On Filipinos’ premature celebration of the same-sex marriage win in the United States

I don’t understand why many of us have been celebrating the victory of the Rainbow Movement that happened on the other side of the Pacific, half way around the world. It must be that many dream of a Western way of life. Don’t they look at the mirror and see that they are Asians, to be more specific, Orientals? Where is our independence, our freedom to think on our own? We must be a confused lot.

Some reactions from Asian cities was to ascribe conspiracy theories to the “Obergefell v. Hodges” ruling. China, for that matter, is queasy about the message they read into the decision. They are of the opinion that when you give a hand to a minority, that minority takes your arm as well eventually, and China has to deal with all sorts of minorities. But, China may be right. If we listen to that organization composed of guys and gals who grew up in families of same-sex marriage (#SSM) settings in Canada, we will be forewarned that #SSM has more problems than what states and governments care to acknowledge and disclose. The group has been talking about the various ills of #SSM in various fora, and for that they have been fined and jailed several times since 2005, the year Canada passed a law on #SSM. It seems the law has become a trampler of freedom of speech. Well, what can you do; when you have a man-made law that goes against tradition, reason, or natural law, the only way to implement it is with an iron-fist?

Filipinos celebrate the landmark US Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage.

Filipinos celebrate the landmark US Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage.

Subscribe to our Substack community GRP Insider to receive by email our in-depth free weekly newsletter. Opt into a paid subscription and you'll get premium insider briefs and insights from us.
Subscribe to our Substack newsletter, GRP Insider!
Learn more
But, there is no need to go outside of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to see that the Obergefell decision, that won by a hairline, was earth-shaking. It is the first time that the dissenting Justices individually wrote their opinions, as opposed to just one consolidated write-up. And, the language of the dissenters were blistering. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that those who are for #SSM should celebrate for the decision because it makes available new benefits. But he added: “Do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.” He said the decision of the majority was an “Aphorism of the Fortune Cookies”, it was not a legal opinion, it was just an “act of the will”. The others had more vitriol for a judicial activism that hijacked religious terms to support irreligious objectives. I think it was Justice Scalia who practically said that the Obergefell v Hodges has brought America to the gates of hell. It was the first time that a minority of judges were in effect asking the Americans to defy the decision of the majority of judges.

I don’t know if those who have been celebrating among us want to see America go to hell, or if they want to import that hell in lieu of the hell we are already in. But if hell is what we want, why bother with an Obergefell? Isn’t it that tourism here is already geared towards prostitution (and how funny it was how we were surprised that we were surprised at, say, the Joseph Scott Pemberton incident involving a guy who is a member of the LGBT community)? Then, there is, of course, the unhampered corruption in high places as being an “acceptable system” now, not to mention other places? Don’t we merely dismiss yet another media killing with a mere shrug of the shoulders? Or how we openly welcome all sorts of gambling, like jueteng and the lottery? Are we not content that we have had our own share of major shifts in ethics and morality, and the least bit concerned that we have not been able to handle them well?

I suspect that those who have been celebrating just want to be seen as modern, whether that is good or bad. Sorry, but aren’t you suckers for fads? Here, then, lies the problem. As usual, we think in terms of form and not of substance.

Please bear in mind that while Obergefell was a tsunami alright, Americans knew it was coming. Long before the court decision, the culture already decided. For decades, there were already small tremors by changing the definitions of various aspects of culture. Marriage slowly, state by state, was allured to follow California’s initiative of allowing divorce without cause, so marriage has been redefined as anything but long-term. Then they redefined a fetus as just a lump of cells in order for a pregnant woman, without regard for the other life inside her, to say: “This is My Body.” (Isn’t it interesting that it is the same words pronounced during the Eucharist? Is there already a cooperation with an/the Anti-Christ going on if we dig deeper?) So, if some women could look at a sexual congress just as some men who look at it as a consequence-free activity, what is preventing the LGBT from enjoying the same right?

Marriage is a private matter, but the public makes it its concern because of the possibility of a new citizen coming out of it, and somebody has to be made directly responsible for that new citizen. But if children have become a minor consideration, then the civil union of people of the same sex is no different from the marriage of heterosexuals. (I don’t know if Pinoy Pride had something to do with Gay Pride — see, nobody says Hetero Pride) Thus, what is another redefinition today as that of Obergefell, even if it is of Orwellian proportion? But if we were to follow the whole thing to its logical conclusion, it now seems irrational why the public, the state, the govt should now even be concerned with something that is so private.

