Last August 12, 2006, former supreme court justice and PDI (Philippine Daily Inquirer) columnist Isagani Cruz penned an opinion entitled “Don we now our gay apparel” presenting an argument against what he perceived as a “gay invasion.”
The opinion column solicited much uproar especially in the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) community. PDI columnist Manuel L. Quezon III responded what some supporters of the LGBT community called “a scathing reply” to Cruz’s column. The former justice came back with a justification of what he qualified as a criticism not aginst homosexuals in general but only the “distasteful among you.”
In numerous outrages against Cruz’s elaboration of his idea of an acceptabe social order, it cannot be denied that Cruz crossed the limits set by the PDI’s and the Journalists’ Code of Ethics, as reminded to the reading public by Dean Luis V. Teodoro:
Delicate topics,particularly those dealing with religion, race and minority groups, should be handled with great prudence and care. The columnists should always be aware of the dangers of bigotry. In no case should they criticize or ridicule another person on the basis of his or her religious beliefs, race, sexual preferences, etc.
While we await the filing of complaints and the proper action through the PDI’s Readers’ Advocate, Cruz himself admitted in his reply to Quezon that one of the purposes of his exercise of the freedom to express “unorthodox views” is to invite dispute.
Unfortunately, one might say that dispute constituted largely of argumentum ad hominem, name-calling, and in numerous circles were limited to games of pitting Cruz against Quezon. On one hand, such run of debates elicited by Cruz’s fall into the dangers of bigotry reflect the probable “poverty” of language by which our society is capable of addressing - not homophobia, but rather - sexual prejudice.
On the other hand, I am more apt to consider the possibility that this “poverty” might rather be more a sign of strain upon the somewhat “poetic” and earthy” articulation of sexuality and sexual orientation in our society. Thus, might it be possible that Cruz’s, Quezon’s and the numerous other parties’ arguments for and against various qualifications of sexual prejudice are actually vestiges of a folk culture that celebrates sexuality not through “rational” confrontation but rather, outside but allowed by the prohibitions of conservatism, through innuendos and rituals of play and naughtiness, that is forcibly being placed and displaced within the modern and “rational” context. Wasn’t it also the pressures of modernizatoin that endanger the rituals of the lukayo?*
If this was considered, and we try to understand Cruz’s remarks within these and the terms of psychological functions of sexual prejudice, then it might be possible to relate and make sense of individual and cultural sexual prejudice, and in Cruz’s case, we may gleam that his remarks present a psychological function, that he derives psychological benefit from expressing his anti-distasteful-gay attitude based on previous experience with and perception of homosexuality, rather than simply an attack on a particular section of homosexuality.
For example, Cruz expressed dismay that spectators in the Santa Cruz de Mayo are amused at the appearances of homosexuals, and thus “indirectly encouraged the fairies to project themselves.” In fact, in Cruz’s account of the “gay invasion”, it was this - “when an association of homos dirtied the beautiful tradition of the Santa Cruz de Mayo” - that introduced his assertion that homosexuals are coming at an “alarming and audacious numer.”
Cruz’s anti-gay attitude here and in most of his remarks seem to be pegged on the negative (symbolic and perceived) experiences that he has had with homosexuals and their growing popularity, celebrity and acceptance in society. However, Cruz expresses these negative experiences in terms of a more value-expressive function, that is, he derives psychological benefit from criticizing “distasteful homosexuals” and their supporters in terms of their symbolic aspects rather than his actual close encounters with them. In other words, he distances himself from those that represent a conflict if not a contradiction to what he deems to be the proper social order.
It cannot be denied that Cruz started his first column with an expression of respect for the kind of homosexual behavior that he deemed favorable, however, instead of making sense of his current negative attitudes towards “distasteful” homosexuals in terms of earlier experiential or actual contacts with homosexuals (such as the “quiet and friendly boy” from Legarda Elementary School, or the kalamay or puto vendor who “provided diversion to his genial customers and did not mind their familiar amiable teasing”), he fell into the danger of bigotry by referencing gays as defective in contrast to values and roles he has solidly ascribed to women and men. Cruz clearly holds tightly to traditional gender roles of virility and grace, and this was, in his view, being greatly endangered by a “gay invasion.”
Therefore, it could only give him psychological satisfaction to make sense of homosexuality within his larger world view through a distancing of himself and attacking people who represent the kind of person that he does not want to be.
Thus, one can say that it may actually be possible for Cruz to develop more favorable attitudes towards homosexuality if he has had the opportunity to have two or more gay friends or colleagues and engaged in honest and serious discussions with them about their sexual orientations - and not through name-calling (bigot, homophobic, etc.). In fact, this seem to be implied by his second column, in reply to Quezon, that ” If I had known that Manuel Quezon III was gay, I would have desisted from writing that column last week on homosexuals out of respect for a fellow columnist.”
Heterosexuals’ attitudes towards homosexuality have not had the benefit of the lukayo rituals, that is, they have not had the benefit of confronting what conservative sectors of society deem as sexual taboos. But rituals have the great advantage of enabling a suspension if not a reversal of dominant beliefs and hierarchies even in the most conservative societies - even if only for the duration of the ritual. Rituals of the lukayo are also celebrated by healers and shamans, descendants of the babaylanes, who seem to be invested by the community with the privilege and the power to sing bawdy songs, dance in playful eroticism and brandish wooden phalluses in the enactment of a fertile union.
Perhaps our confrontation with homosexuality reflect an unease in our society having been deprived of this folk culture by our modernization. If we are to make sense of the experiential and the value-expressive functions that underlie negative attitudes towards homosexuality, then perhaps a renewal of the value of folk ritual in society is in order. Perhaps, something to consider in the Anti-discrimmination Bill currently being lobbied for a hearing in the Senate.
* From “Lukayo and moralists” of “At Large” column by Rina Jimenez David, June 30, 2006, PDI:
One aspect of this indigenous culture is the role that women play as healers and shamans, an aspect reflected in the work of the “lukayo,” descendants of the ancient “babaylanes” [priestesses], who bless newlyweds with a fertile union by dancing around them, singing bawdy songs and brandishing wooden phalluses — all in the spirit of good, clean, if a little naughty fun. ..
The point of Howie (Severino)’s documentary, in fact, was precisely to place the rituals of the lukayo within the context of folk culture, which, regardless of geographical setting, has long worshipped the phallus and the vagina and womb as the sources of human life and fertility. Recall the short story “May Day Eve” by the late National Artist for Literature Nick Joaquin, set at the turn of the 20th century, which touched on a cult of phallic worship by “tadtarin,” ancient sisters of the lukayo.
(The MTRCB (Movie and Television Review and Classification Board) suspended the “I-Witness” television program for two episodes for airing a documentary on lukayo.)
References:
Sexual Prejudice: Understanding Homophobia and Heterosexism, by Gregory M. Herek, PhD. http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/sexual_prejudice.html
Isagani’s Masaganang Aftermath on Leaflens Blog.
Yesterday morning, while inspecting the plants, I saw a large dragonfly in the garden. Of course, I asked it to stay put so I can get my camera and take a photo. 
It was this large beautiful green and black colored dragonfly (almost like a tiger design). It landed on one of my mother’s tiger tails. I also saw some new moth eggs on one of the leaves of the fortune plants and told my nephew about it. He’s getting more curious of what’s happening in the garden and has been trying to do some digging of the soil, and most especially, playing around with water! 
Today is tree-planting day. Some 2 million people are expected to plant trees (as well as ornamental plants) along national roads all across the country. One of the intentions was to have more trees to help reduce air pollution.