On marriage and divorce: A response to Villegas

(Editor’s Note: This piece is a response to the article ‘Let us not bastardize marriage’ by Bernardo M. Villegas that came out in the Philippine Daily Inquirer. In his piece, Villegas said, “We should do everything possible to prevent a few lawmakers from smuggling into the sexual orientation or gender identity antidiscrimination bill any provision that will legalize gay marriages.”)

In the interests of full disclosure, I do not personally know Dr Villegas and have no wish to know him. The purpose of this piece is therefore not personal but philosophical – a necessary response, I believe, to an article which purports to be based on rational argument but is in fact based on ideology masked as fact, theatrical misdirection and a sorry absence of logic. I suspect Dr Villegas was prompted to write by the recently revived discussion of divorce and thus his article is an early shot across the bows of the pro-divorce lobby.

Dr Bernie Villegas has a PhD in Economics from Harvard, is a well known writer, thinker and economist, and was a member of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Philippine Constitution. 

I have no doubt he has a brilliant mind, but some of his insights outside his chosen field of economics only seem to see the light of day through the warped prism of his ultra conservative religious beliefs and he can confuse an easily impressed reader by cleverly weaving the views of a small sect into a tapestry of otherwise more generally held views.

The latest example is a classic.

I consider many of Dr Villegas’s statements positively, and probably deliberately, misleading, if not irrational. I therefore propose to deal with the more egregious individually below.  In the interest of space, I will limit the quote to what I am responding to directly, leaving the reader to refer to the context in the article itself.

1.  Dr Villegas states: “After referring to ‘ideological colonization” during his trip to the Philippines last Jan. 15-18″ –

The truly greatest ideological colonization of the Philippines, in my opinion, was and is the imposition of Roman Catholicism on the Filipino people. The fact that it has gone on for centuries neither excuses nor lessens it, yet Dr Villegas has no problem embracing it. 

2. Dr Villegas introduces us to Jemy Gatdula, who he says is “…an expert on constitutional law, Jemy Gatdula…”  which I suspect is to give added credence to what Mr Gatdula says. 

But Mr Gatdula’s so-called constitutional law expertise is not evidenced by any academic or other relevant qualification as far as I can establish. While I acknowledge that expertise in international trade law and the like is adjacent to expertise in constitutional law, it is not the same, just as expertise in obstetrics is adjacent to but not the same as expertise in neurosurgery (do you really want an obstetrician to advise you on brain surgery?). Let’s generously call this a minor error, rather than the deliberate inflation of a source’s credentials.  

3. Dr Villegas further states that  “the framers of the 1987 Philippine Constitution were very much influenced by the declaration of principles found in the US Constitution about the inalienable rights of every human being.”

This is typical of cherry picking arguments, eagerly co-opting the democratic credentials of the former colonial power but conveniently failing to mention that interpretation of the very constitution which he is exalting has allowed all Americans access to contraception, divorce and abortion.

4. He uses phrases like “Platonic-Aristotelian and later ancient philosophical rejections…..”

One of the problems with contemporary interpretation of ancient texts (whether of supposedly divine or human origin) is that it inevitably leads to extensive contortions of logic and reasoning in an attempt to apply them to modern circumstances. This is usually left to often obscure experts armed with advance degrees in law, theology etc., not to mention specialist knowledge of languages often long abandoned by ordinary folk such as Ancient Greek, Aramaic, and Sanskrit.

It is extremely difficult to believe that a Supreme Being would bother to divulge his wishes to mankind in (then) contemporary language (via tablets of stone on a mountain, golden plates on a hill or other bizarre mode of delivery) and then choose not to update them but leave it to a few boffins in dusty offices in the Vatican, and similar remote places, to interpret them to the faithful. It is, however, extremely easy to believe that this system of interpretation of the divine will is very acceptable to the administrators of these religions, to whom power and control over the ‘message’ are all-important. 

5. The ‘wisdom’ of concerned reader Wilma Brosas  who is quoted as apparently writing: “…………” – this type of reductio ad absurdum argument is an insult to any intelligent reader. Incest and adultery, if not bestiality, have been, are and will continue to be alive and well in the Philippines and the wider world regardless of gay marriage or the lack of it, as Dr Villegas must surely know, so he chooses a friendly mouthpiece to voice this nonsense and thus avoids directly risking his own reputation.

But notwithstanding my suspicion of his motives, I am also prompted by a distaste for those who think big words and seemingly complicated arguments can hide the most pedestrian of motives and who believe that if you lie often enough people will believe you.

If a man with Dr Villegas’s credentials has to stoop to base tactics such as these, one can only suspect that pure reason and logic simply do not support his underlying argument that gay marriage is bad.  – Rappler.com 

Jeremy Baer has a master’s degree in law from Oxford University. A banker of 37 years who worked in 3 continents, he has been training with Dr Margarita Holmes for the last 10 years as co-lecturer and, occasionally, as co-therapist, especially with clients whose financial concerns intrude into their daily lives.