Same Sex Marriage in the Philippines

Same-sex couples should be allowed to publicly celebrate their commitment in the same way as
heterosexual couples. [40] The Human Rights Campaign Foundation states that many same-sex
couples "want the right to legally marry [and] honor their relationship in the greatest way our society
has to offer..."

Same-sex couples should have access to the same benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married
couples. Many benefits are only available to married couples, such as hospital visitation during an
illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event
of the relationship ending. [6] An Oct. 2, 2009 analysis by the New York Times estimates that a same-
sex couple denied marriage benefits will incur an additional $41,196 to $467,562 in expenses over
their lifetime compared to a married heterosexual couple. [7]

The concept of "traditional marriage" being defined as one man and one woman is historically
inaccurate. Given the prevalence of modern and ancient examples of family arrangements based on
polygamy, communal child-rearing, the use of concubines and mistresses and the commonality of
prostitution, heterosexual monogamy can be considered "unnatural” in evolutionary terms. [3]

Marriage is redefined as society's attitudes evolve, and the majority of Americans now support gay
marriage. Interracial marriage was illegal in many US states until a 1967 Supreme Court decision.
Coverture, where a woman's legal rights and economic identity were subsumed by her husband upon
marriage, was commonplace in 19th century America. No-fault divorce has changed the institution of
marriage since its introduction in California on Jan. 1, 1970. With a May 2013 Gallup poll showing
53% of Americans supporting gay marriage, it is time for the definition of marriage to evolve once
again. [72]

Gay marriage is protected by the Constitution's commitments to liberty and equality. The US Supreme
Court ruled in 1974’s Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur that the "freedom of personal choice in
matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause.” US
District Judge Vaughn Walker wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 that Prop. 8 in California banning gay marriage
was "unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses." [41]

Denying same-sex couples the right to marry stigmatizes gay and lesbian families as inferior and
sends the message that it is acceptable to discriminate against them. The Massachusetts Supreme
Court wrote in an opinion to the state Senate on Feb. 3, 2004 that offering civil unions was not an
acceptable alternative to gay marriage because "...it is a considered choice of language that reflects a
demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status." [42]

Gay marriages can bring financial gain to state and local governments. Revenue from gay marriage
comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes (the so-called "marriage penalty"), and decreases
in costs for state benefit programs. [4] The Comptroller for New York City found that legalizing gay
marriage would bring $142 million to the city’s economy and $184 million to the state’s economy over
three years. [43]

Gay marriage would make it easier for same-sex couples to adopt, providing stable homes for
children who would otherwise be left in foster care. [68] In the US, 100,000 children are waiting to be
adopted. [44] A longitudinal study published in Pediatrics on June 7, 2010 found that children of
lesbian mothers were rated higher than children of heterosexual parents in social and academic
competence and had fewer social problems. [45] A July 2010 study found that children of gay fathers
were "as well-adjusted as those adopted by heterosexual parents." [46] As Washington Post
columnist Ezra Klein argues, "We should be begging gay couples to adopt children. We should see
this as a great boon that gay marriage could bring to kids who need nothing more than two loving
parents." [68]

Marriage provides both physical and psychological health benefits, and banning gay marriage
increases rates of psychological disorders. [5] The American Psychological Association, American
Psychiatric Association, and others wrote in a Sep. 2007 amicus brief, "...allowing same-sex couples
to marry would give them access to the social support that already facilitates and strengthens
heterosexual marriages, with all of the psychological and physical health benefits associated with that
support.” [47] A 2010 analysis published in the American Journal of Public Health found that after
their states had banned gay marriage, gay, lesbian and bisexual people suffered a 37% increase in
mood disorders, a 42% increase in alcohol-use disorders, and a 248% increase in generalized
anxiety disorders. [69]

Legalizing gay marriage will not harm heterosexual marriages or "family values," and society will
continue to function successfully. A study published on Apr. 13, 2009 in Social Science Quarterly
found that "[l]aws permitting same-sex marriage or civil unions have no adverse effect on marriage,
divorce, and abortion rates, [or] the percent of children born out of wedlock..." [48] The Executive
Board of the American Anthropological Association found that more than a century of research has
shown "no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon
marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the
conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can
contribute to stable and humane societies." [8]