But be that as it may, it is the lifestyle that the Americans have chosen. In the last few decades, they have been trying to cope with the collateral damage to their society as they enjoy the benefits of social change. Americans have been trying to mitigate the undesirable sociological and psychological impacts at the same time that they have been trying to extract economic benefits from being liberal and progressive in their approach. They knew the impact of it in pedagogy and not just see it as a phenomenology, and there have been organizations that have been putting stop measures so that these cultural experiments do not get out of hand.

So, really, I don’t understand the celebration of the many among us. Our culture just does not have the sophistication that America has. Just look at our democracy. We tried to imitate America and, as a resut, we have a democracy gone haywire, because we never bothered to understand the foundation, the philosophical undergirding that underlies a working democracy. Indeed, what we have is a government run like hell by Filipinos, as Quezon predicted. We are not just at the gates of hell, we are in hell already. Can we allow a 180-degree shift in morality as America has, when we do not even know how to weigh a positive against the negatives, or a negative against the positives. (Better not move if we are stuck in quicksand, especially in a country that calls itself Catholic, and yet is one of most morally depraved of tourist destinations!)

Until we have gone up the ladder of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, I don’t think we have the ability to talk of things as complicated as the rainbow. If we are interested in nation building, our task today should be focused on segregating what is black from what is white, probably coming to an agreement on what is gray from time to time. Outside of that task, we would be screwing up our priorities.

Our latching onto the Rainbow fad as a context to how we regard the coming elections in 2016…

It does point out how shallow we have become. How can we even talk of rainbows when those who have arrogated upon themselves, as the group of Leah Navarro had, the distinction of the ones able to distinguish black from white have themselves become color blind. How can they think of themselves as white, as those that signify purity, when they always come out swinging in the yellow side. If I am supposed to be in a shirt in immaculate white and it turns out to be yellow or tainted with something yellowish, then I must have contacted something gross, something filthy, something yucky. I will have to go home and change shirts. But, the Black and White Movement doesn’t want to go home and re-assess things. They insist President Benigno Simeon ‘BS’ Aquino is white as snow, clean of any corruption. But, how can that be when he is yellow, yucky yellow, of PDAF, DAP, Malampaya, just for a starter.

While we have been wishing and wishing that we be given other choices, other than Binay, Poe, Roxas and Duterte for these front-runners seem to be tainted with shades of black, if not shades of gray – #WalaNaBangIba — I think we are beginning to realize that this is wishful thinking. If even Leah Navarro, Cayetano, Trillanes, etc., could not stop Binay, who else could stop him? Sonamagan, even B&W’s own Jim Paredes is now unwittingly, or maybe wittingly, helping Binay with his #StopBinay movement. I am beginning to think that Jim must have spent a lot of time in Kings Cross, the red light strip of Sydney, for he seems attracted to red, the campaign color that Binay has now picked. I told you, guys, we shouldn’t be talking of rainbow colors — see, we are now getting confused.

But, I must agree that Binay is an astute politician. If it were not for the fact that he has dragged his own children into the mud of a politician’s life, I think I could vote for him for he would be a fantastic CEO. UNfortunately, any father who could do that to his children would have no qualms in violating all, or any, of the Ten Commandmenta, and I would be scared of such a person.

We have now in the middle of us a golden opportunity to change 2016 into an issue driven election, rather than personality driven. The word war now going on between Malacañang and the Binay camp has given us that opportunity. But, can we pick up the gauntlet and make 2016 a meaningful exercise? I wish we all can. But, I don’t know; we are easily dazzled by rainbows and phenomenons that have nothing to do with nation building. We are even color blind even when it comes to black and white, or with bad and good.

[Photo source: @JonasBagas on Twitter.]

36 Replies to “On Filipinos’ premature celebration of the same-sex marriage win in the United States”

    1. Thank you, Grimwald. Hopefully, I could contribute something to the vision/ mission of GRP — add something, not minus. I will never be as creative and prolific as you are, though, Grimwald.

      Didn’t realize how quickly this thing was set up, and it was first time I communicated with BenignO via email. It was also first time I realize how professional he is. By way of a copy of this to him, let me say I appreciated that, man.

