1. Cover the naked body of the crucified Jesus. He’s good-looking, compassionate, very much into equality and therefore pro-gay, and sinew. It really gives the wrong impression.

2. Ban products that are known to cause homosexuality. Prohibit the sale and use of fabric softeners; a friend claims that they literally make us soft. Stop the use of fertilizers. It is quite known that Masagana rice led to the spread of homosexuality in rural areas.

3. Target the role models. No more Ate Shawie, Ate Vi, Manilyn Reynes, and Coney Reyes. Scrap animation shows that encourage homosexuality – teletubbies, Flying House, Superbook, Superfriends, Superman and Master Showman. Actually, ban Kuya Germs.

4. Impose an “Ever-present father, absent mother” policy. Encourage abusive fathers – the lazy variety, those who treat homosexuality as a simple “lalaki ka ba o sirena?” question. Gag mothers, and keep them in kitchens.

5. Scrap number 4. That’s being done by the Catholic church already.

6. Close that school that promotes ‘Man for others’. Father naman, yun na yun eh.

If everything else fails, then try Pro-life’s seminar on curing SSA. Not my words, but hey, enjoy.

PRO-LIFE PHILIPPINES FOUNDATION, INC. invites all to attend the Pro-Life Seminar Series for August titled WHEN YOUR LOVED ONE TELLS YOU “I’M GAY” This talk deems to answer questions related to families confronted with the homosexual issue most popular today. With the proliferation of the homosexual culture in mass media, our young people are increasingly exposed to a stronger promotion of this so-called “alternative lifestyle.” How does the family handle this growing situation? What should be the attitude of parents and siblings and well-meaning friends when their loved one/s reveals their tendency towards same-sex attractions (SSA)? This seminar also aims at helping the homosexual person understand the roots of his/her SSA, and hopefully be able to influence him/her to embrace a path of chastity and change. Mr. Rolando Delos Reyes II of Courage Philippines will be facilitating the talk. An open forum comes after each of the speaker’s discussion. The seminar is slated on a Saturday, August 21, 2010 from 8:00 AM to 12:00 PM at the St. Paul University, 680 Pedro Gil St., Malate 1004 Manila. A registration fee of P 300.00 includes one snack, one seminar kit, and a certificate of participation signed by the organizers. For reservations or more information, please call Ellen at 733-7027. Or, you may send us a telefax at 734-9425; a text through mobile# 0919-2337783; or an email at life@prolife.org.ph. Visit our website at www.prolife.org.ph

So there you go. This is the kind of story that gives traction to the ‘pedophilia card’ used by many anti-LGBT groups and individuals that oppose LGBT rights. In many instances, whether in a congressional hearing or a training, I find myself repeating one truth about pedophilia – that it is NOT a homosexual trait, and that it is fundamentally about power. The pedophile believes that he can abuse the victim because he is in a position to do so and because he thinks he can get away with it.

This is not to say that there are no homosexual pedophiles. The recorded cases of homosexual pedophiles may be lower than heterosexual cases, but it happens. It is also common. But instead of ascribing it to a particular group or community – for instance, despite reports of sexual abuses committed by priests against boys AND girls, it is not fair to say that priests are pedophiles – and instead of being in denial about it, it’s high time that we take it for what it is.

There are various explanations that I get when the issue is raised among gay friends: when you have sex with boys below 18, nothing is lost; that it is oftentimes solicited by the boys themselves, especially if it entailed payment or other forms of reward; that consent is actually given.

That it is illegal is a question of getting caught. Consent is flexible – a boy may say no at the outset, pero mapipilit.

There is an underlying machismo in how gay men view sex with other men, including sex with boys.  Sexual initiation with boys is more acceptable because the prevailing thought is that nothing would be taken away – they’re boys, after all. Sexual initiation for boys is a sign of virility, whereas for girls, losing one’s virginity is oftentimes deemed disgraceful.

This kind of macho thinking – that men do not ‘lose’ anything when they have sex – is used to dismiss the fact that pedophilia is a form of abuse and that even in some cases of sex between men, exploitation happens.

