The introduction of same-sex marriage (also called marriage equality) has varied by jurisdiction, and came about

through legislative change to marriage law, court rulings based on constitutional guarantees of equality, recognition that
it is allowed by existing marriage law,[3] or by direct popular vote. The recognition of same-sex marriage is considered to
be a human right and a civil right as well as a political, social, and religious issue. The most prominent supporters of
same-sex marriage are human rights and civil rights organizations as well as the medical and scientific communities,
while the most prominent opponents are religious groups. Polls consistently show continually rising support for the
recognition of same-sex marriage in all developed democracies and in some developing democracies.
Scientific studies show that the financial, psychological, and physical well-being of gay people are enhanced by marriage,
and that the children of same-sex parents benefit from being raised by married same-sex couples within a marital union
that is recognized by law and supported by societal institutions. Social science research indicates that the exclusion of
homosexuals from marriage stigmatizes and invites public discrimination against them, with research also rejecting the
notion that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon restricting marriage to heterosexuals. Same-sex
marriage can provide those in committed same-sex relationships with relevant government services and make financial
demands on them comparable to that required of those in opposite-sex marriages, and also gives them legal protections
such as inheritance and hospital visitation rights.
Opposition to same-sex marriage is based on claims such as the beliefs that homosexuality is unnatural and abnormal,
that the recognition of same-sex unions will promote homosexuality in society, and that children are better off when
raised by opposite-sex couples. These claims are refuted by science which shows that homosexuality is a natural and
normal human sexuality, that sexual orientation is not a choice, and that the children of same-sex couples fare just as
well or even better than the children of opposite-sex couples.
A study of nationwide data from across the United States from January 1999 to December 2015 revealed that the
establishment of same-sex marriage is associated with a significant reduction in the rate of attempted suicide among
children, with the effect being concentrated among children of a minority sexual orientation, resulting in approximately
134,000 fewer children attempting suicide each year in the United States.
Use of the term marriage
Anthropologists have struggled to determine a definition of marriage that absorbs commonalities of the social
construct across cultures around the world. Many proposed definitions have been criticized for failing to recognize the
existence of same-sex marriage in some cultures. With several countries revising their marriage laws to recognize same-sex
couples in the 21st century, all major English dictionaries have revised their definition of the word marriage to either drop
gender specifications or supplement them with secondary definitions to include gender-neutral language or explicit
recognition of same-sex unions.
Same-sex marriage, the practice of marriage between two men or between two women. 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.
The existence of religious pluralities within a country seems to have had a less determinate effect on the outcome of
same-sex marriage debates. In some such countries, including the United States, consensus on this issue was difficult to
reach. On the other hand, the Netherlands—the first country to grant equal marriage rights to same-sex couples
(2001)—was religiously diverse, as was Canada, which did so in 2005.

o Most of the world religions have at some points in their histories opposed same-sex marriage for one or more of
the following stated reasons: homosexual acts violate natural law or divine intentions and are therefore
immoral; passages in sacred texts condemn homosexual acts; and religious tradition recognizes only the
marriage of one man and one woman as valid. In the early 21st century, however, Judaism, Christianity,
Hinduism, and Buddhism all spoke with more than one voice on this issue. Sexuality is but one of many areas
where religious and civic authority interact; definitions of the purpose of marriage is another. In one view, the
purpose of marriage is to ensure successful procreation and child rearing. In another, marriage provides a—and
perhaps “the”—fundamental building block of stable communities, with procreation as an incidental by-product.
A third perspective holds that marriage is an instrument of societal domination and so is not desirable. A fourth
is that relationships between consenting adults should not be regulated by the government. Although most
religions subscribe to just one of these beliefs, it is not uncommon for two or more viewpoints to coexist within
a given society.
Proponents of the first view believe that the primary goal of marriage is to provide a relatively uniform social institution
through which to produce and raise children. In their view, because male and female are both necessary for procreation,
the privileges of marriage should be available only to opposite-sex couples. In other words, partnerships involving sexual
intimacy should have at least a notional potential for procreation. From this perspective, the movement to legally
recognize same-sex marriage is a misguided attempt to deny the social, moral, and biological distinctions that foster the
continued existence of society and so should be discouraged.
Because this view considers biological reproduction a sort of social obligation, its advocates tended to frame individuals’
legal and moral commitment to one another as a matter of genetic relatedness. In cases of inheritance or custody, for
instance, they generally defined the parents’ legal duties to their biological children differently than those to their
stepchildren. Among groups who feel strongly that same-sex marriage is problematic, there is also a tendency for the
legal relationships of spouses, parents, and children to converge. Typically, these societies provide for the automatic
inheritance of property between spouses, and between parents and children, and allow these close kin to co-own
property without joint ownership contracts. In addition, such societies often allow close kin a variety of automatic
privileges such as sponsoring immigration visas or making medical decisions for one another; for those with whom one
shares no close kin relationship, these privileges typically require legal interventions. Such legal circumventions are
usually more difficult for, and in some cases even prohibited to, same-sex couples.
In contrast to the procreative model of marriage, advocates of the legalization of same-sex marriage generally believed
that committed partnerships involving sexual intimacy are valuable because they draw people together to a singular
degree and in singular ways. In this view, such relationships are intrinsically worthy while also quite distinct from
(though not incompatible with) activities associated with the bearing or raising of children. Sexual partnerships are one
of a number of factors that bond adults together into stable household units. These households, in turn, form the
foundation of a productive society—a society in which, albeit incidentally, children, elders, and others who may be
relatively powerless are likely to be protected.
From this perspective, the devaluation of same-sex intimacy is immoral because it constitutes arbitrary and
irrational discrimination, thereby damaging the community. Most same-sex marriage advocates further held that
international human rights legislation provided a universal franchise to equal treatment under the law. Thus, prohibiting
a specific group from the full rights of marriage was illegally discriminatory. For advocates of the community-benefit
perspective, all the legal perquisites associated with heterosexual marriage should be available to any committed
couple.

