RUBIN, SUNSHINE MAY A.

EH304

JD – 1

“The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other
freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality. This is true for all persons, whatever their
sexual orientation.” (Obergefell et al. V. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of health et al)

I have been consistent about my stand on same-sex marriage, I am in favor based

on the following arguments. First, marriage produces legal rights which the spouses can
exercise for a lifetime. Second, marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, hence,
undue prohibition based on gender should not be tolerated nor accepted. Lastly,
love should be the fundamental purpose of marriage.

Marriage is governed and protected by law as provided by Article 1 of the Family

Code. However, the same provision restricts marriage into a permanent union between
a man and a woman. The same provision which I firmly believe discriminates
the LGBTQ community. The nature of marriage is that it is a permanent contract which
produces legal rights and benefits. One of the many legal benefits of marriage is the
opportunity to legally adopt a child. If the husband and wife decide to adopt a child, they
qualify insofar as they are both legally married. Regrettably, this does not apply to a
same-sex couple. Same-sex couples are not allowed by law to adopt a child regardless if
the couple can potentially raise a child well. Another example is when the husband or the
wife gets admitted in a hospital, usually, hospitals restrict the visitation to immediate
family members only or even in times when the sick person is incapacitated to make legal
and medical decisions, the immediate family member has the right to make the
decision in behalf of the person incapacitated. Unfortunately, when a person enters into
a same-sex marriage he or she will not be recognized as an immediate family member.
He or she will not be declared as the wife or the husband. There are too many
circumstances and real life stories coming from the LGBTQ community with respect to
their deprivation of the legal benefits produce from a valid marriage. Lastly, one of the
profoundly sad experiences mentioned in that US landmark case legalizing same-sex
marriage was when his partner died, however, he was not permitted by law to declare
himself in the death certificate of his partner as the surviving spouse. Hence, they
must remain strangers even in death, a state-imposed separation Obergefell deems
“hurtful for the rest of time.”
 Secondly, marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, hence, undue prohibition
based on gender should not be tolerated nor accepted. The requisites to enter marriage
must not discriminate gender. If the constitution adheres to equal protection of the law,
why then do we unreasonably categorized the LGBTQ community as those group of
people who cannot and should not be given the opportunity to enter into a valid
marriage? The mere fact that they are not what the law says ‘men and women’ suffice the
prohibition. This is ridiculous. Still based on the US landmark case legalizing same-sex
marriage “no union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals
of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people
become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these
cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would
misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their
plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for
themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one
of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The
Constitution grants them that right.”

As for my ending argument, love should be the fundamental purpose of marriage

not procreation nor religion. We should not qualify love based on gender because love is
not founded on anatomy of his or her sexual organs. It has been reiterated in a long line
of decisions made by our own Supreme Court especially in cases of nullity of
marriage. “Love happens to everyone…People love in order to be secure that one will
share his/her life with another and that he/she will not die alone.” (Dr. Tayag as quoted
in Padilla-Rumbaua v. Rumbaua, G.R. No. 166738) The love shared by a same-sex couple
embraces the same concept of love shared by any straight couple, so why then do we
prohibit them in manifesting this love through marriage? If this marriage is against public
policy for being grossly indecent and immoral then are we not being unfair and
unreasonable on the part of the LGBTQ community. This community has been hatefully
discriminated since time immemorial, they were criminalized for being gay, medically
diagnosed as a mental disorder and victimized by hate crimes. When do we stop hating
one another and instead make this world a better place to live for everyone, no exception
and no bigoted classification.

References:
 Obergefell et al. V. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of health et al
 Article 1 of the Family Code
 Dr. Tayag as quoted in Padilla-Rumbaua v. Rumbaua, G.R. No. 166738