SAME SEX MARRIAGE

PROS:

T'HE FAMILY CODE, IN DEFINING AND LIMITING MARRIAGE AS BETWEEN MAN AND
WOMAN, IS UNCONSTIT'UTIONAL BECAUSE IT DEPRIVES PETITIONER AND OTHER HOMOSEXUALS
THE RIGHT TO LIBERTY WIT'HOUT' SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS OF LAW;

 There is no rational nexus between the means of limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples and the
compelling state interest of protecting marriage as the foundation of the family.
 Petitioner emphatically avers that homosexuals are people or persons like heterosexuals who can be a part
of a family and contribute to that family. Homosexuals are born out of a family and grow up in a family.
Homosexuals can leave their family and found their own family. Same-sex couples who live in one house
constitute a family. Same-sex couples can formally adopt children as individuals under Philippine law or
informally adopt children jointly, either of which is a family according to the definition of Black's Law
Dictionary.
 Petitioner submits that homosexuals can fulfil the essential marital obligations regardless whether it is as
between the spouses or as between the parents and their children.
 To reiterate, as aforementioned, the Family Code does not require married individuals to procreate or have
the ability to procreate. There is no legal requirement in any Philippine law for married couples to have
children before entering marriage or during its subsistence.
 Petitioner is aware that this Honorable Court has stated that procreation is one of the essential marital
obligations under the Family Code in the case of Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals.
 The passing of the Family Code provisions limiting marriage to a man and a woman only constitute grave
abuse of discretion because the Constitution did not define marriage as solely between a man and a woman.
(The Family Code was signed into law on July 6, 1987, or 6 months after the Constitution was ratified in
February that year.)
 Articles 2 and 3 of the Family Code “do not require married individuals to procreate or have the ability to
procreate.”

T'HE FAMILY CODE IN DEFINING AND LIMITING MARRIAGE AS BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN, IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT DENIES PETITIONER AND OTHER HOMOSEXUALS THE EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS

 Yes, because the classification does not rest on substantial distinction.

 To explain, equal protection clause will not apply if these 4 conditions are satisfied:
o It must rest on substantial distinctions
o It must be germane to the purposes of law
o It must not be limited to existing conditions only
o It must apply equally to all members of the same class
 There is substantial distinction if it can be justified why a certain class is treated differently. The petition
said there is no substantial distinction between same sex couples and opposite sex couples.
 If it’s their inability to procreate, the petition asks: Why are old heterosexual couples who are sterile and
cannot procreate allowed to marry?
 Petitioner submits that Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code fail the l" and 4'" requisites.
 The classification of same-sex couples as a group that is denied marriage and of opposite-sex couples as a
group that is allowed marriage does not rest on substantial distinctions. Gay couples can do everything that
opposite-sex couples can do as required by the Family Code. Gay couples can live together, observe mutual
love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and suppcrt.53 Gay couples can fix the family domicile.
54 Gay couples can support the family and pay the expenses for such support and other CONJUGAL
obligations.
T'HE FAMILY CODE, IN DEFINING AND LIMITING MARRIAGE AS BE'TWEEN MAN AND WOMAN, IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT VIOLATES SEC 3(1) ART XV OF THE 1987 PHILIPPINE
CONSTITUTION

 Section 3(1), Article XV says the State shall defend the right of spouses to found a family in accordance
with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood.
 The petition argues that like Agbayani, individuals belonging to religious denominations believe in same-
sex marriage. Therefore, their right to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions is
violated.

ANTI

SHOULD THE PETITION BE SUBJECT TO THE COURT’S POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW?

 No, because “the legal definition of marriage between a man and a woman is a policy issue within the
authority of Congress, not the Courts, to decide.”
 The OSG also added that the petition was defective because it did not implead Congress, the body that
makes laws, and the body that passed the assailed Family Code.
 “The Civil Code only allows heterosexual marriage.”
 The OSG said that the use of the word “and” in Article 54 – any male aged 16 years or upwards AND any
female of the age 14 years or upward – means marriage was limited to a male and female, not male or
female.
 The OSG added that Title V and VI of the Civil Code mentions a “husband and wife” which further
bolsters the claim that the Civil Code “only sanctions heterosexual marriage.”
 “The definition of marriage adopted by the drafters of our Constitution is guided by the teachings of history
and the recognition of the traditions that underlie our society. Marriage, as traditionally conceived in the
Philippines, has always been between a man and a woman. Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code are
constitutional,”
 “This state and societal interest to encourage procreation in a stable environment of a traditional family had
been the reason for limiting marriage between a man and a woman, and in effect, creating a classification
between couples that may avail of the special contract of marriage, and those that cannot.”
 "To procreate children based on the universal principle that procreation of children through sexual
cooperation is the basic end of marriage." Constant non- fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy
the integrity or wholeness of the marriage. (CHI MING TSOI V. CA)
 “same sex relationships was foremost on the minds of the framers [of the 1987 Constitution] when
they deliberated on the meaning of family and marriage,” stressing that while there was empathy for
this sector of society, “both natural law and religious values affirm that the normal family
relationship is between man and woman.”
 “The Office of the Solicitor General has always been of the position that the pursuit of happiness is
everyone’s birthright. Same-sex couples can live happily together. But they cannot demand that the state
recognize same-sex marriages because the Constitution simply does not allow such unions,”

-ROSELLE D. LAGAMAYO