      1. Actually, while I am flattered by your first paragraph, I want to make something abundantly clear. I am only creative and prolific because I am, quite possibly, batshit insane.

        But beyond that, I am very pleased with your work and the way you present your idea.

        While I certainly approve of gay marriage, the fact that it has become another means of “getting high” and bandwagoning for Filipinos doesn’t sit right with me at all. I think that we, as a people, should first try to understand the situation in other countries first before imitating them. Also, I think we need to address more pressing concerns at the moment such as the BBL and the utter lack of decent presidential candidates.

        Again, welcome Add. It’s good to have you with us.

  1. We are Treating the Symptoms in our society; instead of the disease. Same sex marriages…is for homosexuals. What is next? Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide? The Right to kill yourself, when you are terminally ill.

    Anyway, we are now on “Assisted National Suicide”. With leaders, like Aquino. Presidential candidates like: Roxas, Poe, Binay, Duterte, etc..We are now on “Assisted National Suicide”…

    1. Exactly, Hayden. Maybe, it is about going back to basics, and not just copying.

      If we don’t remember the basics, we will always have a shallow foundation. And, if we have a shallow foundation, it will always seem like leaping into the dark, or like commiting suicide as you say.

    2. Hayden,
      what is your problem? Everything you mention is already available in some European countries: legal divorce, legal euthanasia, legal same sex marriage, legal abortion, legal prostitution, legal soft drugs.
      All the above are available in the Netherlands. And it didnt ruin us. Why should it ruin the Philippines?

      1. No it’s not ruining you (yet), but isn’t the Netherlands only like 80% Dutch now? That percentage will only go down every year. This is mainly thanks to the liberal movements that have swept Europe. While it’s great that many groups are getting their freedoms and should be happy, what we’re seeing is gradual genocide. Germany is also only like 80% German and the Anglo-Celts will become a minority in the UK before 2100. Here in the US whites are projected to become a minority within 30 years.

        Both Europe and America are rather supportive of open immigration, so when you combine that with loads of other liberal rights like abortion on demand, same sex marriage, and euthanasia you begin to get the picture of why modern Western civilization that was built by people of white European ancestry is slowly seeing the signs of extermination. So to say that there are no side effects happening is being a little too optimistic.

        1. Staser,
          I dont think that our Dutck laws attract poeple from other countries. Our country attracts people from other countries bec we are rich. So all those asylum seekers are just gold diggers who do not want and who will not adapt and adopt our human rights.

          Having said all this. I know that some day soon there will be a big uprising among the Dutch who will fight our government to stop allowing all those gold diggers (asylum seekers) to enter the country.
          An asylum seeker may enter the country alone but within months he wants his entire family to come over to join him. And such families are not really small but rather big. Most of tjhe asylum seekers come from African countries (Eritrea, Libya, Syria etc) and they have more or less the same culture as the Philippines. One breadwinner needs to support more families.

          We are known to be a tolerant country but only to those who will embrace our liberal, open culture.
          I personally would never flee to the Philiuppines bec the country is not liberal, its not free and its not open.

        2. So in the rush to affirm (and reaffirm) basic human rights, Western promulgators and advocates have forgotten one fundamental thing —


          Seriously, I’d expect this sort of inferiority superiority complex over biological nonsense at Metapedia, not here.

      2. @Robert Haighton:

        I have no problem. These issues will SMACK straight into our Roman Catholic Religion, and other religions; and on the “Moral Police” in our country…

        We hope there will no “civil war”…

        1. Hayden,
          Well despite everything I do know the Philippines have problems that are more important to fix first. But those problems cannot be solved by any PH government. They can only be solved by the PH individual.

        2. A government for and of the people could do a lot to cure what is wrong with the Philippines. A whole lot could be done by the government but they are perfectly willing to let the 99% scrounge like ‘untermensch’ and kill each each other. Meanwhile the government and the rest of the 1% just rob all that is not nailed down(and most of that too!) and laugh at the people whilst doing it.

  2. I am reminded of those friends who rainbowed their profile pics not knowing what it meant and reverted a few hours later upon learning the story behind the trend.
    In short, it’s goddamn hip right now to be a supporter of ss-marriage. it is apparently a reason to party! party! party! wooo hooo! Even if the impact on your country means dick. Sunday naman balik ulit lahat sa simbahan where the priests scramble to condemn the act while the sheep nod their hollow heads in agreement.

