Church reaffirms stance against same-sex marriage

MANILA, Philippines - The Catholic Church has reaffirmed its teaching against same-sex
marriage and maintained that the family can only be formed by a union between a man a woman.

Vatican spokesperson Fr. Federico Lombardi confirmed that gay marriage is part of what Pope
Francis described as ideological colonization threatening the foundation of families.

In part also, yes. There may be stronger demographical or political measures or a vision that
diminishes the central place of the family in the society, Lombardi said Friday night when asked
if same-sex marriage was among the ideological colonizers that threaten to destroy families.

I think it is well known that the perspective of the church about the family is the family is based
on the union of marriage of man and woman, he added.

Lombardi stressed that the Church does not recognize other definitions of family, a term that has
been modified in some countries due to gay rights movements and marriage and marriage
equality laws.

The family is for us a union of man and woman and the children that come from this union.
This is for us is the family. If there are person who decide to have community in other ways, this
is not for us a family, he said.

A predominantly Catholic country, the Philippines does not recognize same-sex marriages. Some
activists, however, believe its about the time that the debate on whether to same-sex unions
should be recognized legally.

In his meeting with families at the SM Mall of Asia Arena last Friday, Pope Francis said the
family is being threatened by several forces including efforts to alter the meaning of marriage.

The family is also threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very
institution of marriage, by relativism, by the culture of the ephemeral, by the lack of openness to
life, the pontiff said.

Our world needs good and strong families to overcome these threats, he added.

Pope Francis said the effects of natural disasters, migration and financial problems also pose
pressures to family life.

The Philippines needs holy and loving families to protect the beauty and truth of the family in
Gods plan and to be a support and example to other families, he added.
Pope, in Philippines, says same-sex marriage threatens
family
By Francis X. Rocca
Catholic News Service

MANILA, Philippines (CNS) -- Appealing to the traditional values of Filipino Catholic families,
Pope Francis made one of his strongest calls as pope against movements to recognize same-sex
unions as marriage.

"The family is also threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very
institution of marriage," the pope said Jan. 16, hours after warning that Philippine society was
"tempted by confusing presentations of sexuality, marriage and the family."

"As you know, these realities are increasingly under attack from powerful forces which threaten
to disfigure God's plan for creation and betray the very values which have inspired and shaped
all that is best in your culture," he said.

Pope Francis made his remarks at a Mass in Manila's cathedral and then at a meeting with
families in the city's Mall of Asia Arena.

At the latter event, the pope called on his listeners to resist "ideological colonization that
threatens the family." The Vatican spokesman, Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, said later that
the pope was referring to same-sex marriage, among other practices.

Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle of Manila, who was present at the reporters' briefing, cited claims
by African bishops that foreign aid to their countries is sometimes offered on the condition that
they accept "alien" views of sexuality and marriage.

Civil law in the Philippines does not recognize marriages or unions between people of the same
sex.

The pope's comments came less than a week after a speech to Vatican diplomats in which he
criticized "legislation which benefits various forms of cohabitation rather than adequately
supporting the family for the welfare of society as a whole," saying that such legislation had
contributed to a widespread sense of the family as "disposable."

In November, Pope Francis told an interreligious conference on traditional marriage that

preserving the family as an institution based on marriage between a man and a woman is not a
political cause but a matter of "human ecology," since "children have the right to grow up in a
family with a father and mother capable of creating a suitable environment for the child's
development and emotional maturity."

As archbishop of Buenos Aires, then-Cardinal Jose Maria Bergoglio opposed same-sex marriage
in Argentina, calling it an "anti-value and an anthropological regression" and "destructive of the
plan of God," and writing that it expressed the "envy of the devil." But he did not repeat such
statements following his election as pope.

When asked why he had not spoken about Brazil's legalization of abortion and same-sex
marriage during his July 2013 trip to the country, the pope said the "church has already spoken
quite clearly on this. It was unnecessary to return to it."

In an interview published in September 2013, Pope Francis told Jesuit Father Antonio Spadaro:
"We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive
methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded
for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The
teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not
necessary to talk about these issues all the time."

The pope's latest statements come during a year of preparation for the October 2015 world Synod
of Bishops on the family, following an October 2014 extraordinary synod on the same topic.
At the earlier gathering, a midterm report stirred controversy with remarkably conciliatory
language toward people with ways of life contrary to Catholic teaching, including those in same-
sex unions. While such unions present unspecified "moral problems," the document stated, they
can exemplify "mutual aid to the point of sacrifice (that) constitutes a precious support in the life
of the partners."

That language was absent from the final report, which quoted a 2003 document from the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: "There are absolutely no grounds for considering
homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for
marriage and family."

In a December interview with Argentine journalist Elisabetta Pique, Pope Francis described the
midterm report as "merely a first draft," and said it had mentioned "positive factors" of same-sex
unions in an effort to help families support their gay members.

