same sex marriage

Philippine Congress in time will conduct a debate on the merits/ demerits of same sex marriage before it finally rules whether to legislate or not.  Comelec had earlier proclaimed that party list Ang Ladlad —representing LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) was disqualified and banned to participate in the electoral exercise.


The group (Ang Ladlad) went to the Supreme Court and the latter issued a very interesting ruling which became a significant highlight in the country’s jurisprudence.  The High Court intoned that “We are not blind to the fact that, through the years, homosexual conduct and perhaps homosexuals themselves, have borne the brunt of society’s disapproval….Nonetheless, we recall that the Philippines has not seen fit to criminalize homosexual conduct.” (Underscoring supplied.)


So there, an interpretation has been made and the Comelec decision was reversed and Ang Ladlad becomes legit in the eyes of the electorate.


If there is any worthy debate conducted on the subject of same sex marriage, the United Kingdom had the most worthy arguments and counter arguments to share.


Those against same sex marriage had this as their line:  Marriage is between two people of the opposite sex and one cannot make things the same by an Act of Parliament.


Again, they insisted that same sex marriage cannot be legislated because appropriating the word “marriage” could not change its true meaning in the same manner that LGBT will regret attaching their unions to heterosexual marriage.


And, formulating a law on same sex marriage would cause disharmony, anger and long lasting hurt.  Because, accordingly, far from creating equality in marriage, the law would establish two different sorts of marriage—statutory gay marriages and traditional marriage.


Those who favor same sex marriage, on the other hand, submit the following:  It has been viewed that homosexuality is not heterosexuals behaving badly, but gay people behaving naturally.


Further on, it is believed that it is possible to distinguish between state marriage and Catholic marriage.  The State in this perspective has got to make different arrangements from the Church because it has different concerns.


Even a member of nobility implored that people, gay or straight, should want to be part of the whole that is our society is surely an advance on marriage as it is currently understood.  It means that, in fact, the meaning of marriage is even enhanced rather than it is being diminished.  How our courts would appreciate the issues depends on how Constitutional precepts are affected by it.  For sure, as opinion writer and Constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas puts it, “our Constitution does not speak of protecting marriage but protecting the family.”


The question now is this:  Can marriage, as a matter of course, fulfill a happy family?  Or, is it possible to have a happy family even if there is no marriage as a matter of fact?  Is marriage as precondition for a legitimate relationship notwithstanding gender preference of both parties?  Congress may as well discuss marital term limits.



About vjtesoro

A perpetual student of Corrections

Posted on July 2, 2013, in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Leave a comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: