A Position Paper on Legalization of Same Sex Marriage

By: Quaynie Bae P. Sulong

Introduction

One of the most celebrated developments in the life of a person is marriage. Although marriage is deemed
to be an essential institution in society, it has been the subject of controversy on the basis of a proposal to
amend it, which is referred to as same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage, the unity of a homosexual couple legally under the constitution, have stirred a lot of
debate once it was introduced to the Filipino community. The LGBTQ+ Filipinos, a growing community
and certainly one of the most powerful, have been promoting for the right to be treated equally as a
normal citizen, including a petition to accept same-sex couples. Within this case, some groups suggested
that both women and men as partners may enter into the covenant of marriage same as the union of both
male and female.

Thus, this paper strongly argues that gay marriage should be legalized in order to give meaning to the
principles of equality, freedom and liberty.

Counter-Argument

Marriage is an internationally recognized human right for all people. The US Supreme Court has
declared 14 times since 1888 that marriage, according to the American Foundation for Equal Rights, is a
fundamental right for all. Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees “men and
women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion… the right to marry and to
found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.”
Amnesty International states that “this non-discrimination principle has been interpreted by UN treaty
bodies and numerous inter-governmental human rights bodies as prohibiting discrimination based on
gender or sexual orientation. Non-discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation has therefore become
an internationally recognized principle.”

Same-sex couples should have access to the same advantages which heterosexual married couples
experience. According to an assessment made in 2004 by the General Accounting Office, there are 1,138
benefits, rights and protections available to married couples under federal law alone. Homosexual
relationships are also the same with heterosexual relationships when it comes to the mistakes or abuses
that can happen between two people. However, gay couples were not given the same purview of the law
before, unlike straight married couples who can file for adultery, divorce and infidelity.

Prohibiting same-sex marriages is an act of discrimination and creates a second class of citizens. On
July 25, 2014, Florida's gay marriage ban was ruled unconstitutional by Miami-Dade County Circuit
Court Judge Sarah Zabel, stating that the ban serves only to hurt, discriminate, deprive same-sex couples
and their families of equal dignity, label and treat them as second-class citizens, and deem them unworthy
of participation in one of our society's fundamental institutions.

Argument

1. Arguement No. 1: I believe that denying marriage to homosexuals is a violation of religious

freedom, as religious and civil marriages are two separate institutions.

According to my reasearch, the main reason cited for prohibiting homosexuals from marrying is that
homosexuality is considered a sin by most major religions but however the Constitution states that
religious affiliation and even lack thereof, is to be protected. To recognize an activity as legal, is it to
slight a religion that it considers a sin? For example, Hinduism states that eating meat is a sin. Is it okay to
make a law saying that other religions can no longer eat meat because of this? Absolutely not. Same-sex
marriage does not violate religion. Religion violates the rights of same-sex couples.

2. Arguement No. 2: I disagree that the civil unions do not offer the same benefits and protections for
homosexual relationships.

Benefits such as joint ownership of property, insurance, and the ability to make important medical
decisions are not given in homosexual relationships. For instance, If a gay couple gets into a car accident
and one needs surgery, the partner may not be able to have visitation rights at the hospital because he or
she is not a legal spouse or considered a family member. Just because the relationship between an
individual does not fit the definition of what a marriage should look like by the state, is it okay to deny
them access to their loved ones? No.

3. Arguement No. 3: We should respect the ability of homosexual couples to raise a good family.

I firmly believe that the ability to raise and build a family is not defined by someone's sexual orientation.
For decades now, even in the absence of the full sanction of marriage, same-sex couples with a family
have lived as real families. They’ve shown and proven that they have the same capacities as heterosexual
couples for affection and support. In the states and countries where same-sex marriage has been approved,
there was no negative effect on marriage rates, divorce rates, or out-of-wedlock child births.
Massachusetts, which was America's first state to recognize same-sex marriages, still has one of the
country's lowest divorce rates.

Conclusion

Concerning this legalization, we do not expect religious groups to change their views, but open-minded
citizens of all faiths or of none should respect the dignity, worth and autonomy of all human beings.
LGBTQ+ people have the same hopes, desires, capabilities and failings as heterosexuals or any human
being. They should not be denied of things that we enjoy, especially because these things will not harm us
anyway.

It is fortunate that some of the worst barriers to accepting LGBTQ+ individuals have been removed in
recent decades, but true equality has not yet been achieved. In a society where marriage has a privileged
status, true equality cannot be achieved as long as we deny the opportunity of LGBTQ+ individuals to
marry. Therefore, let us be modern enough to think outside the box and be equal and fair to mankind.