close encounters with the third kind
a word war seems to be brewing between inquirer columnists manolo quezon and former supreme court justice isagani cruz, jr.
it all starts with justice isagani cruz's objectionable piece complaining about how the gay and lesbian population has steadily increased in most societies, even, according to cruz, our comparatively conservative one (see "Don we now our gay apparel"). his complaint centers not so much in their increasing numbers but on the increasing acceptance of societies towards gays and lesbians. or maybe that is one and the same for him. they are "multiplying" because they have become socially "acceptable". but cruz is not about to join the bandwagon as he draws the line between those who can expect his good graces and respect and those who simply don't. the former category includes, and i quote, "...members of their group who have conducted themselves decorously, with proper regard not only for their own persons but also for the gay population in general. A number of our local couturiers, to take but one example, are less than manly but they have behaved in a reserved and discreet manner..." and his seeming contempt is reserved for, "..the vulgar members of the gay community who have degraded and scandalized it." you read his article and you know this guy is gonna get some trouble. or like we commonly say, "away ito."
shortly after, manolo quezon, who quite recently admitted to being gay, reacts to cruz's article and rightfully calls him a bigot and a hate-monger (see "The grand inquisitor"). at the same time, the gay and lesbian community is in an uproar and emails, open letters and comments did the rounds of mailing lists, blogs and not surprisingly found their way to the inquirer.
lo and behold, cruz gives back an angry retort (see "Neither here nor there") and starts to invoke the first amendment and defensively uses free expression as his shield.
for now it seems manolo has the last word in his column, "Oblivious in cloud cuckoo-land". truly, he drives home the point when he says, "Hence my strong objection to Justice Cruz’s insisting on a distinction between acceptable and unacceptable gays. There is the danger that in less discerning hands—including those wielding closed fists, those who are eager to strike a blow for normality on the faces of those who flout convention—the distinction he attempts cannot be maintained. And that even if it were, it would only ensure temporary safety for some, not all; when in their heart of hearts, all gay people are fundamentally the same because of their sexuality. And that is why his distinction is unacceptable: it divides, so that he may rule. That leaves no room for toleration or cohabitation, much less mutual respect."
if this is a continuing saga, we will soon find out.
it all starts with justice isagani cruz's objectionable piece complaining about how the gay and lesbian population has steadily increased in most societies, even, according to cruz, our comparatively conservative one (see "Don we now our gay apparel"). his complaint centers not so much in their increasing numbers but on the increasing acceptance of societies towards gays and lesbians. or maybe that is one and the same for him. they are "multiplying" because they have become socially "acceptable". but cruz is not about to join the bandwagon as he draws the line between those who can expect his good graces and respect and those who simply don't. the former category includes, and i quote, "...members of their group who have conducted themselves decorously, with proper regard not only for their own persons but also for the gay population in general. A number of our local couturiers, to take but one example, are less than manly but they have behaved in a reserved and discreet manner..." and his seeming contempt is reserved for, "..the vulgar members of the gay community who have degraded and scandalized it." you read his article and you know this guy is gonna get some trouble. or like we commonly say, "away ito."
shortly after, manolo quezon, who quite recently admitted to being gay, reacts to cruz's article and rightfully calls him a bigot and a hate-monger (see "The grand inquisitor"). at the same time, the gay and lesbian community is in an uproar and emails, open letters and comments did the rounds of mailing lists, blogs and not surprisingly found their way to the inquirer.
lo and behold, cruz gives back an angry retort (see "Neither here nor there") and starts to invoke the first amendment and defensively uses free expression as his shield.
for now it seems manolo has the last word in his column, "Oblivious in cloud cuckoo-land". truly, he drives home the point when he says, "Hence my strong objection to Justice Cruz’s insisting on a distinction between acceptable and unacceptable gays. There is the danger that in less discerning hands—including those wielding closed fists, those who are eager to strike a blow for normality on the faces of those who flout convention—the distinction he attempts cannot be maintained. And that even if it were, it would only ensure temporary safety for some, not all; when in their heart of hearts, all gay people are fundamentally the same because of their sexuality. And that is why his distinction is unacceptable: it divides, so that he may rule. That leaves no room for toleration or cohabitation, much less mutual respect."
if this is a continuing saga, we will soon find out.
posted by dizzy at
3:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home