Anti-discrimination bill will open same sex marriage MANILA, Philippines The Catholic Church raised alarm over

r an anti-discrimination bill in Senate that could possibly open same or gay sex marriages. Lawyer Ronnie Reyes of Lawyers for Life said Senate Bill 2814, the "Act Prohibiting Discrimination, Profiling, Violence and All Forms of Intolerance Against persons based on ethnicity, race, religion, belief, sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, language, disability, or other status", will allow the union of same sex. He also said that bill will amend the existing Family Code and other laws of the country pertaining to marriage. "There was no public hearing or consultation when this was approved in the third reading by the Senate... Babaguhin nito ang lahat batas under the pretension of anti-discrimination bill," Reyes said during the media forum in Greenhills, San Juan City this morning. He said the bill sought that Catholic priests who refuse to officiate marriage of homosexuals would be imprisoned. "They would also be fined up to P500,000," Reyes noted. He said that under the anti-discriminatory bill, sex change or operation would be promoted. "Nakakabahala na talaga," Reyes said. Lawyer Jo Imbong, executive secretary of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines legal department, said there is no longer need for an anti-discrimination measure since there already many statutes that protect marginalized sectors of society. She said the Church is alarmed by several provisions in the bill which chastises Church officials for teaching what is right and what is wrong. "Government should not meddle in religious doctrine and faith," Imbong said. For his part, Kabataan partylist Rep. Raymund Palatino said he supports the passage of bill is a great gift to the Filipino people. "The critics of the bill should see the bill in its entirety," Palatino said. He said that the bill has not been done or deliberated on "secrecy." "Some senators are not doing their jobs," Palatino said.

Dignidad ng Filipino masisira sa RH bill, same sex marriage

MANILA, Philippines - Masisira ang dignidad ng mga Filipino kapag patuloy na isusulong ni Pangulong Benigno Aquino III ang RH bill at same sex marriages na matagumpay na naisingit ni Senador Miriam Defensor-Santiago sa Anti-Discrmination bill sa Senado. Ito ang babala ni Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Emeritus Oscar Cruz kung saan sinasabi umano sa Bibliya na ang same sex marriages ay tuwirang sisira sa moralidad ng tao. Inihayag ng Arsobispo na ipinakita sa istorya ng Sodom at Gomorrah na ikinagalit ng Panginoon ang paglaganap ng moralidad na banta sa sangkatauhan. Pinapangunahan ng Pangulo ang pagsusulong ng RH bill na yan, divorce at same-sex marriages. Isa-isa yan, kung siya ay mananatili sa puwesto ay mayroon pa siyang apat na taon para isulong ang mga panukalang batas na nabanggit sa Kongreso. Ang totoo niyan, kapag mayroong naisabatas sa mga ito ay lalong bababa ang dignidad ng mga Filipino, ani Cruz. Sinabi ni Cruz na nakasaad sa Bibliya na ayaw ng Diyos ng same-sex union kaya niya pinaulanan ng apoy ang Sodom at Gomorrah dahil ang mga tao ay practicing homo-sexual acts. Ito marahil ang nasa kaisipan ng Santo Papa nang ihayag nito na ang same-sex union ay threat sa humanity.

Same sex marriage ayaw ng Kamara MANILA, Philippines - Mariing tinutulan ng liderato ng Kamara ang anumang posibilidad sa pagpapatibay ng batas para sa same sex marriage sa bansa. Sinabi ni House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, na mismong siya ay personal na tutol dito kasabay ng pagsasabing hindi pa handa ang bansa sa pagpapakasal ng homosexuals sa kapareho nitong kasarian. Para naman kay House Majority leader Neptali Gonzales, na ang same sex marriage sa mga Pinoy ay no-no situation at magreresulta lamang sa pagkakahati-hati ng mga Pinoy sa nasabing isyu sa halip na pagkakaisa. Giit nina Belmonte at Gonzales, nararapat lamang na panatilihin ang kasagraduhan ng kasal sa pagitan lamang ng babae at lalaki pati nang konsepto ng pamilya. Sa kabila nito, nilinaw naman ng mga lider ng Kamara na hindi sila anti-gays o lesbian dahil marami naman umano sa mga ito ang produktibo at karapat-dapat na bigyan ng respeto.