The Philippines is ranked as one of the most gay-friendly nations in Asia. The country ranked as the 10th most gay-
friendly in a 2013 global survey covering 39 countries, in which only 17 had majorities accepting homosexuality. Titled
"The Global Divide on Homosexuality," the survey conducted by the Pew Research Center showed that 73% of adult
Filipinos agreed with the statement that "homosexuality should be accepted by society," up by nine percentage points
from 64% in 2002. The main reasons for the high percentage of LGBT acceptance in the Philippines are (1) the
archipelago's historic point of view and respect to gender-shifting and non-based gender roles before the 12th century
which have been inputted in indigenous cultures prior to Islamization and Christianization and (2) the current public
mediums (television, writings, radios, and social media) that have set a spotlight on the sufferings of countless LGBT
Filipinos in their own country due to colonial-era and colonial-inspired religions.
In the classical era of the country, prior to Spanish occupation, the people of the states and barangays within the
archipelago accepted homosexuality. Homosexuals actually had a role of a babaylan, or a local spiritual leader who was
the holder of science, arts, and literature. In the absence of the datu of the community, the babaylans, homosexual or
not, were also made as leaders of the community. During the Islamic movements in Mindanao which started in Borneo,
the homosexual acceptance of the indigenous natives were subjugated by Islamic beliefs. Nevertheless, states and
barangays that retained their non-Islamic cultures continued to accept homosexuality. During the Spanish colonization,
the Spaniards forcefully instilled Roman Catholicism to the natives which led to the end of acceptance of homosexuality
in most of the archipelagic people. These deep Catholic roots nationwide (and some Islamic roots in Mindanao) from the
colonial era have resulted in much discrimination, oppression and hate crimes for the LGBT community in the present
time.
The LGBT community remains as one of the country's minority sectors today. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
people often face disadvantages in getting hired for jobs, acquiring rights for civil marriage, and even in starting up
personal businesses. Most non-heterosexuals also have a higher rate of suicide and suicide ideation compared to non-
homosexuals. According to an international research, 10% of the world's population are theoretically part of the LGBT
community, out or not, including 12 million Filipinos that may experience discrimination based on who they are. This has
led to the rise of the cause for LGBT rights, defined as the right to equalityand non-discrimination. As a member of
the United Nations, the Philippines is signatory to various international covenants promoting human rights.

Contemporary (2000s–present)
The LGBT movement has been very active in the new millennium. In the advent of the 2000s, more LGBT organizations
were formed to serve specific needs, including sexual health(particularly HIV), psychosocial support, representation in
sports events, religious and spiritual needs, and political representation.[11] For example, the political party Ang
Ladlad was founded by Danton Remoto, a renowned LGBT advocate, in 2003. The community has also shown their
advocacies through the 21st LGBT Metro Manila Pride March held in Luneta Park last June 27, 2015, with the theme,
"Fight For Love: Iba-Iba. Sama-Sama". This movement aims to remind the nation that the fight for LGBT rights is a fight
for human rights. Advocates are calling on the Philippines to recognize the voices of people of diverse sexual
orientations and gender identities. In present time, there remains no umbrella LGBT organization in the
Philippines.[11] Therefore, organizations tend to work independently of each other. Due to these divisions, there remains
no prioritization of efforts, with organizations focusing on what they consider as important for them.