Where do we draw the line between what’s exploitative and what’s not? Age and consent should be an automatic determinant, but there was one incident before that caught me off-balanced. We organized a human rights workshop for gays in a community in QC. We were talking about discrimination when two boys – of the Maximo Oliveros mold,  and they couldn’t be older than 12 – said that they have experienced discrimination. They accused older men who refuse to have sex with them of discrimination.

I was dumbfounded. In our safer sex workshops, we are constrained to accept participants who are 18 and above only. But this was a human rights workshop, and the sex subject was broached by minors. They reasoned that it was consensual anyway. My co-facilitator and I followed the template, and told them that for adults, sex with minors is illegal, and that they are exposing themselves to a lot of risks, from STIs to dealing with authorities.

I wasn’t satisfied by our answer. And it still disturbs me. I knew that they weren’t satisfied by what we said, and that they’d end up having sex with older men. I wanted to tell them to do it safe, but I was worried that it’d be condoning an exploitative sexual relationship.

Of course, the burden of responsibility always rests on the adult. The law is clear on that. But if this is a question of machismo, of an embedded cultural norm, then a legal response would be insufficient. Penalize the pedophile, but let’s tackle the issue fair and square. It would help if the gay community would be upfront about it, since it is also a concern.

But the first step is to stop blaming homosexuality for pedophilia. Point your fingers to men who think that sex is an exercise of power, absolute power even. And break this silence over sex, even kids would benefit and would be safer if we’d just be honest and start talking about it.

The speech was delivered shortly after former President GMA had her oath-taking before the members of Congress as the representative of the 4th district of Pampanga.

In the House of Gloria, what Walden did cannot be tolerated. Walden was interrupted several times during his speech, with one veteran representative saying that it was taking too long. Another representative – remember him, his name is Rep. Marcoleta of Alagad – complained that Walden, a professor and a public intellectual, was tackling too many issues, and it was too much for his brain to handle.

Despite these attempts, Walden was able to finish his speech, all thirteen pages of it. He cited cases of graft and corruption involving the former President. He mentioned how GMA tried to thwart key social reform programs – the agrarian reform extension law and the reproductive health bill, among others. But, the professor that he is, he wasn’t short of solutions. He actually proposed policies and programs that the new Aquino should adopt to restructure the economy and prioritize social programs.

But in the House of Gloria, Walden’s speech was unparliamentary. They said that he violated the rules of Congress. They were deeply offended. When Walden accused GMA’s allies of behaving like pigs and of finding in GMa a model for corruption, an enraged  congresswoman who felt alluded to angrily said, “kami yun, ah!”.

The rules state that you cannot criticize a fellow member of Congress, and for GMA and her allies, that is enough to protect their Queen. She should be accorded proper respect, they said, and they moved to have the parts of the speech referring to GMA stricken off the record.

The House leadership intervened and suggested to modify the speech. “Corruption was the signature of the administration of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo” would be changed to “Corruption is the signature of the previous administration from 2001-2010″. They wanted to remove some offensive words, those that could fill up a menagerie, or a crocodile farm.

It was reminiscent of how the previous administration used semantics to cover its draconian measures. Opposition figures weren’t arrested or detained but were  only given ‘protective custody’ by the police. When GMA said ‘I’m sorry’ in 2005, it was to apologize for calling an election official BUT it should not be construed as an admission it was her voice caught in the controversial ‘Hello Garci recordings’. She prohibited her cabinet officials from speaking about anomalous deals, calling the gag an exercise of “executive privilege”.

Walden and Akbayan’s other representative, Kaka Bag-ao, listened and negotiated with the House leadership in good faith. But after several suspensions of the plenary debates, the presiding officer suddenly to remove in their entirety sentences and paragraphs that criticize the former president. After the ruling, which Rep. Bello was about to contest, Rep. Cagas of Davao even threatened to slap the Akbayan representative with an ethics complaint.