House Republicans add gay marriage measure to defense bill WASHINGTON -- Wading into the gay marriage debate, the Republican-led House tacked a provision banning same-sex marriages at military chapels onto a sweeping defense bill that is now headed to the Senate. Despite the high-octane public discussion over gay marriage that has intensified since President Barack Obama announced his support for same-sex marriages, the issue has been one that Capitol Hill has largely sought to avoid. But the GOP majority led Congress into the issue by adding the same-sex marriage prohibitions to the defense bill. The annual National Defense Authorization Act, approved Friday on a 299-120 vote, is a traditionally bipartisan effort that can prove difficult for lawmakers to oppose. The bill includes a 1.7 percent annual pay raise for the troops but also is loaded with politically charged extras. In passing the $554 billion measure, lawmakers broke the budget agreement Congress made last summer with the Obama administration - beefing up military spending $8 billion beyond the agreed-upon limit. The White House threatened a veto. Intense debate surrounded a bipartisan amendment to prevent the indefinite detention of terrorist suspects, including U.S. citizens or those captured or detained in the U.S. It was rejected. Instead, the House agreed to prohibit the transfer of military detainees from the facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States, and approved a provision reaffirming that all detainees have the right to a trial. The bill addresses gay marriage with two provisions. One would ban performing gay marriages on any facility owned by the military. Another would protect military chaplains from punishment if they declined to marry a gay couple. The Department of Defense had opened the door to gay weddings on bases in a memo last September after Congress repealed the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which barred gays from openly serving in the military. The policy change said chaplains were allowed to perform same-sex marriages but noted they could not be required to. It is not clear whether any ceremonies have yet been performed in military chapels. "Liberals may have successfully ended 'don't ask, don't tell,' but they should not be allowed to force members of our military to give up their religious beliefs," said Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., who wrote one of the gay marriage provisions, in a statement. "That is simply unacceptable and unconstitutional." The Pentagon memos noted that the ceremonies must not be prohibited by "applicable state and local law." Gay-rights activists argued that does not prevent a base in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriages from being used to hold a ceremony if the license is obtained in a state that does allow it. Same-sex marriages are not honored across all state lines. But the defense bill could halt that process, and now says bases "may not be used to officiate, solemnize, a marriage, or marriage like ceremony" that is not between a man and a woman. The Obama administration called the provisions "troublesome and potentially unconstitutional." Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, called it an attack on gay service members. Gay-rights groups said they were monitoring the defense bill closely, and expected that the Senate, where Democrats have the majority, would not allow the gay marriage restrictions to stand.

The House worked into the early morning hours this week on the bill, which sets broad military policy for the year. The legislation authorizes the nation's weapons systems, including a new ground-based military defense system for the East Coast. The detainee issue exposed continued divisions within the GOP on civil libertarian issues. Nineteen Republicans, largely tea-party-aligned freshmen and veteran conservatives, joined Democrats in the unsuccessful attempt to ensure terrorism suspects are not indefinitely held.

Gay party set to make new bid for Congress MANILA, PhilippinesLadlad, said to be the worlds only LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) political party, on Friday formalized its new attempt to gain a seat in the House of Representatives in next years party-list elections. Ladlad chair emeritus and college professor Danton Remoto also announced he would run for the Senate next year. I dont want to run but people are asking me to do so, Remoto said, adding that negotiations with at two or three political parties for a slot in their senatorial slate were still ongoing. We will finalize it in the next few weeks, he added. Remoto, however, said he would definitely not run under the ruling Liberal Party (LP). Remoto, who ran unsuccessfully for the Senate in 2010, blamed the LP for his loss, adding that he, along with former labor undersecretary Susan Ople, were promised to be included in the LP slate but the party changed its mind. Accompanied by Ladlad members wearing pink shirts and a group of ati-atihan dancers, Remoto and Ladlad chair Bemz Benedito filed the groups manifestation of intent to participate in the 2013 polls at the Commission on Elections (Comelec) main office in Manila. However, the receipt of the groups papers were held in abeyance because of incomplete documents, which the Ladlad leaders promised to complete on Monday. This is a historic moment for us, since the Comelec is no longer in the way of our journey to victory in the elections, the way it used to. I had to file a suit against the Comelec in 2010 so the Supreme Court could finally allow us to run. Now, victory looms clear in the horizon, Remoto said. Tapping the community The Ladlad leaders said they hope to secure at least two seats in the House by tapping into the LGBT communitys voters which they estimated at around four million. The party-list group needs at least 1.5 million votes to secure at least one seat. Next years party-list race is also the second and last chance for Ladlad to win; otherwise it would be delisted as a party-list group in accordance with election law. However, Remoto said with a longer preparation time, Ladlad has a bigger change to win this time.

