Riva Mae Cometa Atty.

Renato Galeon
Philosophy of Law
On Same-Sex Marriage
History has taught us that there can be no other thing constant but change;
what is taboo or immoral today might be celebrated in the next decade.
Change necessitates a fluid society and state, capable of adapting. In fact,
to check whether the state is growing in terms of culture and tradition, one
must examine historical underpinnings that triggered society to evolve, a
typical characteristic for an organic being.
While society adapts, it is also incumbent upon institutions like the state
to maintain its rigid standards and limitations on law and morality.
History and philosophy dedicated years and efforts to pin down whose
standards should states rest upon if it wants to maintain power over its
subjects on one hand, and preservation of rights on the other.
Our generation calls upon the long-oppressed sector who have been
clamoring for tolerance and acceptance in a prejudiced society, the
homosexuals. The following are my personal view on why it is imperative
that the state shall recognize their right to marry.
In the Bill of rights it is stipulated, that men and women are entitled to life,
liberty and pursuit of happiness; likewise, the same is protected by the
equal protection clause which demands that what is afforded to one must
be afforded to all, regardless of identity, religion, sexual orientation and
race. Without going to the intricacies and legalities of laws in the Family
Code challenged in the Falcis Petition, the constitution alone provides that
if one gets to marry the person he loves, others should be awarded the
same. Pursuit of happiness vis-à-vis the choice who to marry should not
be hindered by standards and policies that are not just outdated, but more
importantly, counter-intuitive. To say that we protect individuals while
blatantly prohibits their happiness and security is absurd and
unproductive. If Dave can list Anne, his wife as heir of his property, why
will the state not allow Steve to afford the same to partner, Peter?
In addition, one of the functions of the state when it enacts laws is that
even the process of legalizing one thing, it already sets an agenda for
debate necessary for people to openly discuss. De-stigmatization
commences as soon people are ready and openly discuss, their prejudices
and reservations vulnerable. Same-sex marriage, as a taboo idea in highly
religious country, will finally be in the limelight, see its overdue right to
be heard. So much so that prejudices against the LGBT community
discriminates to the extent that hate crimes happen very often.
Furthermore, we go back to why and how is this right so contradicted in
the Philippines. As said, because of a theocratic perspective of a
democratic state. Although separation of church and state go way back,
church as an institution, influences policies in a certain degree that it
commands adherence to the public; anything adverse to the doctrines will
not be welcomed vehemently. But the discussion transgresses beyond
why the church is influential, but more so, why does it believe such is
immoral and why such standard of morality imposed to a secular,
democratic public. The theology behind it cannot be credibly extracted by
an incompetent Christian such as myself, however human aspect
demands the more pressing question: which is more moral, excluding
homosexuals the enjoyment of basic right and happiness or upholding
your standards of morality? Or is it even moral to shove your standards
to a public with a minority that does not even believe in church or in
religion? Is it moral that your beliefs, freely practiced and unchallenged
for a long time prohibits the very basic tenets of human rights and
preservation? When you espouse that sanctity of marriage as having the
ability to procreate, is it even moral to do so in this time when the earth’s
future is uncertain; are you even as adamant to cis children who are
abandoned because your standards of morality prohibit you from taking
contraceptives?
I believe it is high time that Philippines shall recognize that right to marry
be afforded to homosexuals as well. Legal assurance of right should be
available to anybody who needs it especially that such right does not, in
anyway, encroach or diminish others who do not identity. In the same
way, standards of morality should not be imposed by one sector,
otherwise, those who are not part of your religion will be discriminated.