"Nobody mentioned homosexual marriage at the synod; it did not cross our minds," the pope
said.
Supreme Court asked to allow same-sex marriage in PHL
By MARK MERUE?AS, GMA News May 26, 2015 4:03pm

Tags: Supreme Court

Days before Ireland voted to allow gay marriage, a young Filipino lawyer asked the Philippine
Supreme Court to allow same-sex unions.

In his 31-page petition filed May 19 but released by the SC on Tuesday, Jesus Nicardo Falcis III
asked the tribunal to nullify the portions of Article 1 and 2 of Executive Order 209 or the Family
Code of the Philippines that define and limit marriage as between a man and a woman.

He said those portions violated Section 1, Article III and Section 3 (1), Article XV of the 1987
Philippine Constitution.

Falcis also wanted the SC to nullify portions of Article 46 (4) and 55 (6) of the Family Code that
mentioned lesbianism or homosexuality as grounds for annulment and legal separation.

He said the Civil Registrar-General, named as respondent in the petition, should be restrained
from enforcing the contested portions of the Family Code in processing applications for and in
issuing marriage licenses against homosexual couples.

Falcis said he had long planned to file such a petition with the Supreme Court.

"I filed the petition because it is the very reason why I studied and took up law to challenge
unconstitutional and oppressive laws," Falcis told reporters on Tuesday.

"The fight for equality cannot wait. As soon as I passed the bar, I started preparing to write the
petition. The longer time passes the longer gays are discriminated," he added.

Falcis said it did not matter whether or not Filipinos are already ready to accept same-sex union.

"The enjoyment of fundamental rights and liberties do not depend on the acceptance or approval
of the majority," he said.

Falcis said in his petition that he was an open and self-identified homosexual, who has sustained
direct injury as a result of the prohibition against same-sex marriages.

Falcis said Articles 1 and 2 regulate what he considered fundamental rights like the right to
decisional privacy, the right to marital privacy, and the right to found a family in accordance
with religious convictions.

He said the two articles deprived him of his right to liberty without substantive due process of
law. Falcis insisted that same-sex marriage will not harm the institution of marriage.

Aside from the ability to found and constitute a family, petition submits that homosexuals just
like heterosexuals can fulfill the essential marital obligations laid down by the Family Code, he
said.

Falcis also said Article 1 and 2 of the Family Code violates Sec. 3(1), Art. XV of the
Constitution, which states that "The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their
religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood.

Falcis said individuals belonging to religious denominations that believe in same-sex marriage,
like the LGBTS Christian Church Inc or the Metropolitan Community Church, are denied of the
right to found a family due to their religious convictions.

Same-sex weddings have been held by members belonging to such Christian denominations
from Baguio City to Quezon City. Such religious weddings have been denied recognition under
civil law unlike the religious convictions of Catholics and Muslims, he said.
Falcis also contested a 1997 SC ruling (Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals) in which the high
court declared that procreation is one of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code.

Such declaration of this honorable court is without legal basis and is obiter dictum. No such
obligation can be found in the Family Code of the Philippines, he said.

Assuming for arguments sake married couples are required to pro-create, Falcis pointed out the
homosexuals are allowed under the law to adopt.

Falcis said the Family Code allows impotency as a ground for annulment but not sterility.
Impotence refers to the inability to copulate or have sexual intercourse, while sterility refers to
the inability to procreate, he said.

Homosexuals ordinarily are not impotent Even if assuming homosexuals can be classified as
a group as sterile, they are not prohibited by Philippine law on domestic adoption and inter-
country adoption from individually adopting children, he said.

Homosexuals are no better parents than homosexuals. Stated otherwise, homosexuals arent
necessarily worse parents than heterosexuals, he added. NB/TJD, GMA News
Same sex marriage

Views and Points

WHAT do people say about marriage? What does the 1988 Family Code of the Philippines state
about marriage? What does the 1986 Constitution of the Philippines provide about marriage?
What does the Church in the Philippines teach about marriage? What does the Catholic Bishops
Conference of the Philippines declare about marriage? What does the Catholic Church in the
world proclaim about marriage? What does the Pope himself affirm about marriage?
Strictly speaking, it does not matter! It is not important! It is not necessary! Reason: Natural
lawthe nature of realities, the objective substance of things, the essence of earthly matters
has already specifically and clearly defined, established and affirmed what is marriage. No
Church and no Pope, no government and no president, no people of any race, color, and creed
can really change it. Why? Ground realities as categorically and concretely determined by
nothing less than the Law of Nature are beyond denial or contradiction by any contrary human
opinion, by any opposite human authority or legislation. Therefore: To think and affirm, to
promote and proclaim that marriage is between a man and a man or between a woman and a
womanthis is an excellent example of an exercise in futility.
So it is that the Church through all the ages as well as all over the globe professes and declares
that marriage is between a man and a woman. She has no choice. This is why the Pope himself
teaches and affirms that marriage is between a man and a woman. He has no alternative. This is
why the Church in the Philippines and the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines
maintain and insist that marriage is between a man and a woman. They have no option. To even
think, much more to assert and insist that marriage is not sothis can be done but is does not in
any way change the nature or essence of marriage.
Homosexuals are human persons with their intrinsic human dignity that should be respected by
people of all races, colors, and creeds. And in the event that a man and another man or a woman
and another woman want to live together, this they do at their own personal accountability. Such
togetherness can be called a Partnership, a Venture, a Contract, an Agreement or
whateverbut marriage it is not! It takes more but mere human preference to alter the Law of
Nature.
So it is that the Philippine Constitution provides that it does not only recognize family life and
shall also equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn (State Policy: 12).
This does not apply to Same Sex Marriage.
So it is that the Family Code of the Philippines states that marriage is between a man and a
woman (Art. 1). This does not apply to Same Sex Marriage.
So it is that the Code of Law of the Church stipulates that marriage is between a man and a
woman (Canon 1955). This does not apply to Same Sex Marriage.
Lawyer seeks Supreme Court's nod on same-sex marriage in
PH

(CNN Philippines) Just days after Ireland became the first country in the world to legalize
same-sex marriage by a solid majority, a Filipino lawyer filed before the Supreme Court (SC) a
petition aimed at removing the legal obstacles preventing gay in the Philippines from enjoying
the same marital right.

Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III, who identified himself as an "open and self-identified homosexual"
in his petition filed last May 18, wants the court to remove provisions in the1987 Family
Code that defines and limits marriage between man and woman only.

A law graduate from the University of the Philippines and a full-time lecturer at the Far Eastern
University, Falcis provided three legal arguments in his petition for certiorari.
He said the Family Code is unconstitutional because:

It deprives homosexuals the right to liberty without substantive due process of law.
It denies the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community equal protection of the
laws.
It violates Sec. 3(1) Art. XV of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Falcis said these provisions repealed the 1949 Civil Code, which did not define or limit marriage
between a man and a woman.

He also argued that homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, are persons that can establish and
contribute to a family and can also fulfill marital obligations laid down in the Family Code.

Falcis said he filed the petition to challenge the country's "unconstitutional and oppressive laws."

"I filed the petition because the fight for equality cannot wait. The longer time passes, the longer
gays are discriminated [against]," he said.

He added that gay couples are finding it hard to fight for equality because it is very costly.

Falcis believes that Filipinos are ready for same-sex marriage.

"But even if they're not ready, they don't have to be. The enjoyment of fundamental rights and
liberties do not depend on the acceptance or approval of the majority," he said.

CNN Philippines' AC Nicholls contributed to this report.

Is same-sex marriage right?
THE SEX ADVISOR By Eppy Halili Gochangco (The Philippine Star) | Updated March 4, 2014 -
12:00am

I decided to forego the usual question-and-answer format this time as I was invited by Dean
Amado Valdez of the College of Law of the University of the East to attend a symposium on
same-sex marriage. The title of the symposium was Same-sex marriage: Is it right? It was
sponsored by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), the Rotary Club of Manila (RCM), and
the University of the East College of Law and held last Feb. 14, Valentines Day, at the JBL
Reyes Hall of the IBP Bldg., Ortigas Center.

I found this symposium interesting and would like to share the experience with all of you.

Reactors present were from different fields there were lawyers, religious leaders from
different beliefs, and a guidance counselor presenting data from psychological researchers. The
way I understood it was that the religious leaders were very much against same-sex marriage.
However, some were explaining that the person should not be condemned for being a
homosexual. What must be condemned is the act of homosexuality.

One of the participants reacted aggressively to this statement. I was not able to catch the name
of this person and his religious affiliation. But he was wearing a pastors outfit. He is gay
married to a man. He could not understand how people could separate the act of homosexuality
from the person who is a homosexual. He believes that the homosexual is one with his actions.

One male member of the audience came forward and introduced himself as a productive citizen,
earning for himself. He later admitted that hes gay and married to a male. Both he and his
partner are productive and financially stable. This man added that he had tried marrying a
female but had failed. He insisted that there was nothing much he could do but accept that he is
gay and that he is meant to love another man. This man became very emotional. I could sense
that he was already tired from the impositions of the world about how he should be as a man.

I cant help but perceive that the issue of same-sex marriage may not necessarily mean that this
is just an issue for the same-sex couple. It could mean more than that. We live in a judging
world. This is a world where the super powers dictate on how the less powerful should live their
lives. There are the authoritarians controlling the lives of everyone.

The white men enslaved the black men. Later on, the black men stood up for their rights. In the
end, because of the determination of the black men to fight for their freedom, they were given
equal rights like all men.

Men overpowered the women, too. Just like the black man, the women started fighting for equal
rights. Again, determination overpowered the powerful men and gave women their equal rights.
The black men, now called African Americans, are now equal to white men. Women have equal
rights, too, because they fought for these.