o In December 2004, Marawi City banned gays from going out in public wearing female attire, makeup, earrings
"or other ornaments to express their inclinations for femininity". The law passed by the Marawi City Council also
bans skintight blue jeans, tube tops and other skimpy attire. Additionally, women (only) must not "induce
impure thoughts or lustful desires." The Mayor said these moves were part of a "cleaning and cleansing" drive.
People who violate these rules will have paint dumped on their heads by the muttawa, the religious police.
In late 2014, during the interpolations of the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL), the Filipino Government included a provision
which would have allowed the Regional Bangsamoro Government to adhere to Sharia law. The usage of Sharia law
would have allow gay people to be stoned to death or whipped in front of a public plaza. Due to the Mamasapano
massacre in January 2015, the BBL was not passed by Congress, effectively hindering the passage of Sharia law in
the Bangsamoro region.
In a United Nations Assembly for the establishment of an UN-backed LGBT Watch Personnel, the Philippine permanent
delegate to the UN abstained from voting. Islamic nations and some eastern European nations voted against its
establishment. Nevertheless, countries from Western Europe and the Americas with the backing of Vietnam, South
Korea and Mongolia, voted in favor of its establishment. The LGBT Watch Personnel was established after the majority
of nations in the meeting voted in its favor.
A few months after the establishment of the UN expert on LGBT rights, an African-led coalition of nations made a move
to dislodge the LGBT expert. In November 2016, UN members voted by a majority to retain the UN expert on LGBT
issues, however, the representative of the Philippines chose to abstain again, despite outcry of support for the LGBT
expert to be retained from various sectors in the country.
According to the report of the ASEAN SOGIE Caucus released on November 2017 in time for the ASEAN Summit, the
Philippines is shifting to "a trend to be more open and accepting of LGBT issues" as seen in the rise of cooperation and
acceptance from government officials, especially in municipalities and cities nationwide such as Zamboanga City, Metro
Manila, Metro Cebu, Metro Davao, Baguio City, and many more. On March 2, 2018, some politicians proposed that
the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region shall be under a proposed Sharia law for all of Bangsamoro Muslims. The move
was much criticized in the country as some rules of Sharia violate the basic rights of certain Muslim groups, such as LGBT
Muslims who may be 'whipped in public','stripped naked in public', or 'stoned to death' (once the death penalty law is
enacted in Philippine or Bangsamoro Congress) if LGBT Muslims 'perform homosexual acts' such as 'gay and lesbian sex'.
Legality of same-sex sexual activity
Noncommercial, homosexual relations between two adults in private are not a crime, although sexual conduct or
affection that occurs in public may be subject to the "grave scandal" prohibition in Article 200 of the Revised Penal Code,
which states:
"ARTICLE 200. Grave Scandal. — The penalties of arresto mayor and public censure shall be imposed upon any person
who shall offend against decency or good customs by any highly scandalous conduct not expressly falling within any
other article of this Code."[46]
Recognition of same-sex relationships
The Philippines does not offer any legal recognition to same-sex marriage, civil unions or domestic partnership benefits.
The Family Code of the Philippines states in Articles 1, 2 and 147, respectively:
"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."
"No marriage shall be valid, unless these essential requisites are present:
(1) Legal Capacity of contracting parties who must be a male and a female; and
(2) Consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer."
On 18 February 2016, during his presidential campaign, Rodrigo Duterte announced that should he win the election he
would consider legalizing same-sex marriage if a proposal is presented to him. Duterte won the presidential election. In
March 2017, however, Duterte said that he personally opposes same-sex marriage. On 17 December 2017, Duterte
changed his position on the issue, expressing his support again. He further guaranteed that, during his term, the rights of
LGBT people in the Philippines would be protected and nurtured.
In October 2016, Speaker of the House of Representatives Pantaleon Alvarez announced that he would file a bill to
legalize civil unions for both opposite-sex and same-sex couples. As of 25 October 2016, more than 150 lawmakers have
signified their support for the bill. Alvarez introduced the civil partnership bill on 10 October 2017. The bill is also under
the wing of representatives Geraldine Roman of Bataan, Gwendolyn Garcia of Cebu, and Raneo Abu of Batangas. In the
Senate, conservative senators Tito Sotto, Joel Villanueva, Win Gatchalian, and Manny Pacquio have vowed to block the
bill if it ever passes the House of Representatives. On the other hand, the bill is supported by senators Risa
Hontiverosand Grace Poe. If the historic bill passes Congress, the Philippines would become the first country in Asia to
legalize civil unions, regardless of gender.

