should same sex marriage be legalized in the philippines essay

Philippine Legal Research

Analysis on the Legality and Applicability on the Integration of Same-Sex Marriage in the Philippine Legal System

should same sex marriage be legalized in the philippines essay

Chapter I – Background of the Study

In the Philippine legal system, marriage is defined as a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with the law. It is the foundation of the family whose nature, consequences and incidents are governed by law.1 This definition has been the roots of all arguments, debates and controversies because of the acceptance of the Filipinos to the rise of LGBT community or the “third-sex” society and the raising of the issue on equal protection clause and their equal right to marry, and conjugal rights.

Same sex marriage is the practice of marriage between two people of the same gender. Although same-sex marriage has been regulated through law, religion, and custom in most countries of the world, the legal and social responses have ranged from celebration on the one hand to criminalization on the other. In the late twentieth century, debates about the legalization of same-sex marriage around the world has been publicly noticeable in view of the strong opposition of Christianity as they consider it as morally wrong. On one hand, some scholars, have argued that same-sex unions were recognized by the Roman Catholic Church in medieval Europe, although others have disputed this claim. Scholars and the general public became increasingly interested in the issue during the late 20th century, a period when attitudes toward homosexuality and laws regulating homosexual behavior were liberalized, particularly in western Europe and the United States. In the year 2000, as research shows, Netherlands granted religious rites of marriage and legal recognition to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Community. In light of its decision, 20 other countries namely Belgium (2003), Canada (2005), Spain (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Argentina (2010), Iceland (2010), Portugal (2010), Denmark (2012), Brazil (2013), England and Wales (2013), France (2013) New Zealand (2013), Uruguay (2013), Luxembourg (2014), Scotland (2014), Finland (2015) Ireland (2015) and United States of America (2015) legalized marriage for same sex couples.2 Though few more countries are in the process of assessing legitimizing same sex marriage, still, majority of these countries doesn’t recognized reformation of marriage in their Constitution, and this include the Philippines.

The Philippines is a predominantly Christian country, from which morality and Christianity has always been an influence in the society. This has been the core reason why being a conservative individual matters for Filipino, especially one that involves marriage. As a matter of discussion, there are house bills regarding same sex marriage has been introduced in the Philippine laws , to wit: House Bill No. 6595, House Bill No. 3179. In 2011, there was a bill filed to amend Article 26 of the Philippine Family Code, to prohibit “forbidden marriages.” Specifically, this sought to bar the Philippines from recognizing same-sex marriages contracted overseas. However, these bills did not advance.

Several of gay rights organization has been fighting their rights contending that marriage is a human right based on love and not on two sets of genitalia. Ladlad Partylist, a leading LGBT political party in the Philippines has been advocating that the legalization of same sex unions would laid down anti-discrimination and would grant them the equal protection as provided in the Constitution.

This issue on same sex marriage once again revives its national relevance after President Duterte’s pronouncement, reversing his campaign to support the legislation allowing same-sex marriage, saying that marriage should always be only between a man and a woman. While the Family Code has been clear on its definition on marriage, however, some lawyers and scholars believe that the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, neither discriminates, nor prohibits same-sex marriage. Hence, this analysis.

This research study aims to analyze the nuances of the law regarding marriage and the possibility of approving same sex marriage based on different jurisprudence, the Family Code and the Constitution.

B. Importance of the Study

Marriage in the Philippines is one of the most important features that was granted by our Constitution from which some rights springs up to. It constitutes legal benefits, such as the right for common and conjugal properties, and marital obligations, parental authority and ownership. Moreover, it constitutes equality beyond the realm of married life. This study will enlighten not only the researchers, but also the readers, on what is the legal standing of same sex couples to fight for their right in cognizance with our laws. Moreover, the study will create an impact to the scholars of the law regarding the legalization of same sex marriage in the Philippines.

C. Statement of the Problem

The always debated topic of same sex marriage is on the LGBT’s continuous fight against discrimination and inequality. In light of United States, an allied country of the Philippines, that recently recognized gay marriage throughout the 50 states of America, were the hopes of Philippines’ LGBT’s plea of approving the constitutionality of same sex marriage. Its adoption in the United States clearly made a huge mark of change in their constitution especially in the sense of rights and beneﬁts in the eyes of the law. This research papers aims to answer the following in its legal sense; 1. Does Same-sex marriage violates the definition of marriage in the Family Code? 2. Is same- sex marriage Constitutional? 3. Does the legalization of same-sex marriage upholds the rights of the LGBT community on right to property, life and liberty? 4. Does the legalization of same sex marriage upholds the equal protection clause of the Constitution?

D. Scope and Limitation of the Study

The study is concerned with the Same Sex Marriage issue in the Philippines – if such is a legal right that LGBT community deserve to have. It also touches on the importance of marriage, its beneﬁts and deﬁnition in terms used by the Philippine Laws, the advantage it can make in the country and its signiﬁcance to the rights of LGBTs. The study mainly spotlights the constitutionality of legalizing same sex marriage in the Philippines comprising LGBT rights against inequality and discrimination and how it contradicts to the definition of marriage in the Family Code. Facts contained herein are limited to secondary data such as news articles, books, international and local literatures and internet web sources released by educational institutions, academes and authors of law. The data collected from the secondary data serves only as representative and not to generalize as whole, to provide insights for future policy making and research directions. Nevertheless, the study may still be a turning point for the general public.

Chapter II – Review of Related Literature

We are originally from an Asian country which has not yet opened to the same sex marriage. But, we have been given the chance to study in a developed country and see how the world is opening its gate to welcome different people from different suffers. 1

The Philippines is a country whose belief in marriage is mostly in lined with morals and cultural aspects where a majority of its principles were taught through Christianity. Marriage, as stated in Art. 1 of the FC, is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman…. It’s clearly stipulated in the mentioned provision that only a man and a woman can enter into a valid marriage ceremony. However, other countries viewed marriage as a legal right and not merely a privilege.

United States of America (2015)

In 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional and the Republic of Ireland became the first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage by popular vote following a country-wide referendum. However, while stigma against LGBT communities is certainly lessening in some countries, many states continue to criminalize same-sex sexual contact under the threat of imprisonment or even death. 2

Ireland (2015)

On May 22, 2015, Catholic-majority Ireland became the first country to legalize same-sex marriage through a popular referendum. More than six-in-ten Irish voters (62%) voted “yes” to amend the Constitution of Ireland to say that “marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.”

