They have a right to love

 

Some say that the law is reason free from passion. However, the right to pursue our passions has been the most legislated and debated issues in many legal systems around the world. Despite our intrinsic need to fulfill our burning desires and our self-charted destinies, barriers exist on paper that bind us to mediocre and uniform lives.

For instance, the rights to free speech, to an education, and to free enterprise are heavily bound by a net of bureaucracy, of rules and regulations, of minutiae and requirements. And these are basic rights. But how about the most intrinsic right, which is that of identity? Do all men have an equal right to assert who they are and what they believe in?

 The best prototype for this is homosexuality. On this issue, the divisions of religious and secular society run deep, and are reflected in the law. Such are the ironies of democracy that even in nations that espouse “tolerance” and “freedom from discrimination”, the right to marry is curtailed, the right to be a parent is stopped, and the right to be recognized by the law is prohibited. Society reacts in oxymoronic ways named with equally oxymoronic titles, such as the Defense of Marriage Act signed by Bill Clinton in 1996 which actually shuts down legal recognition of marriage from one state to another and by US federal government. Even the Boy Scouts of America, an organization that is supposed to “prepare young people to make ethical  and moral choices”, is currently in a row with Philadelphia over discriminatory screening policies. On the other hand, the bias against gay rights may not be as covert as these. They can be as outright and shamelessly direct as any other advocacy (like this petition), or use political propaganda such as linking homosexual advocacy to communism. Many have invoked religious reasons for opposing gay rights.

On the other hand, the gay and lesbian rights movement (the more politically correct term, though, is the LGBT movement) has reacted strongly to these assaults on their culture. In the long history of the rights movement, there is a sprinkling of successes among failures, including the striking down of anti-sodomy laws, establishment of anti-discrimination laws in the employment setting, the conferment of lesser forms of recognition (which they feel are still partial), domestic benefits, and even adoption rights. The number of same-sex marriage households is growing with the last census showing more than half a million in the United States. The numbers represent the clout of the LGBT community, which is important especially when it comes to setting the electoral agenda of presidential candidates ,who have to walk on eggshells to appeal to both the liberal and conservative commnities. Around the globe, there is a trend of liberalization of same-sex unions ranging from full recognition, to celebration in various media. In fact, these trends of normalization show how legal recognition of homosexuality has become less of a polarizing factor in different societies.

 So, how should state react to this? How should a liberal democracy handle the issue?

 

Of course, one has to consider the premises of the law first. Many countries already have conceded to the need for changes in the treatment of people in different social strata. The recognition of this problem is rooted in the belief that all men are equal, all men deserve equal treatment. Here, we establish the first crucial conclusion: homosexuals are human. As different as you or I may be from a homosexual, they exist in the same sphere of humanity as you and I. From here, it becomes easier to argue that they deserve the same rights as anybody else, including the the right to marry and the right to adopt children.

 

A sociological approach to the argument would have to take into account the considerable opposition that exists against LGBT rights. How can a homosexually tolerant state be democratic when the majority of people oppose fundamental gay rights? In answering this question, we look at historical examples, such as the emancipation and suffrage movements in the past. Even at present, tolerant communities do not experience the “difference” all that much. In fact, it is in intolerant communities that gay hate crimes proliferate. But even these statistics have remained stable over the past decade. Even Charles Howard, a famous gay hate crime victim, would have approved. So, why should the freedom of the minority be oppressed at the behest of the majority? Why should laws repress gays when it is others who have a problem with them and not vice versa? Is there intrinsic harm to being gay anyway (as asserted by Muslims, Catholics, and other “family protectors“)? The only way you’d have to be really affected by a homosexual is if you are one yourself… and that doesn’t augur well for critics. In fact there is a study on homosexual arousal among homophobics. State should exist to protect vulnerable populations. The potential violence of a closed-minded majority should not force governments back into the closet of intolerance.

 

On a personal note, I don’t force everyone to be heterosexual. I don’t force my morals on others. But I can preach them. I stand for tolerance and understanding for this is the only way that dialogue can occur, the only way we can reach out to them.

In the end, we should not fear the homosexual community’s right to love. While some guys fall for girls, other girls like girls, and other guys go crazy over guys. But if you notice, homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder. Homophobia is.

Rebellion: Is Independence A Lost Hope?

Kosovo is finally having its elections. This brings up an interesting topic on the success of rebellion as a tool for independence. 

The fracturing of Western colonial empires has brought about the emergence of new, independent countries. Usually hard fought with revolutions in their various forms, nations have carved out for themselves their own territory, with their own military, and established their own state. Revolution was the battle cry of the time, and it was radical, and it was beautiful.

 As time passed though, the changing state of nations have made segments of their populations realize the need for further divisions, for new states to emerge. When their requests weren’t heeded by inherently defensive and territorially static governments, they turned to rebellion.

