“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results,” so said Albert Einstein. Some lawmakers are intent on passing into law the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity or Expression or SOGIE Bill, notwithstanding the disastrous experience of countries that have enacted a similar law. There is no space here to detail the dangers of creating a privileged class made up of a small minority, and the resulting sense of entitlement that has resulted in destroying traditional family ties that have served humankind well and made it the dominant species. Suffice it to say that there is no lack of such information on the internet.
The recent brouhaha over the performance art of one Pura Luka Vega, where he danced to a “modernized” version of “Ama Namin,” has again brought to the fore the hazards of a SOGIE bill that places the rights of a few over those of the many. To the multitude that criticized his presentation, Vega unapologetically and loudly claimed that such was art, some sort of “intersection of queerness and religion” (whatever the hell he means by that). He even arrogantly declaimed that “that performance was not for you (meaning the Roman Catholics) to begin with” and that “(it is my experience and my expression.”
Aye, there’s the rub, to use my favorite Shakespearean paraphrase. If the SOGIE bill becomes law, all will be prohibited from “stigmatizing” members of the LGBTQ community under the pain of imprisonment or fine. However, the definition of “stigma” in the law is one of the vaguest I have ever seen in any piece of legislation: It “refers to the dynamic devaluation and dehumanization of an individual in the eyes of others which may be based on attributes that are arbitrarily defined by others as discreditable or unworthy and which result in discrimination when acted upon.” What in heaven’s name is that?
The overbreadth of that definition is such that it could be interpreted to mean that we cannot criticize anything that anyone in that community says or does, such as Vega’s performance, since our critique might discredit or dehumanize them. Under that law, we cannot call Vega — or anyone who duplicates his act — a “blasphemer.” Priests or religious preachers cannot quote certain Biblical passages that say that homosexuality is an “abomination” and that homosexuals will rot in hell, because that would make the LGBTQ “unworthy.” I don’t know, but from where I sit it looks like a law that impairs both free expression and freedom of religion.
But then, while the law can punish us for — heaven forbid! — offending the LGBTQ community, queers like Vega can feel free to offend us, trigger our sensitivities and parody our religious rituals in the name of their freedom of expression. Biological males can offend the sensitivities of biological females by freely entering toilets and locker rooms meant for the privacy of the latter, but you cannot object to such intrusions — even if you have your wife or daughter inside — because the LGBTQs would be “discriminated against.” These are only some of the logical consequences that can happen if the SOGIE bill becomes the law of the land.
In fine, the SOGIE bill is not about equality; instead, it will institutionalize the creation of a special class of people who are practically protected by the principle of lese majeste. It will provide an unwarranted shield behind which abusive members of the LGBTQ community — who are not just a few, as recent events will show — can hide in order to escape the consequences of their actions.
It may be providential that the Awra and Pura scandals happened on the cusp of the SOGIE bill’s passage. Perhaps someone up there does not want such a half-baked and soggy legislation to become law.