While some Catholic Church leaders opposed the change, Dublin Archbishop Diarmuid Martin wrote a commentary in The Irish Times newspaper before the referendum, saying that he would not tell people how to vote and that he had “no wish to stuff my religious views down other people’s throats.” Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny supported the “yes” campaign. 3

Finland (2015)

Same-sex marriage will become legal in Finland starting in 2017. The Finnish Parliament approved a bill legalizing same-sex unions in November 2014, and Finland’s president, Sauli Niinistö, signed the measure into law in February 2015. The bill started out as a “citizens’ initiative” – a public petition with a reported 167,000 signatures.

Finland becomes the last of the five Nordic countries to legalize same-sex marriage, joining Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. 3

Scotland (2014)

On Feb. 4, 2014, the Scottish Parliament voted overwhelmingly to approve legislation legalizing same-sex marriage. In addition to allowing same-sex couples to wed, the measure gives churches and other religious groups the option of deciding whether or not they want to conduct such marriages. The two largest churches in Scotland – the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church – oppose same-sex marriage and lobbied against the bill.

The law took effect and same-sex couples began marrying in Scotland in December 2014. 3

Belgium (2003)

Beginning in 1998, the Belgian parliament offered limited rights to same-sex couples through registered partnerships. Same-sex couples could register with a city clerk and formally assume joint responsibility for a household. Five years later, in January 2003, the Belgian parliament legalized same-sex marriage, giving gay and lesbian couples the same tax and inheritance rights as heterosexual couples.

Support for the law came from both the Flemish-speaking North and the French-speaking South, and the law generated surprisingly little controversy across the country. The long-dominant Christian Democratic Party, traditionally allied with the Catholic Church, was out of power when the parliament passed the measure.

The 2003 law allowed the marriages of Belgian same-sex couples and recognized as married those from other countries where same-sex marriage was legal. Those provisions were broadened in 2004 to allow any same-sex couple to marry as long as one member of the couple had lived in Belgium for at least three months. In 2006, the parliament also granted same-sex partners the right to adopt children. 3

Colombia (2016)

On April 28, 2016, Colombia became the fourth country in Catholic-majority South America to legalize same-sex marriage, following Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil. The country’s Constitutional Court, by a 6-3 vote, ruled that that “all people are free to choose independently to start a family in keeping with their sexual orientation … receiving equal treatment under the constitution and the law,” according to the wire service Agence France-Presse. 3

Though these countries already accepted the marriage between couples who have the same gender, still, a majority of the countries around the world doesn’t recognize such.

Chapter III – Methodology

This chapter describes the research method of the study, the strategy of the researchers in gathering the data needed, and its correlation in the pre-existing phenomenon.

This study is purely research in its approach. The researchers aim to analyze the possibility in integrating same-sex marriage law in the Philippine law by taking into consideration the laws of other countries recognizing same-sex marriage, and the researchers will discuss its constitutionality and applicability with regard to the provisions in the New Civil Code and the rights reserved for the LGBT community inscribed for all humans in our Constitution.

This study applied the descriptive method of research, a fact-finding research which involves adequate and accurate interpretation if findings. The purpose of using the descriptive method is to describe the nature of a condition, as it takes place during the time of the study and to explore the causes. The researchers opted to use this kind of research considering the need to acquire first-hand informations from primary sources, such as laws, jurisprudences, and codes, and at the same time to formulate rational and sound discussions and recommendations for this study.

Glance at Stance of Other Countries Recognizing Same Sex- Marriage

The researchers first took a step in reviewing the different kinds of laws concerning same-sex marriage from different country;

Leading lawyer, judge, and writer Justice Robert A. Jackson once said: freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.”

Netherlands is the very ﬁrst state that recognized Same Sex Marriages. According to the reports of statistics in Netherlands, the number of homosexual and lesbian couples living together totalled 57 thousand in 2010 where in 14,813 of them had same sex marriage, in which 7,522 were female and 7,291 were male. One in three couples had their relationships oﬃcially registered and nearly 11 thousand couples were married and more than 61 thousand had registered partnerships.There have been 1,078 same sex divorces, 734 (two-thirds) of them by female couples. The title of married partners for same sex couples gave them the advantage of building their own family. One of this is the automatic joint parental authority over common children only in the following circumstances:

1.For gay marriage, a consent from the mother of the child is needed;

2.For lesbian marriage, a mother must be one of the couple

In addition, they also extend the right of adoption for same-sex couples. Article 277 of Civil Code of Netherlands provided that they allow adoptions, except Intercountry adoptions, of same-sex partners (whether married, registered as partners, or neither) of their civil status or gender-combination, as long as the partners have lived together for three years. This rights made equal treatment between diﬀerent-sex couples and same-sex couples in terms of privileges in having children. The discrimination of capacity of raising a child by same-sex couples diminishes, and has been proven to have nothing diﬀerent from how diﬀerent-couples raises their child. In regards to their properties and debts, under their Private laws, each partner are considered to have joint property and considered joint debt. As for property taxes and income taxes, the couple may also take advantage of lower tax rates in certain circumstances which depends on their monthly earnings and salary as individuals. Article 5 of Wet Inkomstenbelasting 2001 provided income tax legislation which assumes that when there is 4% proﬁt on savings and investments, a 30% tax is imposed on this 4% proﬁt. The fact that a relationship can result in a lower property tax follows, no tax is imposed over the ﬁrst circa EUR 19.000 owned. This changes in marriage, in which registered partnership or informal cohabitation, such amount can be doubled for one of the partners if the other partner is willing to forgo that tax-free threshold. If the latter owns less than circa EUR 19.000, this will result in a lower tax for the couple as a whole. Same-sex couples are also entitled with other legal consequences that diﬀerent-sex couples have. Among these are entitlement of statutory protection against other partner violence and abuse, legality of organ donation to partner, legally obtaining citizenship of foreign partners and their residence permit with restrictions, and even with testamentary succession. They have also raised the Anti-Discrimination Legislation which prerogative is to prohibit discrimination on many grounds, including sexualorientation and civil status against employers and service providers. According to the text of Article 7, almost all forms of commercial, professional or public provision of services are covered, including services provided by institutions in the ﬁeld of housing, welfare, health care, culture and education.

Same-sex marriages has also been long recognized in Canada. Statistics show that of the 72,880 same-sex couples counted in Canada last year, 24,370 of them were married – more than three times the number of married same-sex couples enumerated in 2006. Same-sex couples in general grew in number by just 61 per cent over the same period. That said, marriage brings material benefits, including legal protections, tax advantages and workplace benefits. It can also bestow “cultural legibility,” said Catungal, a journalist.

The only ﬁrm conclusion to be drawn from these studies shows inexistence of negative impacts of passage of same-sex marriage in Netherlands and Canada. Purely, equality is the main concern raised by both states to ﬁnally approve the petition of same-sex couples towards a legal recognition of marriage. Both may have experienced ﬂurry of gay marriage lawsuits, debates and arguments due to divided hearts of legislators and citizens in the subject of same-sex marriage, yet what prevails was shown to be in favor of the prayer of the majority. The immediate eﬀects of law amendments has been outdone in the long run, following social, economic and legal changes in the society.