Now, the voices of the homosexual individuals (both men and women) are becoming louder and
louder. What I hear are homosexuals standing up and asking the superpower called the
heterosexuals this question, May I live my life the way I want to? But the heterosexuals say,
No, you may not. It is not normal and you must follow. Just as the white men had to battle the
black men, the men had to battle the women; the heterosexuals will now have to contend with the
homosexuals. Like women and the black men, the more the homosexuals will get equal rights,
the more they will feel strongly about what they think they deserve because they are human
beings, too.

Same-sex marriage is not only about what is right or wrong. Same-sex marriage is only part of
the process homosexuals have to go through to get an equal share of what life can give. They are
asking to have the same sunlight shining on their faces as the heterosexuals have and the same
shade to go under when the sun is too strong.

Honestly, I think the homosexuals and the heterosexuals do not understand each other. When the
homosexuals ask for equality, the religious and the moralists start fearing that there may not be
any heterosexuals anymore one day. Then the human specie will be no more because there will
be no heterosexuals to procreate.

Just as there will always be a homosexual, there will always be a heterosexual. Everyone has
nothing to fear. In the end, we all have to live in peace and accept that everyone has rights and
no one should think that they should have more than those who are different from them.
Are same-sex marriages valid in the Philippines?

A FILIPINA (female) celebrity recently married her Filipina girlfriend in America, in a state
where same-sex marriages are legal. The question now though is, will this same-sex marriage
between Filipinos be acknowledged here in the Philippine jurisdiction?

As a general rule, marriages celebrated in another jurisdiction are respected in the Philippines.
However, the issue here is that this is a same-sex marriage (female marrying a female) of two
Filipino citizens. Does this mean that these Filipino citizens would also be considered married
under Philippine law?

Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case. It is likely that their marriage in America would
not be respected or recognized here in the Philippines. This is because of the way our laws are
worded.

Advertisement
First, we have to look at Article 15 of the Civil Code, which provides that "laws relating to
family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon
citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad." Since both spouses are Filipino citizens,
then by virtue of Article 15 of the Civil Code, the Family Code and applicable Filipino laws still
apply to them due to that citizenship.

Then we look at Article 1 of the Family Code of the Philippines which states that "marriage is a
special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with
the law for the establishment of conjugal and family life..."

The Family Code of the Philippines is specific that marriage can only be contracted between a
man and a woman. Since the two women who got married are Filipino citizens, then that means
Article 1 of the Family Code applies to them also even though they got married abroad.

As explained by my distinguished professor from Ateneo de Manila (and now also Dean of FEU
Institute of Law) Mel Sta. Maria in his book on the Family Code: "Marriage is a union founded
on the distinction of sex. The law likewise provides that the contracting parties must be a male
and a female." (Melencio Sta. Maria, Persons and Family Relations, p. 110, 4th Ed.).

In his book, Dean Sta. Maria also explained that the deeper and more profound reason
prohibiting same-sex marriage is because of "the impossibility of reproduction rather than from
an insidious discrimination on account of sex." (Sta. Maria, Persons and Family Relations, p.
111, citing Singer v. Hara, 11 Wn. App. 247, 522 P. 2d 1187).

That reproduction was the main purposes of marriage was further discussed in the Philippine
case of Chi Ming Tsoi v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 119190, January 16, 1997) where it was
said that "one of the essential marriage obligations under the Family Code is to procreate
children based on the universal principle that procreation of children through sexual cooperation
is the basic end of marriage." (Also cited in Sta. Maria, Persons and Family Relations, p. 111).

In my opinion then, the bottomline is that even though a same-sex marriage between Filipino
citizens was celebrated and recognized abroad, that does not necessarily mean that the marriage
will be recognized here due to current Philippine laws as applied to Filipino citizens.

Whether or not this will change will depend largely on future amendments or interpretations of
the Family Code and the Civil Code.
Same-sex marriage in the Philippines?
If social attitudes are gradually shifting, why is it hard to push for LGBT rights and same-sex
marriage here? Many would automatically blame the Catholic taliban, but that's a wrong framing
of the problem.

Dont expect Obamas endorsement of same-sex marriage to have an impact here. It was a
historical and an inspiring gesture, one that would galvanize a changing cultural perspective on
same-sex relationships inside and outside America.

Here, it would spark debates on our readiness for same-sex marriage, but dont hold your breath:
it wont alter anything here fundamentally. Dont even think that this would suddenly lead
President Aquino to push his allies in Congress to enact a law legalizing same-sex marriage.

It just wont happen.

This is not to say that the social attitudes and behavior of Filipinos toward homosexuality and
same-sex marriage are not changing. They are, and social media has triggered a shift in how we
digest controversial topics that in the past have been filtered and controlled by traditional
institutions, such as the Church and our schools. Im not saying that Filipinos are now more pro-
LGBT, but the overall mood is changing, and theres more openness to engage in an issue that is
still otherwise considered taboo.

