Being gay doesn’t mean you’re immoral,
Supreme Court rules in judge’s case
*full article at the bottom*
take that churh! :p
just so you know am not making this, up, i posted the source link. the news seemed so surreal i rechecked if am really reading it in inquirer! or if am in the fiction section instead. doesn't it feel good to be on the right of things and be supported by law? =)
to all in the hiding or in denial, it's never too late. i mean look at this guy. a retired judge. so he must be like what? cuevas? hehehe. so if he was coming out in impeachment court, it may run like this, "let it be put in record that the witness is gay and morality still intact."
And about this line "The fact that [he] got married and had children is not proof against his claim of homosexuality". Gosh. jun encarnacion has i think 6 kids including no less than the famous chef tristan encarnacion. the late jun encarnacion is a flamboyant gay owner of the salon franchise by his name who at times appeared on tv and movies. arnel ignacio, tv game show host/radio host, businessman, son of a respected banker, has one kid. used to have a boyish looking pretty wife too. ogie diaz, brace yourself, 4 kids! and soon to marry his female dyowa. imagine that. then there's rumored g2g chef marites gutierrez with one gorgeous kid. she got married in US, divorced and fell in love next to cooking.
more than anybody else, it's us fab lgbts who should be having kids because of our uber cool genes! won't the world be better looking, fashionable, colorful and creative with our kinds trotting around :)
pic source here
Being gay doesn’t mean you’re immoral, Supreme Court rules in judge’s case
A judge who admitted he was gay should not be automatically presumed to be immoral, the Supreme Court (SC) has ruled.
In a decision, the Supreme Court’s Second Division dismissed the administrative cases of immorality and dishonesty filed against Judge Eliseo Campos, the now-retired presiding judge of the municipal trial court of Bayugan City, Agusan del Sur, by his estranged wife and son.
“There was no evidence that the respondent engaged in scandalous conduct that would warrant the imposition of disciplinary action against him,” the high court said in a decision penned by Associate Justice Antonio Carpio.
However, the court found Campos guilty of simple misconduct and fined him P20,000 for registering his then minor son as the owner of a piece of land that figured in the couple’s pending legal separation and annulment cases.
“In order to manipulate the situation, and taking advantage of his knowledge of the law, respondent caused the registration of the property in [his son’s] name with the intention of defrauding a possible judgment-obligee. Clearly, it was improper behavior which warrants disciplinary sanction by this court.”
The three administrative cases stemmed from the annulment case filed by Campos in July 2008, a year before he retired. In his suit he said he was a homosexual and that his wife had affairs with other men which he did not bother to stop or question.
His wife denied Campos’ accusations of infidelity and claimed her husband only wanted their marriage annulled so he could marry another woman with whom he was allegedly having a relationship. She opposed the annulment and filed for a legal separation instead.
The high tribunal affirmed the findings of the investigating judge that there was no proof that Campos had a relationship with another woman or was immoral on account of his supposedly being gay.
Hiding true sexuality
“With respect to respondent’s alleged homosexuality, such issue is for the determination of the trial court wherein the [annulment case] is pending. Thus, we also agree in absolving [him] from the charge of dishonesty. The fact that [he] got married and had children is not proof against his claim of homosexuality. As pointed out, it is possible that [he] was only suppressing or hiding his true sexuality,” the high court said.
The justices, however, ruled that Campos committed an unlawful act when he executed an affidavit of loss of a land title that was in his possession. The investigation showed Campos had his then minor son registered as the owner of the land.
After reporting the loss, Campos told the provincial register of deeds that he (Campos) was the real owner and that the title had been wrongly registered in his son’s name. The wife, however, claimed the title was never lost and that their son had it all along. She claimed the judge merely wanted the property back in the event that the annulment was granted.
Campos had said that he only wanted to protect his interest, adding that his wife and son wanted to use the property as collateral for a loan.
Based on the decision, the judge may have anticipated the breakup of his marriage and registered the title in the son’s name so the land would not become conjugal property, which would have to be split if Campos’ wife won the legal separation case.