B. Same Sex Marriage in the Philippine Context

Philippines has a strong and ongoing debate of legality of marriage towards same-sex couples. The religious principles, culture and social acceptance, and marriage provisions of the Family Code of the Philippines were the main hindrances that dismisses the petition of LGBT community in the country of making same-sex couple relationships legal in the eyes of law. As of now, the Philippines does not recognize same-sex relationships or same-sex marriages between its citizens. The Family Code defines marriage as “a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman.” It further provides as one of the essential requisites that the contracting parties “must be a male and a female.” It thus clearly prohibits same-sex couples from entering into a contract of marriage. The same law mentions homosexuality and lesbianism, but only as grounds to annul a marriage or to allow legal separation. From this provision, it is thus clear that the law on marriage only allows marriage between a man and a woman, not man and a man nor a woman and a woman. Moreover, article 2 of the Family Code that it is one of the legal impediments in a marriage which makes it void ab initio. Article 26 discusses marriages that where they were validly celebrated is also recognized as valid in our country. This provision is with certain exceptions, such when the marriage is against public policy. Same-sex marriage is considered as marriage against public policy, hence considered as invalid in our country.

However, the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the supreme law of the land, neither discriminates nor prohibits same-sex marriage. It provided only for the significance of marriage, such that marriage, “as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.” This is what most lawmakers contend. The constitution as the fundamental law of the land where all laws must bow down to, does not even prohibit same sex marriage. Thus, there is no impediment against legalizing same-sex marriage in the Philippines.

Chapter IV – Results and Discussions

From the foregoing discussions in the preceding article and based from different researches on laws and jurisprudence, it was shown that there is no impediment in legalizing same-sex marriage in the Philippines. If we based it on the provisions of the Civil Code, it is clear that marriage between two same-sexed people is a legal impediment and is abominable in this state. However, the Constitution, being the supreme law of the land, wherein all laws should agree with, should prevail, support and protect the equality of every individual to life, liberty and property, does not inhibit the said conduct. Hence, it is highly probable to implement a law to allow same-sex marriage and to give the LGBT community to all privilege that a married person could have.

However, there needs to be an enabling law redefining, and changing the parties who may contract, marriage. LGBT community still contends that they felt bereft of anti-discriminatory laws. In 2001, an anti-discrimination bill banning discrimination based on sexual orientation was unanimously approved by the House but it was stalled in the Senate, and ultimately died. A country report initiated by the United Nations Development Program highlighted the fact that while the Philippines is a signatory to many relevant international covenants promoting human rights, the rights of the LGBT community are not always supported by the state. Without marriage, same-sex couples suffer from substantially lesser rights compared to heterosexual couples. There are legal issues involving the former’s adoption and custody of children, hospital and prison visitation rights, management and transfer of properties, medical and burial decisions, and entitlement to insurance proceeds. Same-sex couples resort to certain legal, albeit limited, approaches to legitimize their union — adoption, which is allowed if done by a single LGBT person; business partnership, to jointly own properties; and a special power of attorney, to name a few.

Same-sex marriage is an issue that is still heavily debated upon. Grounds raised against it range from moral to legal. However, the legal impediment against same-sex marriage can be cured by legislation. There is no absolute prohibition against legitimizing — at least, civilly — unions between two Filipinos of the same sex. Hence, it is legally feasible for the legislative branch of the government — the Congress and the Senate — to enact a law which legalizes same-sex marriage in the Philippines.

Chapter V – Conclusion and recommendation

The researchers, therefore finds that same sex marriage is only beneficial to the citizens of same-sex relationship. Although a lot of Filipino citizen willingly accept the relationship of same sex couples, the probability that same sex marriage will be allowed here in the Philippines is for now highly impossible. One main reason is that, the Philippines is a Catholic country and legalizing same sex marriage weakens and contradicts the teachings as well as the doctrines of the Church which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Another reason is that it would ruin the concept of a family. In a normal set up, a family is composed of a father, a mother and a child or children. Father Marcos Gonzales once said, “the Church says that homosexuals should be treated with love and respect but redefining the natural and divine institution of marriage is simply something we are not able to do.” On the bright side, the Philippines is not closing its doors for the changes that may happen in the near future. Especially that the Filipino citizens always go with what we call is “uso” or trending.

The researchers recommend that the citizen of the Philippines reading this to consider the disadvantages and advantages of the adoption of same sex marriage. The legislators should also make the definition of marriage and equal rights in our constitution clear to avoid confusion and conflict involving the rights and privileges of the people. It should also be followed by the proper interpretation of the judiciary.

References :

Sta. Maria, Melencio S., “Persons and Family Law”

Other Countries Where Same-Sex Marriage is Legal. Retrieved from https://www.theweek.co.uk/lgbt-rights/97859/countries-where-gay-marriage-is-legal

The State of LGBT Human Rights Worldwide. Retrieved from https://www.amnestyusa.org/the-state-of-lgbt-rights-worldwide/

Philstar (2018). Palace: Too Soon For Same-Sex Marriage in the Philippines. Retrieved from https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/06/21/1826671/palace-too-soon-same-sex-marriage-philippines

Tan, Rebecca ( 2017). In the fight for gay marriage in the Philippines, Duterte could be an unlikely ally. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/06/19/in-the-fight-for-gay-marriage-in-the-philippines-duterte-could-be-an-unlikely-ally/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.01bdea9ad0ed

Thoreson, Ryan (2018). Philippine Supreme Court Considers Same-Sex Marriage. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/06/19/philippine-supreme-court-considers-same-sex-marriage

Hojilla, Kate Aubrey (2017). Same-sex marriage and its legal hindrance in the Philippines. Retrieved from http://www.accralaw.com/publications/same-sex-marriage-and-its-legal-hindrance-philippines-0

Nussbaum, Martha (2009). A Right to Marry? Same-sex Marriage and Constitutional Law. Retrieved from https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/a-right-to-marry-same-sex-marriage-and-constitutional-law

Encyclopaedia Britannica. Same-Sex Marriage. Retrieved from

https://www.britannica.com/topic/same-sex-marriage

(2018). Should Homosexual Marriage be Legalized?. Retrieved from https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/family-law/should-homosexual-marriage-be-legalized-law-essay.php

(2018). Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships. Retrieved from

(2015). Same-Sex Marriage Laws. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/same-sex-marriage-laws.aspx

