COMMENTARY: Same-sex Marriage: Not  In Our Lifetime

When I was in college, I asked one of my mentors a question, “Do you think same-sex marriage will ever be legal in our country?”

She said convincingly, “Not in my lifetime. Not even in yours, Andoy.”

I was convinced that she was right because of the things going on in the local LGBT movement at that time.

COMELEC just denied Ang Ladlad the official recognition as a party-list organization. COMELEC was convinced that it was unconstitutional to allow an LGBT organization to run for congressional seat/s. The Supreme Court overturned this decision.

 

The “not in our lifetime” sentiment seems to express a kind of frustration; a sense that no matter how hard our community fights, state recognition as full citizens is almost out of reach.

These feelings of helplessness, frustration and to some extent anger are not exclusive to the LGBT community. These feelings also permeated in different marginalized communities like the African-American community.

One time, I saw Whoopi Goldberg on television telling a story about her conversation with her mother after President Barrack Obama was first elected into office. Whoopi recounted her mother saying, “I never thought I would live to see this day.” 

 

The Danger with the “Not In Our Lifetime” Sentiment

 

We can never be sure if a social change is possible within our lifetimes because the future is an unknown terrain. The validity of this sentiment will never be confirmed nor denied. Events we thought were impossible to occur happen before our eyes.

The election of the first African-American US President is an example. Conversely, some policies that seem constitutionally instinctive take long time to be carried out. The anti-political dynasty clause in the 1987 Philippine Constitution, for example, still lacks significant legislation for enforcement.

 

I think the issue with the “not in our lifetime” sentiment is not its validity but its discursive effect. There are two possible implications.

First, the logic that social changes will not happen in our lifetimes could lead to apathy. Thinking that we might not benefit from these reforms could shape apathetic attitudes. A male gay activist could calculate his benefits from the social reforms he is fighting for. When he realizes the logic of the “not in our lifetime” sentiment, he might be discouraged to continue the fight thinking that he would not benefit from these changes because he would long be dead by the time these reforms take place. 

 

Second, the “not in our lifetime” sentiment could shape the desire to actively participate in the struggle for change. This sentiment allows us to imagine how the fight we commence in our lifetimes will help improve the lives of future generations. It helps us imagine that even if we do not benefit from our current struggles, the effect of these struggles will not be ephemeral.

In this sense, this sentiment permits us to imagine our lifetimes as part of a huge historical quilt crucially contributing to the improvement of life in society. Our names might not be immortalized but our current collective actions will never be forgotten.

 

Fight for Life and Love

 

Yesterday, news broke across different media about Ireland’s passage of a law legalizing same sex marriage through a referendum.

I think the success in Ireland should lead the Filipino LGBT activists to choose to hold onto the second discursive implication of the “not in our lifetime” sentiment.

I am almost sure that at some point, LGBT activists in Ireland felt frustrated and helpless but they did not allow these sentiments lead them to apathy. Each generation of Irish activists contributed to the struggle for sexual equality.

The summation of these contributions helped breed a social climate preparing the Irish public to say ‘yes’ in the ballot. This success must inspire us to fight for a Philippines state that fully recognizes diverse form of identities. 

 

The theme of this year’s Manila Pride March is very apt in this discussion. This year, Task Force Pride (TFP) decided to use the theme “Fight for Love.” Love, in this context, is not some abstract conception. Anthony Giddens used the concept ‘pure love’ to refer to a kind of love anchored with agency and choice.

One has to decide to love and commit to that decision. In the same manner, we have to decisively choose to imagine rather than calculate the effects of our current struggles. We must look at our decision to fight for reforms as an act of love-that being an act of individual commitment for a collective cause.

We need to choose to make our lifetimes or lifelines the testament to our decision to fight for social changes while remembering those generations who came before us and dreaming for those who will come after us.

 

John Andrew G. Evangelista is currently teaching in the Department of Sociology of the University of the Philippines-Diliman. The opinion expressed here does not reflect the opinion of any institution Mr. Evangelista is currently affiliated to.