The Philippines is a predominantly Catholic country with approximately 82.9% of the population claiming to be Roman
Catholics.The Roman Catholic Church has been one of the most active religious organizations in the country in
opposition to the LGBT community. The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines firmly states that marriage
should only exist between a man and a woman. Also, they have called on individuals and politicians to actively
oppose same-sex marriage. They said that individuals should refuse to take part in ceremonies celebrating same-sex
relationships and politicians should resist legalizing marriages of same-sex couples. They also stated that "A homosexual
union is not and can never be a marriage as properly understood and so-called.” However, they also said that "being a
homosexual is not a sin. It is a state of a person." The Catholic Church welcomes members of the LGBT community, yet,
as stated, gay people should be "welcomed with respect and sensitivity."

 Marriage is both ubiquitous and central. All across our country, in every region, every social class, every race and
ethnicity, every religion or non-religion, people get married. For many if not most people, moreover, marriage is
not a trivial matter. It is a key to the pursuit of happiness, something people aspire to—and keep aspiring to,
again and again, even when their experience has been far from happy. To be told “You cannot get married” is
thus to be excluded from one of the defining rituals of the American life cycle.

The keys to the kingdom of the married might have been held only by private citizens—religious bodies and their
leaders, families, other parts of civil society. So it has been in many societies throughout history. In the United States,
however, as in most modern nations, government holds those keys. Even if people have been married by their church or
religious group, they are not married in the sense that really counts for social and political purposes unless they have
been granted a marriage license by the state. Unlike private actors, however, the state doesn’t have complete freedom
to decide who may and may not marry. The state’s involvement raises fundamental issues about equality of political and
civic standing.

Same-sex marriage is currently one of the most divisive political issues in our nation. In November 2008, Californians
passed Proposition 8, a referendum that removed the right to marry from same-sex couples who had been granted that
right by the courts. This result has been seen by the same-sex community as deeply degrading. More recently, Iowa and
Vermont have legalized same-sex marriage, the former through judicial interpretation of the state constitution, the
latter through legislation. Analyzing this issue will help us understand what is happening in our country, and where we
might go from here.

Before we approach the issue of same-sex marriage, we must define marriage. But marriage, it soon becomes evident, is
no single thing. It is plural in both content and meaning. The institution of marriage houses and supports several distinct
aspects of human life: sexual relations, friendship and companionship, love, conversation, procreation and child-rearing,
mutual responsibility. Marriages can exist without each of these. (We have always granted marriage licenses to sterile
people, people too old to have children, irresponsible people, and people incapable of love and friendship. Impotence,
lack of interest in sex, and refusal to allow intercourse may count as grounds for divorce, but they don’t preclude
marriage.) Marriages can exist even in cases where none of these is present, though such marriages are probably
unhappy. Each of these important aspects of human life, in turn, can exist outside of marriage, and they can even exist
all together outside of marriage, as is evident from the fact that many unmarried couples live lives of intimacy,
friendship, and mutual responsibility, and have and raise children. Nonetheless, when people ask themselves what the
content of marriage is, they typically think of this cluster of things.

Nor is the meaning of marriage single. Marriage has, first, a civil rights aspect. Married people get a lot of government
benefits that the unmarried usually do not get: favorable treatment in tax, inheritance, and insurance status;
immigration rights; rights in adoption and custody; decisional and visitation rights in health care and burial; the spousal
privilege exemption when giving testimony in court; and yet others.

Marriage has, second, an expressive aspect. When people get married, they typically make a statement of love and
commitment in front of witnesses. Most people who get married view that statement as a very important part of their
lives. Being able to make it, and to make it freely (not under duress) is taken to be definitive of adult human freedom.
The statement made by the marrying couple is usually seen as involving an answering statement on the part of society:
we declare our love and commitment, and society, in response, recognizes and dignifies that commitment.

Marriage has, finally, a religious aspect. For many people, a marriage is not complete unless it has been solemnized by
the relevant authorities in their religion, according to the rules of the religion.