(2018). Chronology of Same-sex Marriage Bills Introduced into the federal parliament. Retrieved from https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1718/Quick_Guides/SSMarriageBills

Researchers:

Allyanna Patrisha T. Magbanua

Crystine Senadre

Published by Jocelle Batapa Sigue

ATTY. JOCELLE BATAPA-SIGUE • Named as one of The Outstanding Women in Nation’s Service of the Philippines or TOWNS for 2016 in the field of Information and Communications Technology or ICT • Positions: Past Vice President (2018) and Past President (2010-2012) and Past Trustee (2013-2017) of the National ICT Confederation of the Philippines or NICP • Founder, Former President and Current Executive Director of the Bacolod-Negros Occidental Federation for ICT or BNEFIT • Served for 3 terms as councilor of Bacolod City • Chosen as one of Asia Society Top Ten Philippines 21 Young Leaders in 2009 • Chosen as the Eisenhower Fellow of the Philippines in 2012 • Awarded as Philippine Individual Contributor of the Year during the International ICT Awards given by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and Industry in the Philippines View all posts by Jocelle Batapa Sigue

Your guide to the Supreme Court oral arguments on same-sex marriage

Already have Rappler+? Sign in to listen to groundbreaking journalism.

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

Your guide to the Supreme Court oral arguments on same-sex marriage

MANILA, Philippines – In May 2015, only two months after he passed the Philippine Bar, Jesus Falcis III filed a petition seeking to legalize same-sex marriage in this predominantly Catholic country.

The petition was the first of its kind.

Marriage equality is typically fought in Congress, and for years, the Philippine Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) movement has lobbied for the enactment of an anti-discrimination law and not a law on same-sex marriage.

The strategy was apparently to wage one battle at a time. Once the proposed anti-discrimination law is passed, then same-sex marriage would follow.

Yet, here we are now.

In a historic first, the Supreme Court will tackle same-sex marriage in oral arguments on Tuesday, June 19, because one young, gutsy, gay lawyer thought this was a battle better fought in the Court, not in Congress.

“Mauuna pa tayo sa mga ibang issues sa Pilipinas, at mauuna pa tayo sa ibang bansa sa Asian region na medyo conservative (We will be ahead of other issues in the Philippines, and we will be ahead of other countries in the Asian region that are conservative),” Falcis said, referring to the oral arguments.

However, “it is not that soon,” the lawyer said. It took the Supreme Court 3 years to schedule his petition for oral arguments. (READ: SC applicants agree with U.S ruling favoring baker in gay wedding cake case )

It has certainly been a long time coming for petitioner-intervenor Ceejay Agbayani, pastor of an LGBT Christian Church, who has been marrying same-sex couples for years, though their marriages are not recognized by the State.

Agbayani is “married” to partner of 12 years Marlon Felipe. The pastor is 44 years old.

“Nanghihina na ako, akala ko hindi ko maaabot ang araw na ito (I’m getting weak, I thought that I wouldn’t live long enough to see this day),” Agbayani said.

He and Felipe intervened in the Falcis petition to boost its legal standing. The couple’s application for a marriage license was denied, making personalities with an actual stake in the case.

Agbayani said he sought out Falcis when he heard in 2015 that the young lawyer had filed a petition.

“Sabi ko, thank Jesus! I love Jesus, both Jesus the attorney and the historical Jesus. Finally, this guy, whom I’ve never met, meron din siyang pagnanasa for marriage equality, eh ang kulang lang namin, actually, attorney. Noon pa man gusto na naming magKorte Supreme pero wala kaming attorney,” Agbayani said.

(I said, thank you Jesus! I love Jesus, both Jesus the attorney and the historical Jesus. Finally, this guy, whom I’ve never met, he also wants marriage equality. The only thing we lacked then was a lawyer. We have always wanted to go to the Supreme Court, but we didn’t have a lawyer.)

At 31, Falcis is one of the youngest lawyers to ever face oral arguments before the Supreme Court. He will have his most-awaited day in Court on June 19. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) will represent the State.

Here is your guide to the oral arguments:

These are the provisions of the Family Code in question:

Article 1: Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage within the limits provided by this Code.

Article 2: No marriage shall be valid, unless these essential requisites are present: (1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female

These are the provisions in the Constitution that the petition alleges to have been violated by the aforementioned:

Section 1, Article III: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

Section 3(1), Article XV: The State shall defend the right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood

1. Should the petition be subject to the Court’s power of judicial review?

Petition: Yes, because “Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code trigger a strict judicial scrutiny because it violates the fundamental rights to decisional and marital privacy and because it created a suspect classification.”

A suspect classification happens when a class of individuals is discriminated against. In legal principles, suspect classification should be subject to strict Court scrutiny.

State: No, because “the legal definition of marriage between a man and a woman is a policy issue within the authority of Congress, not the Courts, to decide.”

The OSG also added that the petition was defective because it did not implead Congress, the body that makes laws, and the body that passed the assailed Family Code.

2. What do the laws say?

Petition: The passing of the Family Code provisions limiting marriage to a man and a woman only constitute grave abuse of discretion because the Constitution did not define marriage as solely between a man and a woman. (The Family Code was signed into law on July 6, 1987, or 6 months after the Constitution was ratified in February that year.)

Similarly, the marriage provisions in the 1949 Civil Code did not limit marriages to a man and a woman only.

Here is the pertinent Civil Code provision:

Article 54. Any male of the age of sixteen years or upwards, and any female of the age of fourteen years or upwards, not under any of the impediments mentioned in Articles 80 to 84, may contract marriage.

State: “The Civil Code only allows heterosexual marriage.”

The OSG said that the use of the word “and” in Article 54 – any male aged 16 years or upwards AND any female of the age 14 years or upward – means marriage was limited to a male and female, not male or female.

The OSG added that Title V and VI of the Civil Code mentions a “husband and wife” which further bolsters the claim that the Civil Code “only sanctions heterosexual marriage.”

3. Did Philippine laws intend marriage for procreation?

Petition: No. Articles 2 and 3 of the Family Code “do not require married individuals to procreate or have the ability to procreate.”

Article 45(5) of the Family Code lists as a ground for annulment if either party “is incapable of consummating the marriage with the other, and such incapacity continues and appears to be incurable.” The petition said this is impotency.

“Homosexuals ordinarily are not impotent…because they are ordinarily not sterile,” the petition said, meaning homosexuals have the capacity to consummate the marriage.

On the issue of whether they can procreate, the petition said they are not prohibited by Philippine laws to adopt children. It cited a Supreme Court ruling that sided with a lesbian mother in a custody battle, saing that “sexual preference or moral laxity alone does not prove parental neglect or incompetence.”

