Over the course of the last few months, people have grown more aware that the 377A issue isn’t plainly about somebody’s right to love. It is about protecting public health, children’s well-being, the institution of marriage and preventing the erosion of societal mores. It isn’t even about the right to love at all; for everyone has the right of freewill to love whoever, however they want – even if the relationship is detrimental to himself.
However, this does not stop gay activists from using the emotive “love” word to mislead and to polarize a non-evaluating public. What is being pushed for is not for Adam’s right to love Steve (Adam has freewill to love anyone he wants), but for Adam and Steve’s relationship to be lawfully approved, publicly celebrated – as much as marriage between a man and a woman.
It is never about the right to love, but the right to institutionalize this questionable form of relationship until it is EQUAL to marriage.
Which is why I was extremely relieved over the high court’s decision to uphold 377A. I believe many Singaporeans are. As I observed the ground, I really think that there are more Singaporeans who wish 377A to be upheld than to be removed. The messages that I received from individuals of various background, who wrote to me over the course of the petition, affirms this belief as well.
Though I was relieved, I was still a tag disappointed that the judgement seems to lack a strong punch on why 377A must be upheld. I would think that from a point of protecting public health and morality, children and marriage – all critical bedrocks of our society, it should have been enough to put up a convincing stand. I noted the lack of involvement of scientists, geneticists, researchers, statistical officials etc, who could have set the record straight objectively on the ills of homosexuality.
Still, Justice Quentin Loh did well to guard the legitimacy of 377A when he ruled that the objective of criminalising a conduct that “is not acceptable in society” is “clear”.
Most significantly, Justice Quentin Loh clarified the meaning of EQUALITY in Art 12 – a word often quoted misguidedly by activists to advance the gay agenda. Justice Loh rightly explained the meaning of equality: “Equality before the law and equal protection of the law under Art 12 (I) DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL PERSONS ARE TO BE TREATED EQUALLY, but that all persons in like situations are to be treated alike”
This means that when a woman is entitled to 4months of maternity leave and a man is not, it is not because of the lack of EQUALITY – yes, even if the man and woman are treated UNEQUALLY. Because the situation the man is facing and the situation the woman are not alike. A rational look at the issue points to a fundamental difference between the male and female – their anatomy functions – hence, they experience quite a different pregnancy even as a closely knitted married couple. Females give birth and nurse. Quite naturally, they should be entitled to a longer maternity period than man. If a man quoted INEQUALITY in treatment over maternity leave entitlement to fight his cause, it is an irrelevant, irrational argument supporting an illegitimate cause.
This means that when men are mandated to serve military service and women are not, it does not mean that there is a lack of EQUALITY, even though they are again, treated UNEQUALLY. Again, the situation the man is facing and the situation the woman are not alike. This time, the issue points to a fundamental difference in their biological stature. Males are often the physically stronger one. Quite naturally, they play the protector role over females and are hence expected to be the ones called to serve the military first. There is no INEQUALITY in the treatment of men when they are mandated to serve military service while women are not.
This means that where marriage is concerned, when it is an institution set for the union between a male and a female, and not between male-male or female-female, it is not INEQUALITY; even though they are treated UNEQUALLY. There are fundamental differences in the nature, biological and health aspects of heterosexual unions and homosexual unions, which I have written much about and will not repeat it here. Unanimously, marriage between a man and a woman has been accepted throughout history by philosophers and civilizations worldwide to be celebratory, healthy, good and right; while other forms of union have been cautioned against. It was only until recent decades when gay rights were very questionably and forcefully pushed for in America – the world’s cultural center. Of course, it did not help that it was being lobbied for in a society that has largely lost its moral compass, following their sexual revolution where conventional ethics gave way to sexual promiscuity and nudity in the media.
Justice Loh’s clarification nullified the INEQUALITY argument often pushed by gay activists. From now on, the public can take on this perspective: That when an EQUALITY argument is raised to push for the decriminalization of homosexual activities or for gay marriage, it is not referring to like situations; the equality argument is irrelevant and irrational. The fundamental difference lies in the fact that gays have never been proven to be born that way biologically. Their cause and claim to be treated equally, like a heterosexual marriage, despite a homosexual marriage not being alike (and never can they be), is illegitimate in its roots. This is a fact. This is what our justice has objectively and rightly ruled.
But EQUALITY, like love, is an emotive, vote garnering, polarizing tool. Debate outcomes on polarizing issues are often not determined by objectivity, but by the emotions and opinions of the public. Even if the Singapore public has largely awaken, our children, with strong ideals of love, justice and equality, remains easily misled and compromised; vulnerable to such ideological baits from all over. How long can Singapore stay discerning?
But at least for a while now, in Singapore’s courts, we might not hear another challenge on the constitutionality of 377A based on Article 12 – for the EQUALITY argument has been laid to rest. And I thank Justice Quentin Loh for this.