  3. Today I sat in Traffic for 10 minutes in the Bisayas, wondering what the hell was going on again , thinking some traffic accident of horrible proportions had happened as the ambulance tried to make its way through the crowd of Trikes , motorcycles and vehicles, only to be placed in front of 2 ridiculous Pinay bitches (racist? Sexist?….maybe, but a spade is a spade) arguing in the middle of the street about who hit who in a minor fenderbender…. In a society gone “batshit crazy” , where even minor things become headline news , where crimes against poor 18 year old co-eds ,whose bodies are found in bags become tabloid fodder instead of the horrible crimes that they really are, there is no hope…. I will contimue to visit, to live here a few months out of the year , but never in the city , and I will damn well explain to my half filipino child what is wrong with Filipino society, what is wrong with the lunatics who run the asylums that are called cities here , and what is right , just , and completely a better way of life in the USA… and in the mountain barangays where people help people,treat you nice (even if they still have a crab mentality to your significant other at times). The USA may have a somewhat F%^&^D up government , but damnit, its the best F%^&*(D up government in the world !

  4. It’s that inherent colonial mentality that’s been instilled upon the people for centuries. The US is seen as the paragon of modernity, civility and prosperity therefore everything that happens there, Pinoys have to be on the watch for. In fact, it really is not supposed to be a big deal in the Philippines seeing as how homosexuals enjoy relative amounts of freedom and privilege despite the prevailing Roman Catholic attitude pervading the populace, especially compared to its neighboring Asian countries up North. So yeah, what’s all the hubbub about?

  5. @Robert Haighton
    If a country is “free and open” like the Netherlands it’s going to cause immigrants to move there, illegal or not. Once you have many peoples of different ethnic backgrounds, orientations, cultural beliefs, political ideologies, and economic statuses coming to your country all those groups will start to campaign for every right and privilege in their interests. Once that happens, the majority population will be silenced and will not be allowed to speak against it in fear of being labeled racist or discriminatory. In other words, they slowly become a minority in their own country as it transforms into nothing but a liberal secular cesspool with no real heritage, culture, or standards. It then leads to more liberalization of virtually everything in society.

    This is slowly happening here in the US, as well as Britain, France, and other European countries. It’s happening in all predominantly white nations and causing whites to depopulate annually. The global liberal agenda have successfully eliminated the old world Christian cultures, and now they’re targeting the white race and the traditional white family for extermination. I’ll keep this all in mind the more Indonesians, Turks, Moroccans, and other Third World peoples begin to immigrate more into the Netherlands and breed out the Dutch year by year. The fact that you also legalized all those other liberal policies further aggravates the problem.

    1. Staser,
      Our – the Dutch – problem is that we are too lenient with asylum seekers. At some point they (the asylum seekers) are done in/with all the juridicial things (they exhausted all legal remedies/avenues). From that point/moment onwards they have to be exported to their home country. But what does the national Dutch police do? Not much. So the asylum seekers enter an illegal status and start to roam/wander/ramble/stray through Dutch cities.
      From a social point of view, some have the view we have to offer those BBB (bed, bath and breakfast). This “responsibility” is laid down to the city where those asylum seekers roam in.

      Of course, I do see your point(s) and that is evidently a doom scenario. Personally, I cant think that will ever happen. We may look tolerant on the surface but deep down inside we can be very racist.
      Although racist may not be the right word to use; all we want is that any foreigner wil and MUST adapt and adopt to our individual human rights (self-determination, religion is something private so pls dont bother me with your religion, self-culture, etc etc).

      Finally, when I cant feel and be Dutch in my own country, I will most likely migrate to France, Denmark, Sweden, Germany maybe even Scotland.

      1. @Robert Haighton
        I read in an article that more Dutch are leaving the Netherlands than there are returning. There are also less Dutch having families. By migrating to another country you are also contributing to the slow end to the character of that nation. I can’t help but feel that this was all planned from the start, to force all of Europe to unknowingly destroy their own individual cultural identities, and ultimately just mix altogether (along with immigrants) to just form a “European”. This is happening without anyone realizing it.