State: Yes. “This state and societal interest to encourage procreation in a stable environment of a traditional family had been the reason for limiting marriage between a man and a woman, and in effect, creating a classification between couples that may avail of the special contract of marriage, and those that cannot.”

The OSG also cites Articles 46 and 55 of the Family Code, which count homosexuality as legal grounds for annulment.

Article 46(4): Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in Number 3 of the preceding Article: Concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism or homosexuality or lesbianism existing at the time of the marriage.

Article 55(6): A petition for legal separation may be filed on any of the following grounds: Lesbianism or homosexuality of the respondent

For the petitioner, if Articles 2 and 3 should be declared unconstitutional, then Articles 46 and 55 shall also be declared unconstitutional.

The OSG disagreed, saying that the provisions gave importance to conjugal intimacy which is “after all, the means for procreation of children and establishing a family.”

It cited an SC ruling which voided a marriage based on the wife’s complaint that the husband was not having sex with her.

The ruling said: “To procreate children based on the universal principle that procreation of children through sexual cooperation is the basic end of marriage. Constant non- fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity or wholeness of the marriage.”

4. Does limiting marriage to men and women only violate the equal protection clause?

Petition: Yes, because the classification does not rest on substantial distinction.

To explain, equal protection clause will not apply if these 4 conditions are satisfied:

It must rest on substantial distinctions
It must be germane to the purposes of law
It must not be limited to existing conditions only
It must apply equally to all members of the same class

There is substantial distinction if it can be justified why a certain class is treated differently. The petition said there is no substantial distinction between same sex couples and opposite sex couples.

If it’s their inability to procreate, the petition asks: Why are old heterosexual couples who are sterile and cannot procreate allowed to marry?

State: No, equal protection clause will not apply because the second condition was met, which is that it is germane or relevant to the purposes of the law.

The OSG goes back to the issue of procreation, and argued that procreation was among the main purposes of limiting marriage between a man and a woman only.

“While societal views of marriage as well as methods for procreation may be arguably changing since then, the laws that these norms initiated are slow to follow suit. The remedy for this perceived lethargy, however, lies with Congress, and not with the judiciary,” the OSG said.

5. Does limiting marriage to men and women only violate Section 3(1), Article XV of the Constitution?

Petition: Section 3(1), Article XV says the State shall defend the right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood.

The petition argues that like Agbayani, individuals belonging to religious denominations believe in same-sex marriage. Therefore, their right to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions is violated.

State: Petitioners cannot invoke Section 3(1), Article XV because it is not a self-executory right.

A self-executory right is one which does not need an enabling law to enforce. In general principles, a person cannot invoke a law that is a non-self executory right to void another law which may be inconsistent with it.

The OSG cited a past SC ruling which says Section 3(1), Article XV are non-self executory and are “mere statements and principles and policies.”

The OSG also said that according to the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, Section 3(1), Article XV was meant to direct Congress to enact laws that will “further its policy for the Filipino family, while prohibiting it from interfering with the number of children that couples may beget.”

“It does not provide for a self-executory right that may be made the legal basis of petitioners’ alleged inequality,” the OSG said.

The OSG said that allowing same-sex marriage will complicate other gender specific laws in marriages, like how a husband’s decision will prevail in disagrement over a community property, and how a wife is assumed to have better abilities to raise a child of tender age, or the classification of adultery and concubinage.

For the petitioners, marriage equality will be worth all the trouble. “I am a Filipino, give us this right, we are not different, we are part of this country too,” Agbayani said.

Oral arguments will start 2 pm on Tuesday, June 19. – Rappler.com

Add a comment

Please abide by Rappler's commenting guidelines .

There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.

How does this make you feel?

Same-Sex Marriage And Its Legal Hindrance In The Philippines.

June 26, 2017 by Conventus Law

26 June, 2017

Leading lawyer, judge, and writer Justice Robert A. Jackson once said: “[f]reedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.”

Touching the very heart of the existing order is the issue on same-sex marriage or — more accurately — unions. US-based Pew Research Center noted that the number of governments which consider granting legal recognition to same-sex marriage are growing. Around two dozen countries, mostly in Europe and the Americas, already allow same-sex marriage. However, as of date, a marriage or union between two Filipino citizens of the same sex is not legally recognized in the Philippines.

The issue once again found its way to national relevance after President Rodrigo Duterte’s pronouncement. Reversing his 2016 campaign promise to support legislation allowing same-sex marriage, President Duterte said that while he has no issue with anyone’s sexuality, he believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. He anchors this statement on Philippine laws, particularly Executive Order No. 209, otherwise known as “The Family Code of the Philippines,” which governs the law on marriage.

While President Duterte’s change of stance was widely criticized by rights groups, it was welcomed by the Roman Catholic Church, from which staunch opposition against same-sex marriage largely comes. Philippines is known as Asia’s bastion of Roman Catholicism and this heavily explains the church’s political influence over more than 80% of the population who are its members.

The Family Code defines marriage as “a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman.” It further provides as one of the essential requisites that the contracting parties “must be a male and a female.” It thus clearly prohibits same-sex couples from entering into a contract of marriage. The same law mentions homosexuality and lesbianism, but only as grounds to annul a marriage or to allow legal separation.

Thus, there is no impediment against legalizing same-sex marriage in the Philippines. However, there needs to be an enabling law redefining, and changing the parties who may contract, marriage.

Bills protecting the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) community, which include the legalization of same-sex civil marriage, are not among those which the House of Representatives prioritizes. As early as 18 years ago, a bill legalizing same-sex marriage was filed by former Representative Etta Rosales, but it never progressed from first reading. The same counterpart measure was sponsored by Senator Risa Hontiveros last year but it only also reached as far as first reading. Numerous anti-discrimination proposals have been served on the table but none of which was a success.

A country report initiated by the United Nations Development Program highlighted the fact that while the Philippines is a signatory to many relevant international covenants promoting human rights, the rights of the LGBT community are not always supported by the state.

It is a fact that same-sex activity is not criminalized in the Philippines and sexual orientation is mentioned in various laws. However, national legislation is bereft of anti-discriminatory laws which allow the LGBT community to fully exercise their fundamental rights to equality and non-discrimination. Though there are victories in the form of ordinances passed by local government units, such as Quezon City, Angeles, Cebu, Bacolod, and Davao, addressing discrimination against the LGBT community, there is not much to revel in terms of the latter’s opportunities to build a family.

Without marriage, same-sex couples suffer from substantially lesser rights compared to heterosexual couples. There are legal issues involving the former’s adoption and custody of children, hospital and prison visitation rights, management and transfer of properties, medical and burial decisions, and entitlement to insurance proceeds. Same-sex couples resort to certain legal, albeit limited, approaches to legitimize their union — adoption, which is allowed if done by a single LGBT person; business partnership, to jointly own properties; and a special power of attorney, to name a few.

