One of the hottest topics we, the civil society, facing today is the unwavering battle of the homosexuals

(LGBTQIA+ community) regarding the same sex marriage. To date, only 29 out of the 195 countries in
the world have legalized same-sex marriage. While many same-sex couples have no choice but to
wait for legalization – some are together for decades before they are finally able to marry – in many
countries, people who can choose to get married are doing so later in life (Josie Green, 24/7 Wall Street
USA Today 2019) Some of those countries are Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and some states from
Southern America.

The issue on same-sex marriage or gay marriage has been a controversial

topic for so many years now, with several countries worldwide have made it
legal while others still are firm on their stand to ban it. Although it was not
acknowledged legally for decades and some even considered it a taboo,
some countries have broadened their perspective and take on this contentious
issue.(Lombardo, 2019)
Along with the right to life, the right to liberty is one of the most fundamental human rights.
The right to liberty is the right of all persons to freedom of their person – freedom of
movement and freedom from arbitrary detention by others. Historically, the protection of
individual liberty was one of the crowning achievements of the common law. Every
declaration of rights includes the right of liberty: from the clarion call of the French
Revolution (“Liberty, equality, fraternity”) to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR; 1948)
We , Filipinos are also binded with our constitutional guarantee that “No person shall be
deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law nor shall any person be
denied the equal protection of the laws.(CONSTITUTION, Art. III, Sec. 1)
But a mere question is that does this provision extends or reaches the rights of the LGBT
community in terms of their desire and prayer of legalizing same sex marriage? Would you
consider it as a superfluous right if granted?

In Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211 (1888), the Court echoed de

Tocqueville, explaining that marriage is “the foundation of the family and of
society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
Marriage, the Maynard Court said, has long been “‘a great public institution,
giving character to our whole civil polity.’” 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. It is the foundation of the family and an
inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law
and subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations
during the marriage within the limits provided by this code.(CIVIL CODE, Family Code Art.1)
"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.
Conjugal Marriage and the Natural Law Theory A typical rejection of same sex marriage is to argue that
homosexuality fails to correspond with the basic definition of marriage; namely, first that the genital
union of homosexual couples can not actualize the martial good; and second, that homosexual
intercourse instead of unifying the couple, intensifies their separate individuality and thus is unnatural
to marriage. Natural law theorists, who believe that the content of legal norms should always reflect
moral values held by all societal members, form the alliance with such criticism on same sex marriage.(
p. 170, For Better or Worse? Jonathan Rauch, selected from Same Sex Marriage, Pro & 1 Con A Reader,
edited by Andrew Sullivan, 2004)

As Jonathan Rauch points out, “today marriage is almost entirely a voluntary arrangement whose
contents are up to the people making the deal ”. Although 2 marriage appears to be a social institution,
each of which is equally certified by government, and each of which constitutes the basic social unit as a
family, married couples may have their own definition of marriage that conflicts with others’ view. In
general, there are two types of marriage, the conjugal version and the ‘revisionist’ version. The conjugal
definition of marriage, mostly referred by natural law theorists, contends that marriage involves both
the mind and the body. The civil union, as a result of affection, should fulfill the purpose of bodily
faculties assigned by nature. In particular, what the conjugal marriage manifests, as two spouses of
different sexuality are put together, is the “procreative significance ” between heterosexual couples
whose organs are able to reproduce, or at least “acts 3 and actualizations of the reproductive kind ”. 4
The ability of procreation, a natural element of human, unites the spouses biologically as a two-in-one-
flesh, and more importantly achieves the natural ends of human being. Further, This bodily union “can
actualize and allow them to experience their real common good, parenthood and friendship ”, since the
genital act is procreative in terms of sexuality, and unitive in terms of 5 emotional feelings.

As a result, homosexual couples entering into the civil union are often asked to consider, that whether
or not the conjugal marriage of heterosexual couples is applicable to them. Homosexuals are not able to
procreate, nor differ in sexuality. Their union fails to fulfill what marriage naturally is. Thus, the
biological constraint deprives them of the ability to pursue intrinsic marital goods. The intercourse
between two homosexual spouses is simply the attempt for pleasure, instead of attached any moral
values of marriage.