People joining rebellions have various reasons. One is ethnicity. The Kurds of Iraq have asked for an independent Kurdistan (actually, Kurdistan covers several countries). Albanian Kosovars want to be freed from the clutches of Serbia. Muslim Mindanao have asked for a separate state in the Philippines. Despite the fluid definition of “nation”, it seems these movements refuse to be percolated with their fellow citizens. The claim of ethnic differences hearken to deep insecurities held by these groups against the prevailing, “dominant” race or religion. They conjure up feelings of oppression, repression, and discrimination that were the lifeblood of revolutions in the past. They spark rebellion in these countries.

These make us ask two things: First, is rebellion the solution? Second, is independence the solution?

Rebellion comes in different forms, depending on the state of the government’s controlling apparatus. In more controlling states with the capability to enforce that control (such as Russia, China and Singapore), rebellion is merely voiced out in various media, only to be clamped down on by the government. In states without the capability to defend the governing apparatus, armed movements gain control over sections of territory. This is what is seen in Africa’s rebellions in Ethiopia, the Congo, and Uganda, to name a few. The same can be said of Asia’s revolutions such as the Philippines, Nepal, Thailand, Sri Lanka and several others. In countries where the state is not as controlling, but has the potential to be so, rebellions come in the form of a dynamic opposition using available legal means to pursue their interests. Good examples include Canada’s Quebecois independence movement, the USA’s American Indian lobbies, and the now pacified IRA in the United Kingdom.

Using a more practical analysis, it seems that rebellions without the full capacity to win their independence have detrimental effects to their country and to their cause. A resurgent and vengeful government would throw its military might at them, cutting down their numbers, repressing their freedoms, and fueling even more of the discontent and oppressive feelings that sparked rebellion in the first place. But when that government doesn’t have enough of the military muscle to accomplish its crackdown, chronic tit-for-tat battles take place lasting for decades and resulting in more detriments for the population than both the government or the rebels. Africa itself is a model for this, with rebels having the gall to attack UN peacekeepers who are tiptoeing around, reluctant to use force that may aggravate the situation and result in their ejection from the country. Active recruiting of children into the army is also a common occurence, teaching them how to accomplish the killing, the raping, and the pillaging of warfare.

Rebellions that are successful, though, result in the creation of new countries and the establishment of new governments. At this point, we have answered the first question. Rebellion is only a solution if there is enough bite to back its bark.

But this leads us to a more complicated question: Is independence really the solution?

A new government has a multitude of problems. Being a neophyte in governance, the fledgeling state has no credits in National Management 101, and frequently bungles up its job. One thing it doesn’t do well on is the establishment of viable industries. East Timor is an example of a country tied up so much in economic deals that try to please its more powerful trading partners, that it barely has any GNP left to spend on its own development. Bangladesh is wallowing in poverty, as is Pakistan, from which it gained independence. Other Asian countries, though, are proving that it is possible to learn fiscal discipline. South East Asian countries have shown their resilience post-independence, and even post-1997, when a regional economic crisis occured. The Philippines has the best performing currency in Asia this year, and Vietnam is developing at a rate second only to China.

Of course, economics is not the be all and end all. Democratization, which seems to be the byword in governance in this era, is crucial. Governments have to balance the establishment of security and control over their newly acquired territories, with the expectations of the international community and their own citizens as to their rights and freedoms. It is here that the issue becomes prickly. Juntas in different countries (such as in Thailand, Pakistan, Burma/Myanmar) seem reluctant to let go of their newly acquired power. In a time ripe for political opportunism, oppositionists quickly rise to criticize their governments, drunk too on their newly acquired freedoms. A government has to balance all interests, lest they commit the same mistakes the previous government made, and spark new revolutions in unstable times.

These concerns, along with the growing trend toward the promotion of politicoeconomic stability have downplayed the need for independence, and hence, for rebellion. The internationalization of tolerance and the increasing use of the negotiation table by governments have quelled many rebellions by satisfactory deals. The IRA, for instance has laid down its arms in favor of reforms in representation in the United Kingdom. The MNLF has given up secessionism in favor of a measure of autonomy in the southern Philipppines.

Sometimes, the moderation of formerly rebellious groups has sparked a reactionary radicalism, new movements that aspire to “purer ideals” with no compromise or wavering. The infamous kidnapping group, the Abu Sayyaf, is a spawn of the MNLF in the Philippines. In what is arguably a rebellious movement seeking independence, the Palestine Liberation Organization has split into so many factions, moderate and armed, that makes it difficult for others to negotiate with them.

Thus, in the end, there is no real answer as to whether independence is a solution because it all depends on the change that happens. A new government must prove itself able and willing. It must maintain the principles of its revolution. It must conform to internationally-conceded standards of governance. It must quell other rebellions and security threats.

In short, it must be Machiavellian.