Social media has democratized access to a wider range of narratives and stories on LGBTs and
made them part of our common experiences, creating a climate that could help dismantle
oppressive stereotypes about homosexuality. The bullying of LGBT kids in American schools,
for instance, a Canadian transgender joining the Miss Universe, the coming out of Hollywood
celebrities - these have all catalyzed conversations here. And while we know that these happened
elsewhere, we have embraced the universal elements of these stories.

More importantly, social media has given us access to participate in these conversations. To
respond to a homophobic slur in the past meant writing press releases or letters to the editors, the
fate of which would depend on the mood of the editors.

Today, Facebook and Twitter could help anyone - the in-your-face LGBT activist, the
closeted bakla, and their fag hags - push alternative perspectives on LGBTs, and influence how
opinion gatekeepers and icons see the issue.

Why the difficulty?

If social attitudes are gradually shifting, why then is it hard to push for LGBT rights and same-
sex marriage here in the Philippines?

Many would automatically blame the Catholic taliban, and how it has been trying to control our
political institutions.

I think it is a wrong framing of the problem, and it grants the Catholic hierarchy a degree of
influence that doesnt exist. The Church has no control over public opinion, as proven by the
continuing popularity of the RH Bill despite the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines's
opposition to it and by the failure of the Catholic Church to mobilize the so-called "Catholic
vote."

What we perceive to be the Churchs political influence in fact indicates a fundamental weakness
in our political institutions, a democratic flaw that makes our system beholden to interest groups
like the Catholic taliban.

The Church is powerful; the problem is that the state is weak. Legal recognition of same-sex
partnerships, whether through marriage or civil unions, would not happen by engaging or
reforming the Catholic hierarchy. It is after all the business of the Church hierarchy to be
dogmatic, and we should just let it collapse under the weight of its internal contradictions.
We should be engaging and reforming the state and make it modern, inclusive, and truly
representative.

Strategic battleground
For the LGBT community, that would require a change in strategy.

One, it means that LGBTs must reframe the debate on homosexuality along secular and non-
religious terms. While I understand why Catholic LGBTs want to carve a more tolerant space
within the Catholic faith, the more strategic battleground is in the Constitution, not the Bible.

Same-sex marriage is understandably a sensitive religious issue, but it is above all about our
sectarian values - about basic fairness and our constitutional rights, about human dignity
regardless of the sex of the people we love.

Two, we need to be more forthright about gay love and gay sex.
For many years, LGBT activists have skirted the issue of same-sex partnerships and gay
marriage as a non-priority, relegating it under more crucial issues, like discrimination in schools
and the workplace. This sends the wrong signal - that same-sex partnerships are secondary and
unimportant, when ironically the root of discrimination against LGBTs is the rejection of same-
sex partnerships, both the sexual and romantic sides of it.

We need to embrace gay sex and gay love and feel less guilty about them.

A modern state, embracing gay sex and gay love. Who said that marriage is easy? -Rappler.com

(The author is coordinator of Akbayan's LGBT Collective and a member of the Philippine
National AIDS Council.)
Same-Sex Marriage Not Yet Legally Recognized in the
Philippines
The state of New York recently passed a law that legalizes same-sex marriages. That means gay
and lesbian couples could marry, with legal protection ordinarily granted to male-female couples.
NY is the latest US state that allows same-sex marriage.

Also recently, weve seen Filipino gay and lesbian couples getting married in the Philippines, re-
sparking the debate on same-sex marriage. These individuals may have undergone such a
ceremony to express their love and commitment to one another. They may have done it to
rekindle the debate. They may have other reasons, but it could NOT include seeking legal
protection and benefits that flow from marriage.

Philippine laws do not recognize and protect same-sex marriage. It doesnt matter which religion
you belong. Unlike certain matters divorce, for instance, which is allowed for the Muslim
community the legal non-recognition of same-sex marriage applies to all groups and religions.

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. This is part of the
definition provided in Section 1 of the Family Code. The Supreme Court stated in a 2007 case
that one of the most sacred social institutions is a special contract of permanent union between a
man and a woman, referring to the institution of marriage. One of its essential requisites of
marriage is the legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female. The
SC also noted that allowing a change of name by reason of a sex reassignment surgery (sex
change) will allow the union of a man with another man who has undergone sex reassignment
(a male-to-female post-operative transsexual).

In our previous post Mr. Lito Basilio submits that same-sex marriage may be allowed under
exceptional circumstances. Art. 26 of the Family Code recognizes as valid in the Philippines
those marriage solemnized abroad and are valid there as such, except for marriages forbidden
under Art. 35(1), (4), (5) and (6) and Art. 36, 37 and 38 of the Family Code. The argument
makes sense because none of the provisions cited Art. 35(1), (4), (5) and (6) and Art. 36, 37
and 38 of the Family Code prohibit same-sex marriage. This might lead some couples to go
abroad, perhaps New York or some other states/countries that recognize same-sex marriage, and
have it recognized here in the Philippines. However, the Family Code provides in no uncertain
terms that the couple must be a man and a woman. While a same-sex marriage is allowed in
other jurisdictions, it cannot be recognized here because it is contrary to law, public order and
public policy.