Government plays a key role in all three aspects of marriage. It confers and administers benefits. It seems, at least, to
operate as an agent of recognition or the granting of dignity. And it forms alliances with religious bodies. Clergy are
always among those entitled to perform legally binding marriages. Religions may refuse to marry people who are eligible
for state marriage and they may also agree to marry people who are ineligible for state marriage. But much of the
officially sanctioned marrying currently done in the United States is done on religious premises by religious personnel.
What they are solemnizing (when there is a license granted by the state) is, however, not only a religious ritual, but also
a public rite of passage, the entry into a privileged civic status.
To get this privileged treatment under law people do not have to show that they are good people. Convicted felons,
divorced parents who fail to pay child support, people with a record of domestic violence or emotional abuse,
delinquent taxpayers, drug abusers, rapists, murderers, racists, anti-Semites, other bigots, all can marry if they choose,
and indeed are held to have a fundamental constitutional right to do so—so long as they want to marry someone of the
opposite sex. Although some religions urge premarital counseling and refuse to marry people who seem ill-prepared for
marriage, the state does not turn such people away. The most casual whim may become a marriage with no impediment
but for the time it takes to get a license. Nor do people even have to lead a sexual lifestyle of the type the majority
prefers in order to get married. Pedophiles, sadists, masochists, sodomites, transsexuals—all can get married by the
state, so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.

Given all this, it seems odd to suggest that in marrying people the state affirmatively expresses its approval or confers
dignity. There is indeed something odd about the mixture of casualness and solemnity with which the state behaves as a
marrying agent. Nonetheless, it seems to most people that the state, by giving a marriage license, expresses approval,
and, by withholding it, disapproval.

WHAT IS the same-sex marriage debate about? It is not about whether same-sex relationships can involve the content of
marriage: few would deny that gays and lesbians are capable of friendship, intimacy, “meet and happy conversation,”
and mutual responsibility, nor that they can have and raise children (whether their own from a previous marriage,
children created within their relationship by surrogacy or artificial insemination, or adopted children). Certainly none
would deny that gays and lesbians are capable of sexual intimacy.

Nor is the debate, at least currently, about the civil aspects of marriage: we are moving toward a consensus that same-
sex couples and opposite-sex couples ought to enjoy equal civil rights. The leaders of both major political parties
appeared to endorse this position during the 2008 presidential campaign, although only a handful of states have
legalized civil unions with material privileges equivalent to those of marriage.

Finally, the debate is not about the religious aspects of marriage. Most of the major religions have their own internal
debates, frequently heated, over the status of same-sex unions. Some denominations—Unitarian Universalism, the
United Church of Christ, and Reform and Conservative Judaism—have endorsed marriage for same-sex couples. Others
have taken a friendly position toward these unions. Mainline Protestant denominations are divided on the issue,
although some have taken negative positions. American Roman Catholics, both lay and clergy, are divided, although the
church hierarchy is strongly opposed. Still other denominations and religions (Southern Baptists, the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints) seem to be strongly opposed collectively. There is no single “religious” position on these
unions in America today, but the heat of those debates is, typically, denominational; heat does not spill over into the
public realm. Under any state of the law, religions would be free to marry or not marry same-sex couples.

The public debate, instead, is primarily about the expressive aspects of marriage. It is here that the difference between
civil unions and marriage resides, and it is this aspect that is at issue when same-sex couples see the compromise offer
of civil unions as stigmatizing and degrading.
The expressive dimension of marriage raises several distinct questions. First, assuming that granting a marriage license
expresses a type of public approval, should the state be in the business of expressing favor for, or dignifying, some
unions rather than others? Are there any good public reasons for the state to be in the marriage business at all, rather
than the civil union business? Second, if there are good reasons, what are the arguments for and against admitting
same-sex couples to that status, and how should we think about them? The first and most widespread objection to
same-sex marriage is that it is immoral and unnatural. Similar arguments were widespread in the anti-miscegenation
debate, and, in both cases, these arguments are typically made in a sectarian and doctrinal way, referring to religious
texts. (Anti-miscegenation judges, for example, referred to the will of God in arguing that racial mixing is unnatural.) It is
difficult to cast such arguments in a form that could be accepted by citizens whose religion teaches something different.
They look like Jewish arguments against the eating of pork: good reasons for members of some religions not to engage
in same-sex marriage, but not sufficient reasons for making them illegal in a pluralistic society.

Why is marriage so important?

Marriage bestows economic and social support to couples in committed relationships, which can result in substantial
health benefits. Researchers have found that married men and women generally experience better physical and mental
health than comparable cohabiting couples. Additionally, same-sex couples in legal unions are more likely to remain in a
committed relationship than those denied marriage rights.

Taken together, the research shows that there's no scientific basis for denying marriage rights to same-sex couples, and
doing so can adversely affect them as well as their family and friends.