Before we only had three weeks to campaign before the elections. Now, one year before the elections we want to make our presence known. Im confident we would be able to win at least two seats in Congress, he said. In the 2007 and 2010 elections, the Comelec denied Ladlads registration as a party-list groupin the first time, for insufficient membership; and in the second, for being immoral. In January 2010, the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order against Comelec and ordered Ladlads name included on the ballot. Three months later, the high court voted to reverse Comelecs prohibition for Ladlad to participate in the party-list race. An open-minded society Our campaign is not just for LGBTs. We want a society that has an open mind, Benedito, a sociologist, said, adding that Ladlad now has more than 60,000 members, all registered voters, nationwide. Ladlads platforms include support for the passage of the Anti-Discrimination Bill; setting up of livelihood centers for LGBTs who are poor and persons with disabilities; support for LGBT-friendly businesses; setting up of homes for the aged LGBTs as well as centers for information dissemination on legal, psychological and HIV-AIDS issues. Aside from Benedito, other nominees of the party-list group are lawyers Germaine Leonin and Raymond Alikpala; and Wilfredo Villocino, an officer of the Gender and Development Office of Davao City. Remoto and Benedito clarified that Ladlad does not advocate same-sex marriage. He said the group is focused on giving equal rights in schools, the workplace, and to people seeking licenses to practice their professions. Meanwhile, the Ladlad leaders welcomed the apology offered by boxing champ Manny Pacquiao amid criticism over his remarks against same sex marriage in the United States. Benedito and Remoto, however, said they thought the apology was not really genuine and might have been prompted by threats of pullout by Pacquiaos international sponsors

Same-Sex Marriage: The Social and Psychological Implications of Policy and Debates Proposition 8 in the 2008 California general election may have been a turning point in the debate over civil marriage rights for same-sex couples in the United States. California's Proposition 8 was unique in that a majority of voters in that state approved the discontinuation of the right to civil marriage already exercised by over 18,000 same-sex couples. The resulting legal limbo created by the passage of Proposition 8 highlighted the inequality to which same-sex couples are subject. California was the 29th state to pass an amendment to the state constitution by a vote of the citizens to define marriage as between one man and one woman. And, like the Stonewall Riots in New York City in 1969, Proposition 8 provided a flashpoint in an ongoing political and cultural struggle over the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual (LGB), and same-sex partnered individuals in civil society. The battle over same-sex marriage, being waged not just in California but throughout the United States and countries around the world, has become so passionate and at times filled with vitriol that it is often referred to as a culture war (e.g., Gallagher & Bull, 1996). One side of this debate frames the issue as one of equality