Because in the House of Gloria, her name cannot be mentioned. Certainly not in a bad light. Under her term, no Filipino got hungry. No President called an election official to pad the results with one million votes in her favor. No anomalies took place in the last nine years, our roads are paved with gold, and Mikey Arroyo has the heart of an impoverished manong guard.

The House leadership succeeded in deleting Walden’s scathing criticisms of the Arroyo administration. Walden got mad, and stormed to his seat. The presiding officer and the so-called minority said that decorum must be maintained in the House. Never mind if the object of Walden’s criticism is a former President who abused her presidential powers to mobilize the military to campaign for her. Never mind if the same person usurped the resources of her office, the highest in the land, to deliver  multi-million projects in her district in Pampanga in order to secure her a seat in Congress. It doesn’t matter, too, if the same woman is the reason why there are tons of rotting rice in government warehouses, or why hundreds of activists and journalists have been killed.

Never mind if the representatives who allowed who censored Walden’s speech are the same representatives who blocked the impeachment complaint against GMA and have now found it convenient to swear loyalty to the  new majority.

This is the House that Gloria built, where what passes for decorum is what we common folks call honor among thieves.

Rep. Abante during the Anti-Discrimination Bill hearing

Here’s some good news: three candidates from the conservative bloc lost in the senatorial and congressional elections. Bienvenido Abante, an incumbent representative in District 6, Manila City, lost to his rival Sandy Ocampo, a former congresswoman and currently Manila’s deputy mayor. Atty. Jo Imbong, legal counsel of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, ran for senator under the Catholic church-backed Ang Kapatiran Party, is among the bottom-dwellers in the senatorial race. Another pro-life bet, ex-senator Kit Tatad, has been unable to surpass the Top 20 benchmark.

Rep. Abante, as Chair of the House Committee on Human Rights, blocked the passage of a bill penalizing discrimination against lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders. Last year, Rep. Abante filed a bill criminalizing same-sex marriage and prohibiting co-habitation among between partners of the same sex.

He also opposed the enactment of the RH Bill, a controversial measure that provides access to reproductive health information and contraceptives.

Atty. Imbong, on the other hand, is the CBCP lobbyist that has rabidly campaigned against the RH Bill and Anti-Discrimination Bill in most congressional hearings. A “pro-life” advocate, Atty. Imbong has labeled the above bills as part of the Church-opposed DEATH bills, a cluster of measures promoting divorce, euthanasia, abortion, total reproductive health, and homosexuality (same-sex marriage).

Of the three candidates, ex-Sen. Kit Tatad is the most popular. A talking head of the Marcos regime, he was elected senator in 1992. He ran under the Partido ng Masang Pilipino of former President Joseph Estrada this election.

The three leaders of so-called pro-life movement have used reproductive health and gay rights as campaign issues and have the full backing of Christian and Catholic groups. That they lost indicates the absence of a Catholic vote and proves that bigotry is not seen by the electorate as a positive trait among politicians.

Meanwhile, of the twelve senatorial candidates that Reproductive Health advocates have endorsed, four are already in the winning circle, three of whom are incumbents: Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, Sen. Pia Cayetano, Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, and Bongbong Marcos.

Based on the latest unofficial count of the COMELEC, senatorial bet and RH Bill and Anti-Discrimination Bill author Risa Hontiveros, needs more than one million votes to be in the magic 12. She has committed to re-file the RH and Anti-discrimination bill if elected.

In the party-list race, Akbayan Party, which has championed the RH bill and the Anti-Discrimination Bill in the House of Representatives, is set to get at least two seats with close to 1 million votes. Ang Ladlad, which was initially denied accreditation by the COMELEC, has garnered 105,751 votes so far. This is roughly .39% of the 26.9 million votes that were cast in the PL race. Based on the Party-list law, a party needs to get 2% of the total votes to get one seat. (I shall provide an analysis on the so-called pink vote and the party-list race later).

With a margin of more than 100,000 votes, another pro-RH advocate, Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, won the congressional race in his district. Rep. Lagman is a staunch champion of reproductive health.