        That’s the path white countries are heading towards and I think it’s a terrible fate. The EU was a scam. Multiculturalism, globalization, and liberalism have all been scams. What’s it going to take for the Dutch to become more conservative, more nationalistic, and fight for their existence and heritage? When their population is down to 50% in their own country over the next several decades? In any case, I wish the best for the Dutch and the rest of Western civilization against liberalism’s global homicidal agendas.

        As for my fellow Filipinos, if you want to copy the kinds of liberal freedoms that America and Europe have then go ahead and try. But I hope you will understand what the effects you are going to face will be. How will you handle it? What measures will you take? Legalizing same sex marriage would only be the beginning. Always remember that the more you give rights and privileges to minority groups, the only thing they’ll want is more and more and more because you’ll have to make everybody happy. And then who gets marginalized? The majority and the very country they’ve built. It’s a challenge, so it’s something worth seriously thinking about.

        1. Staser,
          not sure if what I am about to say is contradicting other statements made by me. I think most Dutch people’s mind is “where ever I lay my hat, is my home”. As long as they (and I) can live comfortably then it surely complies to me.

          I am not not nationalistic and I am certainly not conservative and not old-fashioned. Let me give you a simple example: if you want to burn the Dutch flag, I wont get angry with you, I wont kill you, I wont even hate you.
          I see it very simple: I was born out of Dutch parents and on Dutch soil. And that makes me Dutch (big deal). My parents shaped and formed me till I was about 16 years old. And I was shaped of course in a complete Dutch culture (with hardly any non-EU foreigners).
          But when one is able to travel, his eyes open up and thats how and when I started to adapt and adopt a more global vision. Travelling made me also realise how fortunate we are, to live in a full democracy with lots of freedom and to be rich (not only monetarily).

          What shaped me most, is the emphasize that change can and will only happen from within. Also my government will only change laws from protest from its Dutch citizens but before that we already changed our culture multiple times (things I dont see happening in the Philippines. They are all passive and want the government only to give to them).

          Like I said, where ever I lay my hat, is my home. So eventually, I will sell everything here, burn my ships and migrate to another country. Thank god (pun intended), I can afford doing that. If the government wont close the borders, then they drive out their most influential citizens. Unfortunetely, its not that easy being a EU-member to just shut down the border. The EU wont allow it probably. Being a member of EU is not always a benefit and gain.

        2. Staser,
          one other important thing. In general we – the Dutch – are not very family centered/focused/oriented. We are far more self-centered. Hence, the expression “where ever I lay my hat …”.
          And all this comes because we are raised that way. We (sons and daughters equally) are raised to be independent, autonomous, critical etc etc. I think our way is complete opposite to the PH way.
          Thats why, there is no ONE (1) dutch culture. Every Dutch person differs from the other. Even within one family you will find different opinions about one and the same issue. And you will find different personalities within one family. This comes very clear during election time where everyone within one family can vote for a different political party.

    2. Staser, (just to add)
      I guess you probably know this but still. An asylim seeker needs to obtain the official status of being a refugee. But I dont know the requirements for that. Maybe he is gay in a country that doenst tolerate gays at all. Maybe he is coming from a country in a civil war and just wants to escape the war. Maybe he is a Christian and not certain he will live the next day courtesy of ISIS. And maybe there are a lot of real gold digers among them. In all cases they never have any ID/Passports or whatever on them.
      They arrived by boats in either Greece or Italy and they paid a huge fee to human traffickers who facilitate their “escape”.
      As you probably know Greece is on the brink of a complete bankruptcy. So all refugees will continue their journey to West Europe, mostly illegal because Greece police cant and wont stop them (NIMBY = not in my back yard).

    3. Liberal secular cesspool here.

      It’s funny how no white supremacist (you yes YOU) ever bitches about the fate of Native Americans after Columbus. Then the European takeover was far more total than is the case now with your betes noires — see the total American Indian populations or lack thereof in most Caribbean nations and certain South American countries, also see the spiels made early last century about the supposed extinction of the Indian in the continental United States — and yet no one of your persuasion has stood up for them and their right to retake what was theirs.

      Probably because they’re too brown for comfort.

      It’s crazy how it’s the twenty-first century and some people are still this stuck up over skin color, so much so that one of them — no, one of YOU — can have the gumption to walk up a church and shoot and kill people.

