamahal ko sila, tinatanggap ko sila, bukas-puso, bukas-loob kong ang aking pagtrato sa kanila…
Translating the above into proper intelligible English…
As far as public policy, I do not favour [same sex marriage]. But I have relatives who are very close who have partners whom I respect and love. I fully accept them open heartedly and am unreserved in my regard for them…
In short, Mar Roxas selectively respects deviant lifestyles on the basis of whether or not he has personal or filial relationships with the “offending” parties.
That figures. It sort of mirrors the way the law is applied in Philippine society.
Filipino politicians will defend the right to steal from the public coffers on grounds that these benefit the special people in their lives. But when it comes to strangers and people who are not their kababayans, it becomes a lot simpler: the law applies in full force.
The challenge for Mar Roxas is to tell the Filipino why he takes these positions. It is important that leaders are able to articulate clearly the thinking process that leads them to take one position or the other.
Are Roxas’s positions based on clear thinking that he actually took the time and effort to undertake? Or is he merely parroting some kind of party tagline or deferring lazily to the weight of culture and tradition? Only if voters ask their candidates the right questions and apply an intelligent mind to the process of evaluating how qualified they are will Filipinos get the leaders they feel they deserve.
- Philippine Opposition fails to propose ALTERNATIVES to Duterte’s “senatoriables” - April 20, 2018
- Ph employers hire college grads for work that requires only hi-school grads just because they can - April 19, 2018
- Ellen Tordesillas of Vera Files bares lack of guiding definition for “fake news” to “fact check” Facebook! - April 18, 2018
- Facebook users should be left to decide what is fake and what is authentic - April 17, 2018
- Rappler “fact checking” partnership with Facebook is turning into a FIASCO - April 16, 2018
Leave a Reply
10 Comments on "Mar Roxas will not allow divorce and does not favour same sex marriage"
He is just church-vote fishing, that spineless scum ball.
As a cultural progressive, I find it insulting that he ran under the LIBERAL banner.
Hi Benigno,
If you have time, can you please take a look at this? I find it disturbing how filipinos reason out in the discussions, please don’t post this btw.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10153435574756801&id=38395351800
Many thanks.
So what’s the point?
We all know Mar sucks at public speaking. And besides, every presidential candidate didn’t favor divorce and same sex marriage.
You know what’s even crazier? Some of them promised equal rights to LGBT people. I went like “WTF, what are they to you, foreigners or non-humans?” Apparently, LGBTs we’re not Filipino citizens because they don’t have the same rights as the straight male and female Filipinos.
No man means all he says, and yet very few say all they mean, for words are slippery and thought is viscous.
He is against divorce yet seems so unmarried to his wife. Arranged marriage of convenience, publicity/ epal. He is against same sex marriage yet seems so married to his idol Noynoy. Unified in thought , joined at the hip and who knows what else? Corpses all over the place in Tacloban did not make him cry but getting endorsed by Noynoy did. Last person who should be making value judgments for a country.