http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/issues/gender-issues/39701-laws-that-discriminate-against-women
Joe America: “And when you get that taken care of, kindly get a divorce law passed so that women who are abused in a relationship with men can get out without the gameplaying that takes place now in annulment courts. Women are now held in bondage to the abusers. The priests say that is good. Compassionate people say that is bad.”
Joe America: “That is an opinion, or do you have facts to back up the notion that women are better off locked in marriages, even if abusive? Or are you satirical? If we went with the number of nations that see divorce as an important right, I’d say most people disagree with the notion that divorce benefits only men.”
PP: Maybe, we can have provisions on abuse. However, let’s not have the tail wagging the dog here. People should be responsible enough to understand that marriage is not just some loose association or contract that people come into.
Joe America: “Right, I agree it represents a serious commitment. It is both a legal commitment and, for most, a commitment to fidelity, before God. How would you peg Philippine society on the fidelity aspects of marriage? Very strong, strong, so so, weak, very weak? If the answer is something other than very strong, why are we so willing to forgo the commitment to fidelity before God, but keep the legal chains in place. We ought not be hypocrites about the matter.”
Anon: “I’m pretty sure the Philippines is the only Asian nation where divorce is illegal. I really don’t understand the mentality of Filipinos. I was educated in the USA and frankly I find a lot of Filipino logic is so archaic and backwards.”
Ana Santos: “Hi, The Philippines is the only country in the world where divorce is not legal. A couple of years ago, there were two countries: Malta and the Philippines. In Malta (also a Catholic country), a referendum showed that most people favored divorce and so a divorce is now being (or has been, not so sure about the status now) legalized in their country. And that just leaves the Philippines.”
PP: Well, I’d agree, ultimately, as I’ve said in other posts
consistently, that marriage shouldn’t be a business of the gov’t.
Unfortunately, it already is, because at the simplest level, (devoid of all the
platitudes and motherhood statements it can make), it provides welfare to
society, so it should have legitimate interest in ‘taking care’ of marriage and
the fruits thereof. I do not think that it’s only about fidelity, Joe, let’s
dig way deeper than that, it’s about the family. I thought my answer was pretty
secular, why bring some deity into this discussion? Please refrain from making
assumptions of where I am coming from. My view is more nuanced than you
gentlemen might think and admittedly, I am still trying to figure out resolving
this issue in my thinking. For now, I don’t agree that we should institute some
blanket law for the family just to prove we are not “archaic” and
“backwards” in our “logic” vis-a-vis our neighbors in the global community, but I am very open, especially if I find much much more convincing arguments than rather prejudicial conjectures and judgmental rants.
Some interesting replies to the topic, (I do not necessarily agree):
Jasonakagoimon: “those who always claim discrimination in our laws on adultery and concubinage are really unaware of the purpose. Both aim to prevent illegitimate children. However there is no chance that an illegitimate child will be unknowingly brought in the family if the one who cheated is the father. But adultery, and the reason why it has a higher penalty, a cheating wife might bear a child not that of the father and the latter could have idea that he is raising another man’s child. As for the pre mature marriage provision, that is to prevent another man’s child to inherit from the death husband’s estate. It’s not about discrimination. Those who wrote the RPC are men far greater and far more intelligent than us. In the 1930’s they already saw this possibility and this problem and decided to do something about it. Great men will do everything to keep order and fairness in the world. They have no time to consider feelings of discrimination. The law doesn’t care about hurt feelings. Restoration of order especially within the family is more important. ”
Don Rae Amante: “In re adultery vis a vis concubinage: the law is not discriminatory; the reason for the difference is the danger of bringing adulterous child in the family which would or should be kept by the mother. also, under the family code, the adulterous child is presumed to be a legitimate child of married spouses despite the fact that he is not the child of the husband of the erring wife. the presumption stays there until it is impugn within one year. otherwise, such presumption cannot be overthrown and the father will be obliged to support said child. we don’t want that.”
Ana Santos: “This is accurate as far as the history of the law is concerned and is the same rationale behind prohibition to re-marry.”
PP: Sure, that “is the same rationale behind prohibition to re-marry” is also “accurate as far as the history of the law is concerned”, but there’s a fundamental difference between a remarriage due to death of one spouse and ‘falling out ouf love’.
peperepublika 