and justice. For example, proponents of marriage equality in the United States and South Africa point to the constitutional promise of the equal protection of laws for all citizens as the foundation for the fundamental right to marry a person of one's choosing (without regard to the sex of the partners). Proponents in other countries, such as the Netherlands, point to fundamental rights of privacy and equality. Opponents of marriage equality question the normality and/or morality of persons who are involved in samesex relationships or who identify as LGB, sometimes using religious arguments. This side stigmatizes LGB individuals and same-sex relationships to maintain heterosexual privilege within the social and institutional power structures. For example, gay men and lesbians have been portrayed as modern-day fascists who are seeking to encroach on the rights of others (Smith, 1997). This theme has been featured prominently in recent campaigns in the United States to ban same-sex marriage where it was suggested (falsely) that proponents of gay marriage want to change what is taught in school and what is permissible in churches (Leal, 2008). Whether extending, protecting, restricting, or denying rights to LGB individuals and their families, whether in the United States or other nations, each policy has a measurable impact on individuals. Even before the policy is voted on or implemented, the public debates over rights for LGB individuals or the right of civil marriage for same-sex couples affect the psychological health and well-being and social relations of LGB individuals, same-sex couples, their families, friends, and communities. It is these psychological and social impacts that we explore in this volume.

Legal Struggles and Political Resistance: Same-Sex Marriage in Canada and the USA This article explores the nature of legal struggles surrounding same-sex marriage in the USA and Canada, focusing specifically on the ways in which the cultural power of law is used to frame claims of injustice and to develop strategies of political resistance. Drawing on theoretical perspectives from the literatures on 'law and social movements' and 'legal consciousness', the article compares the claims-making discourse and strategies of same-sex couples seeking access to legal civil marriage in the USA and Canada. Based in part on interviews with same-sex couples, lawyers and political activists, the article demonstrates the ways in which the claims of law have been used to frame political strategies in places where same-sex marriage is 'illegal', the ways in which claims of legal equality are enacted, produced and explained by same-sex couples, and the ways in which equality discourse is deployed as a strategic political resource in the struggle over same-sex marriage.

Same-Sex Marriage and Religion: An Inappropriate Relationship Morals Legislation In 1986 the case Bowers v. Hardwick reached the Supreme Court. This case addressed the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy statute, which made oral and anal sex illegal even when between consenting adults, under which Michael Hardwick was convicted when he was found engaged in homosexual sodomy. Hardwick's case evolved into whether or not there was a fundamental right to homosexual sodomy, even though the Georgia statue applied to all acts of sodomy and not sodomy specifically between people of a certain sexual orientation. Thus it seemed as if the Court was merely expressing a distaste for a specific type of sodomy, that between homosexuals, because they were unequally applying the law according to sexuality. Justice Byron White justified the Supreme Court's decision in his majority opinion when said that Even if the conduct at issue here is not a fundamental right, respondent [Hardwick] asserts that there must be a rational basis for the law and that there is none in this case other than the presumed belief of a majority of the electorate in Georgia that homosexual sodomy is immoral and unacceptable...The law, however, is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed. Even respondent makes no such claim, but insists that the majority sentiments about the morality of homosexuality should be declared inadequate (Bowers v Hardwick 1986). Hardwick's conviction was upheld because the Court found that there was a standing tradition of sodomy laws, there was no fundamental right to homosexual sodomy, and that the expression of morality through the law was legitimate. And this has been the argument made for morals legislation, if the expressed morality is the commonly held belief of the majority, then it is acceptable to deny any given "ick" factor. In this case, the majority of Georgians agreed that sodomy was such an "ick" factor that should be restricted. However, one the reason this form of morals legislation is unacceptable is because the morality is only being enforced against homosexuals, and not all who engage in sodomy, not to mention the majoritarianism at work. The decision made in Bowers was overturned when Lawrence v. Texas reached the Supreme Court. Unlike the statue in Bowers, this case dealt with a Texas statue that explicitly outlawed only homosexual sodomy, and the Court effectively ruled that both were unconstitutional. In the majority opinion the Justices asserted that the morals legislation used in Bowers was invalid because "the longstanding criminal prohibition of homosexual sodomy upon which Bowers placed such reliance is consistent...with an established tradition of prosecuting acts because of their homosexual character" (Lawrence v. Texas 2003). This instance of morals legislation was merely an expression of discrimination towards a certain class of people instead of distaste for the actual act of sodomy itself.Morals legislation, however, is neither illegal nor unconstitutional. When morals legislation occurs, it is merely viewed as an aspect of our democracy in which the majority voices its opinion. It is argued that it should not matter what sways our democratic vote, whether it be lessons taught to us by a parent, or values dictated by our religion or religious leaders. As American citizens we are each guaranteed a voice in the political process through the vote, however it is possible for elections and legislation to exemplify a tyranny of the majority. When this occurs, the majority opinion drowns out the concerns and needs of minorities. Essentially what results from this is that a minority group ends up being oppressed because they do not have sufficient numbers to stand up for the rights that they are seeking out. This was not the intent the Founding Fathers had when they prescribed citizens the right to vote. The democratic process of including the citizens in voting was not meant to create legislation without the legislature. We see that examples of tyranny of the majority frequently happen with ballot initiatives in state elections. Many times groups that represent the majority opinion on an issue will push through their interests using such propositions that arguably cater to the electorate's unreflective instincts, moral or otherwise. And this is what we saw happen with California's Proposition 8. Religious groups became extremely active in attempting to return marriage to being only between a man and a woman, a belief derived from their scripture. This idea is especially concerning because Proposition 8 became a part of California's state constitution, and was driven through from the efforts and views of religious groups.

Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage as Sin The most common religious argument against same-sex marriage revolves around scripture, which many faith communities believe came directly from the mouth of God, and they interpret scripture to forbid homosexuality, and by extension, same-sex marriage. The most frequently quoted piece of scripture to meet this end comes from Leviticus 18:22, cited from the New International Version Classic Reference Bible, which says "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable" (1988, 133). For many religious groups, this is the beginning and the end of the discussion. In this one statement, God declares homosexuality to be a sin, and therefore no argument over it need occur. However, using this one verse of scripture for prohibiting same-sex marriage is entirely unconstitutional. If this were the only justification they used, religious groups would be in clear violation of the American ideal of separation of church and state. Moreover, it is not a question of the religious validity of the statement, whether or not God actually spoke these words. The fact is that not all citizens abide by this scripture; it is therefore wrong to legislate by it when not all believe in it, nor is it the business of the state to try to persuade its citizens of a (contestable) religious truth. Another commonly quoted piece of scripture to argue against homosexuality and same-sex marriage is found in 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10, But what if these various "wicked" peoples are not interested in inheriting the kingdom of God? Do they still deserve to have these beliefs imposed upon them through law? This scripture condemns many others aside from homosexuals; do greedy people also deserve to have their rights revoked as citizens? Again we see the problem that not all of us agree with these beliefs. In addition, it seems that the religious are being selective from amongst the "wicked" they wish to discriminate against in the law. It is interesting to note what the next verse in 1 Corinthians 6 goes on to say "and that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (1988, 1300). I do not pretend to be a theologian, but this seems to suggest that even the "wicked" are forgiven and made clean again through Christ. If this is so, then why can't the religious groups, who claim to be extensions of that same God, forgive as well, even if those to be forgiven do not abide by the same faith? By reading on just one more verse, it seems that the same piece of scripture can also be used as motivation for the religious to in fact be accepting of homosexuals rather than condemning, as God is of all sinners. This is an idea supported by Jack McKinney, a reverend of a Baptist church in Raleigh, North Carolina. Reverend McKinney argues that as people of religious faiths, they need to be accepting and tolerant of all people, just as Jesus Christ taught. Reverend McKinney looks to the same scripture as those who are against homosexuality and same-sex marriage, but instead finds reason to support it. He even references the same book previously mentioned, a mere six chapters later. In 1 Corinthians 12: 12-13, the apostle Paul says that The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body- whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free- and we were all given the one Spirit to drink (1988, 1306). This was written at a time when men had all the power, your ethnicity determined what kind of life you had, according you some rights while giving others none. And yet Paul is saying that through Christ, all of these people are equal. According to McKinney, "Jesus and Paul are naming all the ways power has been held by certain members of society to the exclusion of others- and they are naming it a sin" (2004, 284). We can see that this has happened with several groups throughout our history, African-Americans, women, and now the homosexual community. McKinney is asserting that according to the teachings of Christ, we should get rid of such divisions of rights and power according to supposed inequalities, because in the eyes of God we are all equal.