While the law provides that the husband and the wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual
love, respect and fidelity (Art. 68, Family Code), the sanction therefor is actually the "spontaneous,
mutual affection between husband and wife and not any legal mandate or court order" (Cuaderno vs.
Cuaderno 120 Phil. 1298). Love is useless unless it is shared with another. Indeed, no man is an
island, the cruelest act of a partner in marriage is to say "I could not have cared less." This is so
because an ungiven self is an unfulfilled self. The egoist has nothing but himself. In the natural
order, it is sexual intimacy which brings spouses wholeness and oneness. Sexual intimacy is a gift
and a participation in the mystery of creation. It is a function which enlivens the hope of procreation
and ensures the continuation of family relations.

It appears that there is absence of empathy between petitioner and private respondent. That is — a
shared feeling which between husband and wife must be experienced not only by having
spontaneous sexual intimacy but a deep sense of spiritual communion. Marital union is a two-way
process. An expressive interest in each other's feelings at a time it is needed by the other can go a
long way in deepening the marital relationship. Marriage is definitely not for children but for two
consenting adults who view the relationship with love amor gignit amorem, respect, sacrifice and a
continuing commitment to compromise, conscious of its value as a sublime social institution.

This Court, finding the gravity of the failed relationship in which the parties found themselves trapped
in its mire of unfulfilled vows and unconsummated marital obligations, can do no less but sustain the
studied judgment of respondent appellate court.( G.R. No. 119190 January 16, 1997 CHI MING
TSOI, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and GINA LAO-TSOI)

Stephen Macedo claims that none of sterile or heterosexual couples can procreate, but natural
law theorists still uphold them as married couples. It does not matter whether couples are
procreative in effect or in type, as long as the spouses are in different sexuality. Macedo asks,
“what is the point of sex in an infertile marriage? If they have sex, it is for pleasure and to
express their love, or friendship or some other shared good. It will be for precisely the same
reasons that committed, loving gay couples have sex. ” If sterile couples can actualize the 29
martial good, why can’t homosexuals?

Art. 19 Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties act
with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith(civil code)

I stand that same sex marriage is against public policy. Naturally, it would only discriminated by
many Filipinos as is it very immoral on their side and given that this nation was also influenced
by divine providence since first, that a man is only for a woman, that Adam is only for Eve, not
Steve, and Eve is for Adam only not for Ivy. We have already accepted the culture of
homosexuality but its such an abuse that even the sanctity of marriage, even its purpose of
procreation will be discredited. It will only result into a great frustration of everyone. Love can
win even outside marriage though not legally binded but it’s the reason that counts. I also believe
that LGBT community possesses extra-ordinary and pure love with each other and that’s very
commendable; and can last without any legalization, recognition from civil society is still there.

It is also a big challenge for the legislation to pinch every provision and alter those marriage-
family related provisions of the law. From the beginning it was already stated in the Civil Code
that marriage…..

