argumentative essay about same sex marriage in the philippines

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.

Subscribe Now

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?

Marriage Equality: The Fight for Same-Sex Unions in the Philippines

Category: Social Issues , Sociology
Topic: Gender Equality , Homosexuality , Same Sex Marriage

Pages: 2 (726 words)

Downloads: -->

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Rhetorical Strategies Essays

Speak Essays

Public Speaking Essays

Communication Skills Essays

Propaganda Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->