Legalization of Same Sex Marriage in the Philippines

Marriage is not a right, it was not invented, but marriage simply is, perceived as a sacred union
between a man and a woman across time and across culture. The affirmatives argument that
same sex marriage should be legalize based on US jurisprudence and by virtue of Article 8 of
the Civil Code would imperil State principle under Sec 12, Article 2 of the Constitution and
Article 1 and 2 of the Family Code because marriage under US federal law, is in contrary as it
did not define marriage as a social, autonomous inviolable institution. It failed to recognize
that marriage, is the foundation of family and of society without which there would neither be
civilization nor progress. One could argue that the concept of right is so debased in present
time that it is so difficult to know what is a right and what is simply a desire. These desires are
formed by personal beliefs and self-interest, yet they are presented in the public sphere as
rights to cover up and save wrong. The example of which is the issue at hand, the legalization
of same sex marriage in the Philippines. Same sex marriage infringed Sec. 13, Art. 2 of the
Constitution, which provides promotion of spiritual and social well-being of the youth as its
legalization, would create confusion among youth and subjects them, in an environment that
does not conform to natural law, that a man is no longer exclusively for a woman and a
woman is not exclusively for a man. A distorted orientation of what is morally wrong and
acceptable. The argument, that the prohibition of same sex marriage deprives the minority of
equality before the law is a fallacy; civil rights issue is not similar to struggle for racial equality
due to insurmountable obstacles. The notion that sex and race are parallel is invalid. Thus, in
Mayer v. Nebraska, the court ruled that the inherited and unchangeable racial traits couldnt
be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. Hence, a person may enter into
marriage despite his color, physical appearance, race, language and culture provided that it is
in conformity with natural law, which requires that it should be between a man and a woman.
A persons sex is an essential factor in marriage and family relation because it is part of a
persons legal capacity and civil status. Men are profoundly different from women. In People v.
Jacinto, the Court held that procreation is one of the essential marital obligations. Two
individuals with the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame will
never be able to produce offspring because of biological impossibility. Hence, same sex
marriage does not create a family, but a naturally sterile union. It ignores the childs best
interests, and deprive the childs right of either a mother or a father role model. The evident
interest of the State to aid in perpetuating the nation and strengthens the society will be lost.
Moreover, there is no law in our country, which criminalizes the cohabitation of same sex
couple. Nor are they denied of their rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Neither can they
assert that the prohibition of same sex marriage is discriminatory, otherwise, the prohibition
of marriages under Article 37 of the Family Code, which the law declared to be null and void
due to public policy, will have its sufficient ground to be valid. Marriage per se is not
prohibited, provided the essential and formal requisites are met, which, among others, is the
legal capacity of the contracting parties, which should be a male and a female. To legalize
same sex marriage in a country which 97 percent of its population is straight vanquish the
enforceability of Salus Populi est seuprema lex. This bench strongly believes that same sex
marriage should not be legalized.
Rebuttal *Are all rights absolute? *Is the right to liberty absolute? *Do you agree that the right
to liberty is limited when it violates the law and the rights of others? *Have you read the US
federal definition of marriage? *Are you aware that the Federal Constitution differs from
ours? *Have you read the case of Republic v. Remoto? -despite the absolutism of Article 3,
Section 1 of our Constitution, which provides nor any person be denied equal protection of
laws, courts have never interpreted the provision as an absolute prohibition on classification.
Equality said Aristotle, is consists in the same treatment of similar person. The equal
protection clause guarantees that no person or class of persons shall be deprived of the same
protection of laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place and in
like circumstances. *Do you agree that the basis of morality is the standard norms and
generally accepted culture in a particular society? *So you are aware that morality and society
have become part of the law of the land? -Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code imposes
penalty upon those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public
morals and overt acts of homosexuality falls under this legal provision- citing the case of
Republic v. Romato