Another reader which goes by the name syelapin states that [w]ith our history and culture as a
backdrop, [I] highly doubt well see THE change in our lifetimes. I would hazard a guess that
divorce would be allowed way before same-sex marriage is recognized, if ever it is recognized.
Our informal poll reveals that a majority supports divorce, but a majority opposes same-sex
marriage.

There are a number of privileges that apply only to marriage, some of which are discussed in the
previous post on Common-Law Marriage. They are not considered compulsory heirs to each
other, which means one could not inherit from the other, except when there is a last will and
testament that designates each other as an heir. If one or both of the partners have children when
they were single, the other partner cannot have parental authority over such children.

On the other hand, it is not correct to say that there is no existing law which governs the property
relations between the same-sex couples. They could enter into a contract, which has the force
and effect of law between the parties, with respect to their properties. General laws, including the
rules on co-ownership, could apply in the absence of such contract.

We previously noted that the solution is to amend the Family Code. On second thought, this
seems problematic because incorporating same-sex unions into the concept of marriage may be
contrary to the Constitution. The Constitution provides that: Marriage, as an inviolable social
institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State (Sec. 2, Article
XV [Family]). While the Constitution does not explicitly provide that only a man and a woman
may get married, I presume that the constitutional deliberations would show that marriage is
between a man and a woman.
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND HOMOSEXUALITY IN
THE PHILIPPINES
Same-sex marriage has been stirring debate and catching political and religious attentions
worldwide particularly in the United States and some European countries, the issue is so
widespread that it even reaches some traditionally conservative countries. Same-sex advocates,
mostly LGBT (Lesbians, Gays, Bi-sexual and transvestite), are out crying petition of legalization
of homosexual marriage and condemning religious and political conservatives of their
oppression, or what they usually call as discrimination and unequal treatment of their rights to
legal marriages. The issue is so hotly debated that confusion has brought enough dissension
among sociologist, clergies/ministers and law makers as to whether the issue falls under ethical,
religious or legal spectrum. This issue could not be left unresolved because it can bring moral,
religious and political upheaval as popularity of this then unpopular and treated as taboo is now a
great battle between pros and cons that even resulted in lawsuits.

Homosexuality is an issue as long as we can remember, we have heard of them in biblical

histories and literature, mostly condemned as unnatural, evil and treated as a disease of the
society. We have heard of Sodom and Gomorrah, the place consumed and destroyed by God
with fire because of gay promiscuity that was described as wicked. In our modern-day, act
of sodomy is being criminalized, For example, male homosexual acts, at least in theory, can
result in life imprisonment in Barbados and Guyana. In Africa, male homosexual acts remain
punishable by death in Mauritania, Sudan, and some parts of Nigeria and Somalia. Male and
sometimes female homosexual acts are minor to major criminal offences in many other African
countries; for example, life imprisonment is a prospective penalty in Sierra Leone, Tanzania and
Uganda. A notable exception is South Africa, where same-sex marriage is legal. In Asia, male
homosexual acts remain punishable by death in Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates,
and Yemen; but anti-sodomy laws have been repealed in Israel (which recognizes but does not
perform same-sex marriages), Japan, Kazakhstan, India, the Philippines, and Thailand.
Additionally, Life imprisonment is the formal penalty for male homosexual acts in Bangladesh,
the Maldives, Myanmar (formerly Burma), Pakistan, and Qatar.

Non-consensual sexual relation of any kind, man to man, female to female, man to animal or
nature etc. draws an unethical or immoral perception among rational people in general. However,
this is not the case of consensual sexual relations between homo or heterosexual monogamous or
even polygamous relationships whose involved are capable of reason and volition. Such act is
accepted and regarded as normal way of expressing intimate feelings usually associated with
love within their bound, but outside, conservatives perceived it as unnatural and immoral,
moreover, void of religious sanction or legal provisions. When LGBT was recognized as a
marginalized group, it has been given representation in the legislative body and was supported
by many political and liberal organizations championing to protect their rights against
discrimination and prejudices by the society particularly on employment, bullying, physical
assault, and recently, marriage.