      1. Dude, look around you. The world order today and the racial stock of the dominant groups ruling today reflect the characteristics of the winners — even in the Philippines. The majority of Filipinos, in fact, are a conquered people even before the Spaniards came. Indigenous people in what was to be the Philippine archipelago were marginalised by immigrant settlers coming from the Asian mainland and surrounding southeast Asian islands. Today Tagalogs lord it over the whole nation imposing their dialect on the rest of what is now known as “the Philippines”.

        It is just a pecking order, see. At the top of that order are the people who had the smarts, organisation skills, technology, and brawn to win the most wars and hold on the longest to the biggest chunks of territory.

        There’s no racial conspiracy going on here. It’s just human history. We may now pontificate about how every individual in the species Homo Sapiens has a “right” to “equality”. But think for a moment if a member of the Neanderthal species were alive today? He’d probably be whining about Sapiens Supremacy and how our “evil” ancestors mercilessly butchered them and seized their hunting grounds to which they, supposedly, had “rights” over.

        1. “Dude, look around you.”

          Dude, I’ve been looking around me. Hearing around me. Reading around me. I don’t see races — I see people. Different religious and political persuasions. Different sexual preferences. Different social standings. Different skin colors. Different cultures. But still Homo sapiens sapiens, from the tips of their pubic hairs to the chemical composition of the hormones secreted by their pituitaries.

          “We may now pontificate about how every individual in the species Homo Sapiens has a “right” to “equality”.”

          And now we will pontificate, no matter how many times we backslide and bend over — for most of us have moved on from the concept of society as a racial hierarchy, if not from the concept of “race” itself as something other than a limiting social construct, an accident of morphology conflated to Holocaust proportions.

          “But think for a moment if a member of the Neanderthal species were alive today?”

          If a troop of Neanderthals (or Homo habilis, whatever) were discovered alive today, we’ll all be happily surprised and abashed at the prospect of meeting our evolutionary brethren (not least because religious fundamentalists of all stripes can now eat crow), then we’ll try and accommodate them the best we can, which may or may not mean bringing them up to speed with the latest in twice-wise technology and whatnot. For that’s how we roll these days, or at least that’s in the zeitgeist. Not extermination of supposed outgroups, but tolerance and accommodation.

        2. “Coulda fooled me, @Pallacertus. You’re the one who first played the “White Supremacist” card here following posts from other commenters that laid out facts and insights without having to resort to labeling people.”

          What now — I can’t call a white supremacist a white supremacist, benign0? I told you I’ve been reading around. You can take a casual stroll at Metapedia and see all these and more. You can go to the website of the Council of Conservative Citizens just as Dylann Roof did, and be exposed to prattle about white achievements prerogatives insecurities.

          It doesn’t matter to me if the statistics staser cites are true — matters of governance are not matters of skin color. Mugabe isn’t a terrible president because he’s black; nor is Olof Palme a great prime minister because he’s white.

        3. I’m not saying you can’t @Pallacertus. All I’m saying is you did — which contradicts what you said; that you don’t see races, only “people”.

          If you think there is white supremacism going on here, that’s your opinion and your position to defend. And so far, you don’t seem to be mounting a credible defense of that position seeing your crybaby style of argumentation.

        4. @ Benigno, IDK if you are referring to the world or the Philippines, but, in world terms, the ‘There’s no racial conspiracy going on here.Its just human history’ remark sounds a bit naive/out of touch with reality. The fact is, much of human history is exactly that, a ‘Racist conspiracy’.
          I do not have to elaborate on this do I ?

  6. Most of our countrymen see the US as a leader! So with same sex marriage aka “marriage equality” being allowed by the US SC denying each US State the right to decide for themselves. Most of them celebrating as they think the Phil. will be next to follow!

    1. Filipinos are foolish if they believe the US is a worthy leader in anything nowadays. America has officially killed state sovereignty and have abandoned the US Constitution ever since they’ve been waging foreign wars without congressional approval.

      Here in the US the federal government has grown so much power it’s out of control. The liberal agenda has completely hijacked American society and is forcing everyone to accept multiculturalism, illegal immigration, abortion, homosexuality, affirmative action, gun control, pro-semitism, and all forms of political correctness. At least 20 states are having secessionist movements.

      Just like what has happened to Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, once the global liberal forces are finished dismantling all the white nations and everything they’ve built they’ll be targeting the Arab world and then East Asia next for cultural extinction.