The presidential and vice-presidential contests require a closer look. Runaway winner Noynoy Aquino of the Liberal Party toned down his position on reproductive health in the middle of the campaign and clarified that he is not an author of the RH bill.  To avoid the ire of the Catholic Church, he used ‘responsible  parenthood’ to explain his position on family planning, the same jargon that was used by RH authors to negotiate the passage of the RH bill during the 13th Congress.

He lost some support from the RH community because of this tactical retreat, which was unnecessary: everytime he’s asked of his position on RH, Noynoy would openly express his support for the promotion of artificial contraceptives and the use of state funds for artificial family planning methods. This led several Catholic bishops and catholic groups to endorse his main rival, Sen. Manny Villar, who declared his opposition to the RH bill, despite the close relationship between the Aqunio family to the Catholic church.

Noynoy Aquino’s position on gay rights is not known.

In the vice-presidential race, Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay got the endorsement of Ang Ladlad party-list. It was a curious decision: as mayor, Binay has implemented a dress code that discriminated against gay and transgender employees in Makati City Hall. He is likewise silent on the issue of reproductive health. On the other hand, Sen. Mar Roxas openly supports artificial family planning methods. Roxas is also the principal author of the recently enacted Cheaper Medicines law, which increases access to life-saving and essential drugs, including anti-retrovirals (ARVs).

While Mayor Binay is ahead in the latest tally, the race is too close to call.

The over-all picture appears rosy for the RH bill and the Anti-Discrimination Bill, except for one potential party pooper: President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo won in her district in Pampanga, and her allies have already announced that she will vie for the speakership. And without doubt, Speaker GMA is bad news for the advocates of RH Bill and the Anti-Discrimination Bill.

The culinary theme is not green, yellow or orange, it’s cholesterol. Everything is deep-fried, served with fat and layered with oil. When politicians speak of the vote-rich L to L corridor, they actually mean liempo to lechon.

Grease is a main-stay in Philippine politics. Political affiliations shift – expect the entire Lakas machinery to go to Villar (ok, some are LP-bound) – but what  isn’t going to change is grease. Once, in a sortie in Tarlac, the whole LP entourage went to the ancestral home of the Aquinos for lunch, which consisted of tocino, homemade corned beef swimming in oil, and fried hito. My face is the epicenter of oiliness, but these dishes make my face seem fresh and healthy.

If it isn’t homemade grease, it’s fastfood oil – with MSG. If the L sign means ‘Lechon’, then V is vetsin (or Vitter Villitants, but that’s another story). When meals are not hosted by local politicians, we get our regular dose of fat and MSG from Jollibee or McDonalds. Breakfast at McDonalds in SLEX, late-night post-sortie dinner in KFC NLEX. Gone were the days when you carry bags of local pasalubongs at the airport; I actually found myself carrying in Davao City’s airport McDo take-outs that we bought from a drive-thru in Gen San – and it didn’t feel absurd.

In a solo sortie in HK, what started as a silly wish – eating dimsum filled with broth – ended up becoming an obsession as the day began transforming into a classic monster. There was the usual high-energy activities, the small crises that required troubleshooting, coordinating with Manila for other events – everything was Multitasking 2.0. Eating dimsum became a rallying point, my own liberation day, and maybe a cry for help. But the chance to go to a dimsum house didn’t come. I remember having breakfast, lunch didn’t take place (there was some time for snacks, but that was it), and soon after, Risa and I were at the airport, tired, each nursing a cup of warm drink from Starbucks, sitting quietly while waiting for our flights. Dinner was out of the question, and dimsum was, well, a figment of my own chismis.

I was tired and hungry when I finally reached home a few hours later. But the moment I stepped inside my apartment, next day’s sortie was already there, waiting. I opened my laptop, googled McDonald’s, and, by opening a new document, started a new day.

(Epic fail for the that one-entry a day challenge. No excuses, but hey, it’s 15 days till election day. Next blog should be about preparing for debates. I’m blogging from Legaspi City, and we’re waiting for Ms. Kris for a sortie in Legaspi and Tabaco.)