As opposing sides argue, did we not come to think; as to what extent the fundamental rights of
all people extends to when both the pro and con to same-sex marriage utilizes similar rights but
wields opposing views with differing outcomes? Ethics and morality varies in different countries
depending on culture and religion. What is ethical here in the Philippines may not be ethical in
other countries, what is moral for a predominantly Catholic country may be immoral or offensive
to other non-Catholic or non-Christian countries. Moreover, other countries customs and
traditions permit rites and practices that may be taboo to other countries. Since marriage is an
essential practice common to all people and among all nations, delineating same-sex marriage
without prejudice to sexual orientation or preference or without harming the widely establish
definition of traditional marriage would be difficult if not impossible. Even if it has been
legalized in other countries, opposition to it will likely increase consequential to unending battle
between opposing proponents. Introducing same-sex marriage to our legal system or even in our
society is like duplicating a menu with different ingredients, thus, whether we brand it as similar
menu, the taste and ingredients would always be different and consumers would always react in
different ways, some may favor the original and disown the duplicate or vice versa. In
comparison, there would always be confusion and discrimination similar with introduction of
same-sex marriage in our established legal system and traditionally accepted practices. It may
sound absurd but if we treat this issue lightly, one day it would lead to decay in ethical and moral
standards in our society. It may also likely to cause confusion of legal definitions that may lead
to a collapse or reconstruction of legal provisions. The Philippines as a predominantly Catholic
country and as far as the Archbishops or the high-ranking Clergies of the Roman Catholic
Church have a hold of influence in the society or in the government, introducing same-sex
marriage would bring chaos and unprecedented divide among Filipino people. Filipinos are
conservative democrats mainly due to their religious heritage and the principles that they
embrace Christianity. If we introduce same-sex marriage in the Philippines, we will witness
similar or worse scenario as was during the introduction of the controversial Reproductive
Health Bill which though approved by the President amid strong opposition of the Catholic
Church and conservative organizations, it never loses opposition resulting it to be held under
Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Philippine Supreme Court for review. Another
reason why it is not viable in the Philippines is that marriage is plainly defined under
their Family Code as 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
(Chapter 1, Article 1, emphasis added) and in Article 2 paragraph 1 of the same Code the Legal
capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female is a requisite for a valid
marriage, without which no marriage shall be valid or allowed.

Marriage in the Philippines is either a legal and or spiritual union between two individuals (man
and woman) who felt the same desire to share the rest of their lives one with another, the
passionate yearning to build a family and produce a legacy of name (usually of the patriarch) to
past throughout generations. Throughout the Philippine History, there has not been any issues
regarding the definition of marriage, it is clear, authoritative and generally accepted as morally
upright to be between a Man and a Woman. In our legal system marriage is clearly defined to
be between two opposite genders and there has been no debate or opposition to this until the
advent of the technological era and liberal awakening that people begin to distort the traditional
meaning of marriage by their personal and seemingly unnatural desires as what the traditional
conservatives describe against proponents of same-sex marriage.

Would the introduction of same-sex marriage thrive in Philippine settings? My personal answer
would be NO. It would definitely bring moral confusion, political dissension and social unrest
should same-sex marriage advocacy reach the same intensity here in the Philippines as was in the
United States and some European Countries. Besides, Philippines is currently bombarded with
tremendous problems involving government malpractices (corruption), criminality and
infrastructural blunders. Philippine Law clearly defines marriage as between a man and a woman
whose purpose is for an establishment of a family which is the basic unit of the society and its
religious heritage strictly protects the sanctity of marriage as a matrimonial bond between one
man and one woman whose main purpose is procreation.

Conclusively, Philippines is not ready for this kind of consideration or would it ever be, as long
as the constitution stands firm in Protecting the basic unit of the society, as long as it is clearly
defined in its Family Code and as long as Christianity is the main religion of the country. LGBT
here in the Philippines would left only with the fundamental rights of life, property and liberty
just as anyone else. These rights if elaborated are against discrimination, abuse, and unreasonable
restrictions particularly of speech, expression and assembly. The only thing the government can
do to protect LGBT rights in the Philippines is for them to have congressional representation
(which has already been granted) but as they fall under recognized gender (male or Female) and
status (Single or Married) which has already had an equal protection under the law, they cannot
otherwise invoke equality by recognizing third gender as sexual preference or recognizing
homosexual relationships as legible for legal marriages. LGBT couples in the Philippines are
bound by no legal obligations and similarly void of any legal protection or recognition by the
state hence, neither disclaiming nor accepting such has no legal sanction and they are best left
that way unless other rights such as right to life, liberty, property, expression and assembly are
violated and besides same-sex or homosexual couples here in the Philippines are seldom
discriminated and quite more discreet than in other countries that they do not catch much public
attention.
Same-Sex Marriage Legal Pros and Cons
The state of same-sex marriage is constantly changing. If you live in a state
that allows same-sex marriage, or a similar legal union, there are many complex
issues you have to evaluate before deciding whether it is right for you and your
partner. Even if you live in a state with lesser domestic partnerships, many of the
same issues apply. Here are some legal considerations you may want to think about
before taking the plunge.

Legal Pros:
Children and Your Rights
If you plan on having or raising children, your status as a couple greatly affects
your rights regarding your children. In marriage, both partners have the same rights
and responsibilities. In a divorce, both partners can seek custody and visitation
rights like any married couple. Upon death, the remaining parent automatically
becomes the primary legal parent.
Absent marriage, same-sex couples can sometimes turn to adoption in order to gain
the rights of legal parents. In some states, same-sex couples can jointly adopt a
child. In other states, one partner can legally adopt the biological child of his or her
partner through domestic partner or stepparent adoption.