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.(

List of Disadvantages of Gay Marriage

1. Affects Child Development

Even if gay parents are allowed to adopt or have children, having two parents of the same sex
might not be healthy or what’s best for the children involved. These kids need both a father and
a mother image to have a balance and normal childhood. Gender roles can be hard to play
especially if biological and physical aspects are the issue. If a boy grows up with two women,
with the other one playing the role of the father or both plays the role of mothers, father image
will be lacking and the couple cannot answer questions typically asked by boys to fathers, say,
the physical changes in the body. Same goes for girls living with two-male parents.
2. Burdens the Divorce System
Another disadvantage of allowing gay people to marry is the fact that when things don’t work out
and they file for divorce, they will add to the number of cases pending in court and the burden
put on the legal system in terms of court proceedings for divorce, alimony and child support will
be doubled while these problems would have been lessened if gay marriage were not legalized.
3. Prone to Bullying
Even if gay marriage is already legalized, not all accept and embrace this practice, particularly
kids. Opponents of gay marriage claim that making this marriage between homosexuals legal
can bring problems in the future especially when children are involved. Children of homosexuals
and lesbians may be prone to bullying at schools and some even end up being physically hurt
by other kids.
4. Possibility of Tax Increase
With the tax benefits to be given to surviving legal partners, this can be added expense for the
government. Some people are thinking that with the legalization of same-sex marriage and the
increase in tax benefits, the government will be prompted to raise taxes in order to afford these
added expenses.
5. Affects Adoption Process
By allowing married gay couples to legally adopt children and given that they might find it
difficult and expensive to have children of their own, there will be an increase in the number of
child adoption applications. This might lead to more straight couples who are also interested to
adopt not being given priority since they have bigger chances to have their own children.
Despite the legalization of gay marriage, this topic will remain to be a contentious issue
especially that not all can accept and will accept the idea of two people with the same gender to
be married in a religious ceremony.

“Love is useless unless it is shared with another. Indeed, no man is an island, the
cruelest act of a partner in marriage is to say ‘I could not have cared less.’ This is so
because an ungiven self is an unfulfilled self. The egoist has nothing but himself.” —
Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals and Gina Lao- Tsoi, GR No. 119190, Jan. 16, 1997

“Marital union is a two-way process. An expressive interest in each other’s feelings at a

time it is needed by the other can go a long way in deepening the marital relationship.
Marriage is definitely not for children but for two consenting adults who view the
relationship with love amor gignit amorem, respect, sacrifice and a continuing
commitment to compromise, conscious of its value as a sublime social institution.” —
Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals and Gina Lao- Tsoi, GR No. 119190, Jan. 16,
1997)

“The heart has reasons of its own which reason does not know.” —Chua-Qua vs. Clave,
G.R. No. L-49549, Aug. 30, 1990
“One of the ironic verities of life, it has been said, is that sorrow is sometimes a
touchstone of love.” —Libi v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 70890, Sept. 18,
1992

“We cannot castigate a man for seeking out the partner of his dreams, for marriage is a
sacred and perpetual bond which should be entered into because of love, not for any
other reason.” —Patricia Figueroa vs. Simeon Barranco, Jr., GR No. 97369, July 31,
1997

“The Court, like all well-meaning persons, has no desire to dash romantic fancies, yet in
the exercise of its duty, is all too willing when necessary to raise the wall that tears
Pyramus and Thisbe asunder.” —Concerned Employee vs. Glenda Espiritu Mayor, AM
No. P-02-1564, Nov. 23, 2004

“Statistics never lie, but lovers often do, quipped a sage. This sad truth has unsettled
many a love transformed into matrimony. Any sort of deception between spouses, no
matter the gravity, is always disquieting.” —Antonio v. Reyes, G.R. No. 155800,
March 10, 2006

“Individuals who are in love had the power to let love grow or let love die – it is a
choice one had to face when love is not the love he/she expected.” —Padilla-Rumbaua
v. Rumbaua, G.R. No. 166738, Aug. 14, 2009

“The universal puff about love being free, doubtless a stale statement, remains a useful
piece of legal advice yet for the roaming lothario, to stress that money in all its forms,
the dowry included, is not the legitimate consideration for passion and affection which
ordinarily spring from courtship and requited love, nor does it endow a license to
subject the object of his affection to lewd desires.” —People of the Philippines vs. Lito
Egan alias Akiao, G.R. No. 139338. May 28, 2002

“There can be no love where respect is gone.” —People vs. Rivera Nov. 17, 1999

“Love is not a license for lust.” —People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 140278, June 3, 2004

“She unconditionally laid herself prostrate to his charms, too much enamored of him to
care about anything else. For, as philosopher Blaise Pascal has so pithily stated of the
profundity of human love, ‘love has reasons that reason cannot explain.” —Abaigar vs.
Paz – Sept. 10, 1979