  7. Ohwow, another GRP writer that will help necessitate thinking hehe. Great article.

    “Do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”

    Indeed. The constitution is for all and not just for minorities. And first and foremost, those in power and the people should defend the society by making measures that would keep it intact not what will cause its divide.

  8. Just to add something important.

    How the heck could the Supreme Court here in the Philippines allow same-sex marriage when the next thing you know, the Catholic Church would intervene and say “Don’t allow this to happen, SC.”? It is very unclear that such event would happen here because the LGBT community here is currently under fire by Philippine society per se, and they would feel the wrath of the straight men and women not by just words, but by force.

    How could PH society accept these kind of people if close-minded people come and deprive the LGBT people for either the sake of protecting themselves (the close-minded ones) or because it is unacceptable to be with those ‘lepers’?

    I strongly doubt that same-sex marriage would win here in the Philippines. 🙁

  9. I like your take on this. The problem with Justice Kennedy’s language is that it’s very political and worse, emotive (to the point of ad misericordiam) rather than a rigorous elucidation of their constitution based on legal reasoning. I also find that it seems on the other extreme, it pushes, as some (libertarians who say that the state should not be in the business of marriage at all) might call an “antiquated” view of marriage. Very odd. It was a weak romantic case that has really elevated a right to state-sanctioned marriage. Very odd indeed.

    With regards to your discussion about whether marriage is a private or public matter, Chief Justice Roberts notes that “the privacy cases [such as Griswold, Lawrence] provide no support for the majority’s position, because petitioners do not seek privacy. Quite the opposite, they seek public recognition of their relationships, along with corresponding government benefits. Our cases have consistently refused to allow litigants to convert the shield provided by constitutional liberties into a sword to demand positive entitlements from the State.”

    People (and the majority) also keep comparing it to Loving v Virginia when it is historically, at the very least (I would argue that even in substance, it isn’t similar at all), with respect to the attitudes of the people and their state governments, vastly different. Chief Justice Roberts dissent may have implied this difference in saying that “…the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States…” 31 of which had enshrined through legislatures the traditional natural view of marriage as one man and one woman, these laws were struck down by their district courts and appeals courts, the SCOTUS rejected these states’ appeals until the sixth circuit ruled for the states under them. This brought them to today’s 5-4 decision. whereas in Loving, only 17 states remained having anti-miscegenation laws, also note that most of the states repealed these laws on their own, they were not struck down by the courts. Furthermore, the SCOTUS decision was unanimous or 9-0.

    Anyway, it’s really a tsunami as you say, very wide in scope, that’s what makes it so troubling coming from five lawyers in black robes – hardly a representative cross section of the American people says Justice Scalia. More cases will reach the SCOTUS for sure following this, similar to Roe v. Wade 40 years ago, many people say. Let’s see how they pick up the pieces moving forward.

    However, I sympathize with Justice Kennedy in a way, because I suppose this helps make policy-making consistent across the nation and he just had to be consistent with his previous opinions in Romer, Lawrence and a bit of Windsor (the animus part). Justice Scalia called him on his inconsistency with the Windsor decision on grounds of Federalism (I knew someone sharp enough would remind us of that the majority opinion there devoted 7 pages to a discussion on Federalism) and that I am also reminded on his dissent in Hollingsworth (Proposition 8) which is consistent with the Justice Kennedy who wrote the first parts of Windsor, saying that he being an Angelino (Los Angeles resident), “the majority does not take into account the fundamental principles or the practical dynamics of the initiative system in California,” which, like 26 other states, “uses this mechanism to control and to bypass public officials—the same officials who would not defend the initiative.” (Justice Sotomayor even joined him there).

    And like you also rightly observe, this is something we cannot say we never saw coming, no-fault divorce, abortion and many other laws and decisions have brought them to today. Ah so much to discuss here, not even touching on the ideas of representative democracy, a republic, and many other political issues involved.

    Well, I guess back here at home we just have to have to be clear what we mean when we say “marriage” that it is, as the state recognizes for its purposes, a life-long union of one man and one woman to be husband and wife to each other and father and mother to their children. The state recognizes that more than just a unique biological union that produces new citizens, it is best environment in which these new citizens are nurtured, and the people, through the state, do not and should not want anything less.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.