In the landmark case of Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. COMELEC, no less than the highest court of the land recognizes “that practical solutions are preferable to ideological stalemates; accommodation is better than intransigence; reason more worthy than rhetoric. This will allow persons of diverse viewpoints to live together, if not harmoniously, then, at least, civilly.”

Our freedom to differ and, ultimately, our freedom to choose must not be limited by existing laws, especially when there is nothing that prohibits legislation accommodating legitimate calls for equality, which the Constitution itself enshrines.

For further information, please contact:

Kate Aubrey G. Hojilla, Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz (ACCRALAW)

[email protected]

Register for your monthly Asia legal updates from Conventus Law

Error: Contact form not found.

Malaysia – A Brief Overview Of Labuan Business Essentials.

Electrifying The Road Ahead: A Comprehensive Guide To EV Charging Guidelines In Malaysia.

- richard wee - managing partner, richard wee chambers.

EU – Green Claims Directive: Update On Recent Developments.

CONVENTUS LAW

CONVENTUS DOCS CONVENTUS PEOPLE

3/f, Chinachem Tower 34-37 Connaught Road Central, Central, Hong Kong

[email protected]

Evidence is clear on the benefits of legalising same-sex marriage

PhD Candidate, School of Arts and Social Sciences, James Cook University

Disclosure statement

Ryan Anderson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

James Cook University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

Emotive arguments and questionable rhetoric often characterise debates over same-sex marriage. But few attempts have been made to dispassionately dissect the issue from an academic, science-based perspective.

Regardless of which side of the fence you fall on, the more robust, rigorous and reliable information that is publicly available, the better.

There are considerable mental health and wellbeing benefits conferred on those in the fortunate position of being able to marry legally. And there are associated deleterious impacts of being denied this opportunity.

Although it would be irresponsible to suggest the research is unanimous, the majority is either noncommittal (unclear conclusions) or demonstrates the benefits of same-sex marriage.

Further reading: Conservatives prevail to hold back the tide on same-sex marriage

What does the research say?

Widescale research suggests that members of the LGBTQ community generally experience worse mental health outcomes than their heterosexual counterparts. This is possibly due to the stigmatisation they receive.

The mental health benefits of marriage generally are well-documented . In 2009, the American Medical Association officially recognised that excluding sexual minorities from marriage was significantly contributing to the overall poor health among same-sex households compared to heterosexual households.

Converging lines of evidence also suggest that sexual orientation stigma and discrimination are at least associated with increased psychological distress and a generally decreased quality of life among lesbians and gay men.

A US study that surveyed more than 36,000 people aged 18-70 found lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals were far less psychologically distressed if they were in a legally recognised same-sex marriage than if they were not. Married heterosexuals were less distressed than either of these groups.

So, it would seem that being in a legally recognised same-sex marriage can at least partly overcome the substantial health disparity between heterosexual and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons.

The authors concluded by urging other researchers to consider same-sex marriage as a public health issue.

A review of the research examining the impact of marriage denial on the health and wellbeing of gay men and lesbians conceded that marriage equality is a profoundly complex and nuanced issue. But, it argued that depriving lesbians and gay men the tangible (and intangible) benefits of marriage is not only an act of discrimination – it also:

disadvantages them by restricting their citizenship;

hinders their mental health, wellbeing, and social mobility; and

generally disenfranchises them from various cultural, legal, economic and political aspects of their lives.

Of further concern is research finding that in comparison to lesbian, gay and bisexual respondents living in areas where gay marriage was allowed, living in areas where it was banned was associated with significantly higher rates of:

mood disorders (36% higher);

psychiatric comorbidity – that is, multiple mental health conditions (36% higher); and

anxiety disorders (248% higher).

But what about the kids?

Opponents of same-sex marriage often argue that children raised in same-sex households perform worse on a variety of life outcome measures when compared to those raised in a heterosexual household. There is some merit to this argument.

In terms of education and general measures of success, the literature isn’t entirely unanimous. However, most studies have found that on these metrics there is no difference between children raised by same-sex or opposite-sex parents.

In 2005, the American Psychological Association released a brief reviewing research on same-sex parenting. It unambiguously summed up its stance on the issue of whether or not same-sex parenting negatively impacts children:

Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.

Further reading: Same-sex couples and their children: what does the evidence tell us?

Drawing conclusions

Same-sex marriage has already been legalised in 23 countries around the world , inhabited by more than 760 million people.

Despite the above studies positively linking marriage with wellbeing, it may be premature to definitively assert causality .

But overall, the evidence is fairly clear. Same-sex marriage leads to a host of social and even public health benefits, including a range of advantages for mental health and wellbeing. The benefits accrue to society as a whole, whether you are in a same-sex relationship or not.

As the body of research in support of same-sex marriage continues to grow, the case in favour of it becomes stronger.

Human rights
Same-sex marriage
Same-sex marriage plebiscite

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

Senior Disability Services Advisor

Deputy Social Media Producer

Associate Professor, Occupational Therapy

GRAINS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CHAIRPERSON

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy .

The best argument against same-sex marriage

FILIPINOS, SPORTING #LoveWins hashtags and slapping rainbows onto their Facebook profile pictures, have been swept up in the euphoria over the US Supreme Court decision declaring same-sex marriage a fundamental human right. Law professors are heartened to see Justice Anthony Kennedy’s poetic Obergefell decision shared in social media. However, we must also read the powerful dissents and ask why we might prefer that our unelected justices decide this sensitive issue instead of our elected legislators.

Inquirer 2bu quoted teenagers opining that anyone with the capacity to love deserves to have his/her chosen relationship validated. Obergefell’s logic is equally simple. Forget “substantive due process,” “decisional privacy” and “equal protection.” It takes the simple premise that human liberty necessarily goes beyond physical liberty, and includes an unwritten right to make fundamental life choices. Choosing a life partner is one such fundamental choice and the decision of two people to formalize their relationship must be accorded utmost dignity.

The typical arguments against this simple idea are so intellectually discredited that Obergefell no longer discussed them. (My Philippine Law Journal article “Marriage through another lens,” 81 PHIL. L.J. 789 [2006], tried applying them to bisexual and transgender Filipinos.)

One cannot solely invoke religious doctrine, even if thinly veiled as secular “morality.” Religious groups may confront this issue but not impose their choices on others. Their often vindictive tone contrasts sharply with Kennedy’s, and increasingly alienates millennials who revel in individuality. Those criticized as religious zealots should at least strive to be up-to-date, more sophisticated religious zealots.