Joint Property Rights

Marriage generally creates a presumption of joint ownership of property accrued
during the marriage. The presumption is the opposite for unmarried couples, where
your property will be presumed to be owned by whoever acquired it. Deciding
which presumption works best for you and your partner can be helpful in deciding
whether or not to get married.

Death and Taxes

Marriage creates a legal framework for dealing with issues that result from death,
whether regarding property, parental rights or taxes. To create these effects as an
unmarried couple, significant time and expenses will have to be spent establishing
a similar relationship by contract. Even then, some things can't be recreated
through contract, such as freedom from inheritance and gift taxes.
Another issue to keep in mind is the host of property-transfer taxes that by default
don't apply to married couples, but do apply to unmarried couples. It can make
moving assets around in a cost efficient way very difficult for unmarried couples.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that DOMA's provision limiting federal
benefits (such as surviving spouse Social Security claims) to married heterosexual
couples is unconstitutional.

Government Benefits
This is one of the largest reasons to get married, because the government provides
a lot of benefits exclusively to married couples. A small sample of these benefits
include Social Security benefits, health care benefits, nursing home care, and
unpaid leave from your job to care for family members. Federal benefits should
generally be available to legally married same-sex couples in light of the Supreme
Court's 2013 ruling invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act. However, state
benefits may only be available in states that allow same-sex marriage.

Immigration
Typically, legal marriage is the most reliable way to become a citizen in the U.S.
Since certain provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act were overturned in 2013,
the federal government now recognizes the validity of same-sex marriages. This
may open avenues in the immigration arena previously unavailable to legally
married same-sex couples.

Legal Cons:
Formalities
Marriage, for all of its pros and cons, requires that certain formalities be
performed, which may or may not be what you want. Unmarried couples can get
together, and break up, without all the formalities (and court hearings) required for
married couples.
Dividing Your Property
One of the effects of marriage's joint property status is that if you divorce,
regardless of who is at fault, both partners are often entitled to half of the
property accumulated during the marriage, depending on whether the divorce
occurs in a community property state. Note that this also applies to liability for
debts. As a result, many former couples become embroiled in costly legal battles
over the division of assets in divorce. For unmarried couples, on the other hand,
each partner typically leaves with whatever they accumulated and responsibility
for debts in their name. However, married couples have a right to seek alimony,
whereas unmarried couples may have to account for this in a pre-marriage
agreement.

Decide What Is Best For You and Your Partner

Given all of the above issues and factors, spend some serious time with your
partner considering same-sex marriage legal pros and cons. If immigration status
isn't an issue, you plan on raising kids, and you're ok with taking on the other
partner's debts, then getting married may make sense. On the other hand, if
immigration status is an issue, you don't necessarily want to be burdened with the
other person's debts, or institutional marriage just isn't for you, then it may not be
right for you.
One final consideration involves the constant state of flux on the laws covering
same-sex marriage. The lists of which states support it, which have a marriage-like
option available, and which states have rejected same-sex marriage is constantly
changing. For instance, in California, same-sex marriage was first required by state
courts, then overturned by popular vote, and then again re-established via federal
court rulings. If you have decided to get married, waiting too long may cost you
that option. Finally, always consider consulting a lawyer who is familiar with
same-sex marriage and similar laws in your state.
 Issues of Same Sex Marriage in the Philippines
I. Introduction

A. Background of the Study

Philippines is a country where the people are predominantly Christians
specifically the Roman Catholics. The government has the power to enforce laws even
without the consent of the church since the government and the church are separated
here in the Philippines. Because of the strong influenced made by the church, there are
debates and amendments in the social and political climates of the Philippines. The
issue about the legalization of same sex marriage is one of the biggest problems that a
Christian country like the Philippines, is facing today.
For a Catholic faith, same sex marriage which is a marriage between two
persons with the same biological gender is inexcusable because based on the bible; a
woman is created for a man. The bible says that in Corinthians 6:9-10, same sex
marriage is a form of immorality and the God will not let this happen to His people. If
this issue of same sex marriage will become legalized, the image as a dominant
Christian country of the Philippines will be destroyed.
Since the Philippines is also suffering from an economic slowdown and population
explosion, the state believes that legalization of same sex marriage is practical and
advantageous. Gender biases and gender discrimination will be minimized if this same
sex marriage will become legalized.

B. Objective of the Study

This study aims to know the advantages and disadvantages of having a same
sex marriage as a law being legalized. Specifically, it aims to:

a. Know what would be the effects of having this law in the Philippines.

C. Significance of the Study

This study will let the people of the Philippines especially the students to have a
better view with this same sex marriage as a law to be legalized.