The most common argument, procreation, is also the easiest to refute. Philippine Family Code author Judge Alicia Sempio-Diy wrote: “The [Code] Committee believes that marriage … may also be only for companionship, as when parties past the age of procreation still get married.”

Another argument reduces marriage to a series of economic benefits and suggests a “domestic partnership” system to govern same-sex couples’ property and other rights. This parallels having separate schools for white and black children and claiming they are equal because both have schools. It implies that some relationships so lack dignity that they must be called something else.

Protecting the “traditional” definition of marriage is too subjective. Obergefell reminds that traditional definitions evolve and once prohibited interracial and accepted arranged marriages, and “it is unrealistic to conclude that an opposite-sex couple would choose not to marry simply because same-sex couples may do so.”

Recent last-ditch arguments alleged harm to children. No party to Obergefell contested that same-sex couples may build nurturing families after adopting or tapping medical advances to produce babies with related DNA. Prohibiting same-sex marriage harms children by making such families unstable, as only one parent may legally adopt and have rights in relation to a child.

With all these discredited, the Obergefell dissents simply raised that marriage is so central a social institution that it is better redefined by democratic process than unelected judges. Proponents may consider opponents homophobic, bigoted, narrow-minded religious zealots, but none of these disqualifies one from being a citizen. Chief Justice John Roberts argued that proponents should have relied on how popular opinion was rapidly shifting in their favor than ending all debate by court order.

Justice Antonin Scalia decried how the US Constitution was turned into a “fortune cookie” in a “judicial Putsch” that declared a radical unwritten right. Roberts cautioned that the first cases to use similar doctrine upheld slavery and struck down labor regulations in the name of laissez faire economics. Although invoking human rights is not subject to an election, it is wise to consult society in defining these, and Obergefell stressed the lengthy public debates the United States experienced at every level.

One thus asks why an instant judicial solution is more appealing than backing Akbayan Rep. Barry Gutierrez’s proposed same-sex marriage bill. The Philippines has not had serious public debate given how we recently focused on reproductive health, and our high court has not even explicitly recognized “decisional privacy.” Further, the petition to legalize same-sex marriage recently filed at our high court is blatantly deficient.

The petition (like the anti-RH petitions) does not even identify a client. There is no actual Filipino same-sex couple, unlike the real Mr. Obergefell who sought to be named the spouse on his partner’s death certificate after their deathbed wedding. This violates the most basic rule that judicial power may only be used in an “actual case” and the high court should have instantly thrown out the no-case petition (like the anti-RH petitions). The petition also has glaring errors (like the anti-RH petitions). It invoked the Philippine privacy decision Ople vs Torres, which involved information in government databases and has nothing to do with the “decisional privacy” of US same-sex marriage debates. Even liberals should be hard-pressed to support this lest they be intellectually inconsistent and validate the anti-RH petitions’ worst features.

Any citizen lacking the patience to back Gutierrez’s bill has every right to short-circuit democracy by seeking an order from unelected judges. One hopes our high court insists that it be sought properly.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

React: [email protected] , Twitter @oscarfbtan, facebook.com/OscarFranklinTan.

Fearless views on the news

Disclaimer: Comments do not represent the views of INQUIRER.net. We reserve the right to exclude comments which are inconsistent with our editorial standards. FULL DISCLAIMER

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more, please click this link.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Resolve that same sex marriage should be legalized in the Philippines Necessity : Negative Side

Related Papers

Mayrll Louise Santos

The ever-changing trends in the world brought by the growing ideas and modernization indeed limited the faculty of conservatism. Various actions and styles that were behind the bars before were apparently free and accepted in the society. However, there are still cases where conservatism prevails causing conflicts between the traditionalists and progressive individuals. An exemplar to this is the issue of homosexuality. For the longest years, the issue of gay rights has been subjected to a number of heated debates. Such issue had not only touched the social, religious, and cultural aspects, for it also crossed the boundaries of politics. Currently, the LGBTQ, an initialism that stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning community, shares the plight for greater social acceptance and their struggle to practice their constitutional rights as humans too. Included in these rights is their right to marriage.Same-sex marriage sparked a long controversy leading to the dividing views of citizensand involved institutions, fervent debates within the social and cultural norms, and the question of being a political issue were prevalent. However, despite these various contentions against same-sex marriage, there were 21 recorded states where gay marriage is legal nationwide. These countries are Netherlands (2000), Belgium (2003), Canada (2005), Spain (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Argentina (2010), Iceland (2010), Portugal (2010), Denmark (2012), Brazil (2013), England and Wales (2013), France (2013), New Zealand (2013), Uruguay (2013), Luxembourg (2014), Scotland (2014), Finland (signed 2015, effective 2017), Ireland (2015) (Time, 2015). Thus, the issue of same-sex marriage paved the way for debates and researches in several states. As such, this paper attempts to study the possibility of same-sex marriage in the case of one Asian country, particularly the Philippines. The rationale behind this preference originates from the 21 recorded countries where same-sex marriage is legal. And of these 21 countries, none of these is from Asia. The subject matter of this study aims to provide the contrasting views of the involved institutions, particularly the state actors, church, and agents of political socialization in the issue of same-sex marriage. The existence of these varying oppositions relates to the significance of the study. The significance of this study is to determine the influences of state, the church, and other possible agents of political socialization to the legalization of same-sex marriage in case of the Philippines.

Deborah Palacio

Masami Tamagawa

Despite its apparent gay friendliness, Japanese society has witnessed few public debates or social movements in support of same-sex marriage. It seems that Japanese scholars and activists are only just beginning to advocate the legal protection of homosexual couples. Although Japan has witnessed a few recent developments toward same-sex marriage, an anti-same sex marriage perspective seems to dominate, even among Japanese scholars and activists who are gay and lesbian themselves.In order to understand Japans slow progress toward same-sex marriage, this article examines the legality of same-sex marriage in Japan, Japans apparent lack of the political and historical progress of same-sex marriage in the West, and Japanese societal and cultural features including gay adoption, invisibility and heterosexism at work and in academia. This article also compares the current debates on the legal protection of same-sex couples in Japan and Japanese feminist criticism of the Japanese family, to explain the prevalence of the anti-same sex marriage position. Further, with the notion of familial homophobia by Shulman (2009), the traditional Japanese family is defined as the grounds for homophobia. Lastly, the possibility of legalizing same-sex marriage in Japan is discussed.

Aloy Ojilere

In Obergefell et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al (Obergefell), 2015, the US Supreme Court supposedly legalized same-sex marriage across America, thus, resting the " right to marry " advocacy in America post-United States v. Windsor. The Court premised its decision inter alia, on the quest for expansive protection of the rights to marriage and equality under the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. Nonetheless, Obergefell still generates mixed pro-love discussion in legal, academic, sematic, socio-cultural, religious, and political circles inside and outside America. This paper distinguishes " civil union " from " marriage " and argues that logically, socio-religiously, scientifically, grammatically or otherwise, " same-sex marriage " is a mere jargon because marriage is naturally and practically impossible between persons of the same biological sex. The paper concludes that Obergefell is a judicial endorsement of an impossibility, and a somersault of human dignity. It may seem afro-centric, but it certainly furthers scholarship on marriage and " the other side " of Obergefell.

Ijeoma Ucheibe

Same sex marriages are happening everywhere around the world and it has received a significant boost in numbers since the landmark ruling given in Obergefell v. Hodges which made it legal in the 50 states across the United States of America. It is a given that it has come to stay going with the way gay pride parades and marches have been held around the world especially in countries where it has been legalised like the United Kingdom, the Netherlands to mention a few. The list of issues that defy a conclusive reasoning is non exhaustive especially within the context of the same sex marriage debate and they include - the socio-cultural and psychological disconnect that children are exposed to when their parents are gay or transgender, the ever evolving definition of a family unit, the inadequacy of the laws available to take care but largely vague in interpretation, who raises the children in a same sex marriage setting among others. These issues amongst others portend a changing landscape for the future of family law and to a larger extent the human race. In practice, same sex marriage is argued from the viewpoint of being a human rights issue but this project work will try to sieve through the raging controversy which has greeted this debate from both moral, political and even from proponents of the traditional family institutions. It is trite to note that even where regulations exist to excuse or better still legalise this form of marriage, it is still not acceptable in major cultures and civilisation across the world and particularly in many African countries like Malawi, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Nigeria. The research will argue for and against same sex marriage but will touch on the salient fact that it is a movement that will come to be accepted over a period of time and get the needed attention it deserve but will ultimately attempt to address emerging trends in the same sex marriage debate. Keywords: same sex marriage, regulation, institution.

On June 26th 2015, the United States Supreme Court legalized same sex marriage. Similarly, the adoption of the United Nations Human Rights resolution for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) rights during its 27th session in September 2014 by a 25-14 vote margin after more than an hour of debate, condemns violence and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity across the globe. Some countries from the South such as Pakistan's representative to the U.N. Human Rights Council called it a " divisive and controversial initiative. " While Saudi Arabia's representative during debate said; " We feel there is an attempt to impose uniculturality that runs counter to religious and cultural practices of some countries; in my opinion, this (resolution) is a human rights violation. " As this resolution was passed, Russia's Constitutional Court upheld their country's anti-gay " propaganda " law 1. This paper is a desk review which explores contending theoretical debates on same sex marriage (SSM) discourse and suggests that SSM is not akin to sustainable human development. It advances a novel theoretical argument which classifies SSM as virtual and unsustainable union beyond human rights debate. It recognizes the emotions of LGBTs but argues for an alternative, namely; green sexuality-a union between a man and woman rooted in procreation and conjugal bliss. It demonstrates that SSM falls short of these criteria. The paper suggests that the union of man and man or woman and woman should have a distinct classification other than marriage in the conventional context. This theme is important in contemporary global sexuality debate both as analytical and policy instrument to reexamine Western rights notion and amenable ways to douse violent attacks ,stigmatization and discrimination on LGBTs, in particular, re –examine sexuality beyond Western " human rights " rhetoric or is the world experiencing a clash of sexuality?

Maria Ariebelle Santos

Douglas Sanders

Dr Ambika Kohli , Aloy Ojilere , Fareeha Ali , Surinder Kaur , Dr. Salma Javed

MyInfoBasket.com

Free Quality Online Learning Materials

Pagkilala sa Pambihirang Pagkakakilanlan ng Lahing Pilipino
Alab ng Kultura: Mga Musika at Sayaw ng Lahi na Pambihirang Ipinagmamalaki ng mga Pilipino
Tunay na mga Biyaya: Mga Kawanggawa sa Pamayanan na Bunga ng Pananampalataya
The Last Words of Jose Rizal: An Insight into the Final Moments of the National Hero
Who was Jose Rizal? Discover the Life and Legacy of Jose Protacio Rizal Mercado y Alonso Realonda

Same Sex Marriage Debate: Reasons For and Against

Homosexual relationships are increasingly gaining acceptance in other countries, but are still banned in the Philippines. Some explain that the traditional marital set-up defines the fundamental, cross-cultural institution that healthily provides ‘normal parents’ to children.

Same-sex marriage advocates however argue that legalizing same-sex unions would be good not only for gay people, but also for society as a whole, since society fundamentally supports loving relationships regardless of the people’s gender orientations and preferences.

So generally speaking, should same-sex marriage be legalized?

These are some of the reasons used by those who propose the legalization of same sex marriage:

1. Same-sex marriage does not hurt the society or anyone in particular. Denying this form of marriage is a case of minority discrimination.

2. A legalized same sex marriage can be a big help to orphanages. Same sex partners’ inability to procreate would probably bring them to adopting orphans.

3. Today, homosexuality is already an accepted lifestyle. Many productive and highly-respected people in the society (such as leaders, filmmakers, and other artists) belong to the gay community. It’s about time to positively sanction their relationships.

4. Is not love the most important thing that should matter in marriage? Once same-sex marriage is legalized, the political and financial benefits that apply to man-woman marriages will also be enjoyed by genuinely loving gay couples.

Oppositely, those who take the traditional stance offer these reasons against same-sex marriage:

1. Same-sex union may traumatically confuse children especially about gender roles, procreation, and societal expectations. For children’s sake, same-sex marriage must be banned.

2. Though becoming rampant, gay lifestyle is not something to be encouraged as studies show that it leads to a much lower life expectancy, psychological disorders, and other personal and societal problems.

3. Same-sex union and building a family out of it are not biologically natural. Same-sex couples cannot naturally produce children through their union.

4. The proposal will weaken the sanctity, honor, and prestige of marriage as a fundamental institution. Same-sex marriage will destructively weaken many traditional family values that serve as fabrics of a stable society … continue reading

SA MGA MAG-AARAL : Maaaring ilagay ang inyong assignment/comment dito sa comment section ng Moral Standards and Non-Moral Standards (Difference and Characteristics)

ALSO CHECK OUT: Reasoning and Debate: A Handbook and a Textbook by Jensen DG. Mañebog

IMPORTANT: TO STUDENTS (and their friends/relatives): For your comments NOT to be DELETED by the system , pls SUBSCRIBE first (if you have not subscribed yet). Thanks.

===== To post comment, briefly watch this related short video:

==== For your COMMENT, use the comment section here: Comments of RATIONAL STUDENTS