Marriage is a secular institution which should not be limited by religious objections to gay marriage.
Nancy Cott, PhD, testified in Perry v. Schwarzenegger that "[c]ivil law has always been supreme in
defining and regulating marriage” and that religious leaders are accustomed to performing marriages
only because the state has given them that authority. [41]

Gay marriage legalization is correlated with lower divorce rates, while gay marriage bans are
correlated with higher divorce rates. Massachusetts, which became the first state to legalize gay
marriage in 2004, had the lowest divorce rate in the country in 2008. Its divorce rate declined 21%
between 2003 and 2008. Alaska, which altered its constitution to prohibit gay marriage in 1998, saw a
17.2% increase in its divorce rate. The seven states with the highest divorce rates between 2003 and
2008 all had constitutional prohibitions to gay marriage. [2]

If the reason for marriage is strictly reproduction, infertile couples would not be allowed to marry.
Ability or desire to create offspring has never been a qualification for marriage. George Washington,
often referred to as "the Father of Our Country,” did not have children with his wife Martha Custis, and
neither did four other married US presidents have children with their wives. [9]

Same-sex marriage is a civil right. The 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia confirmed that
marriage is "one of the basic civil rights of man," [60] and same-sex marriages should receive the
same protections given to interracial marriages by that ruling. The NAACP (National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People), on May 19, 2012, named same-sex marriage as "one of the
key civil rights struggles of our time." [61] CON Gay Marriage

The institution of marriage has traditionally been defined as between a man and a woman. In the Oct.
15, 1971 decision Baker v. Nelson, the Supreme Court of Minnesota found that "The institution of
marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children
within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.” [49]

Allowing gay couples to wed will further weaken the institution of marriage. Traditional marriage is
already threatened with high divorce rates (between 40% and 50%) and with 40.6% of babies being
born to unmarried mothers in 2008. Allowing same-sex couples to marry would further weaken the
institution. [50] [51] As argued by Ryan T. Anderson, William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free
Society at The Heritage Foundation, "In recent decades, marriage has been weakened by a
revisionist view that is more about adults’ desires than children’s needs... Redefining marriage to
include same-sex relationships is the culmination of this revisionism, and it would leave emotional
intensity as the only thing that sets marriage apart from other bonds." [70]

Gay marriage could potentially lead down a "slippery slope" giving people in polygamous, incestuous,
bestial, and other nontraditional relationships the right to marry. [10] Glen Lavy, JD, senior counsel
with the Alliance Defense Fund, argued in a May 21, 2008 Los Angeles Times Op-Ed, "The
movement for polygamy and polyamory is poised to use the successes of same-sex couples as a
springboard for further de-institutionalizing marriage." [11] In April 2013, Slate published a plea for
legal polygamy by writer Jillian Keenan: "Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than
homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less 'correct'
than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults." [71]

People should not have their tax dollars used to support something they believe is wrong. Gay
marriage would entitle gay couples to typical marriage benefits including claiming a tax exemption for
a spouse, receiving social security payments from a deceased spouse, and coverage by a spouse’s
health insurance policy. On Dec. 17, 2009, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost to
the federal government of extending employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners of certain
federal employees (making no mention of additional costs such as Social Security and inheritance
taxes) would be $596 million in mandatory spending and $302 million in discretionary spending
between 2010 and 2019. [37]

Gay marriage may lead to more children being raised in same-sex households, which are not an
optimum environment because children need both a mother and father. Girls who are raised apart
from their fathers are reportedly at higher risk for early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy. [52]
Children without a mother are deprived of the emotional security and unique advice that mothers
provide. An Apr. 2001 study published in American Sociological Review suggesed that children with
lesbian or gay parents are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior. [53] In the 1997 book
Growing up in a Lesbian Family: Effects on Child Development, Fiona Tasker, PhD, and Susan
Golombok, PhD, observed that 25% of sampled young adults raised by lesbian mothers had engaged
in a homoerotic relationship, compared to 0% of sampled young adults raised by heterosexual
mothers. [13]

Gay marriage will accelerate the assimilation of gays into mainstream heterosexual culture to the
detriment of the homosexual community. The gay community has created its own vibrant culture. By
reducing the differences in opportunities and experiences between gay and heterosexual people, this
unique culture may cease to exist. As M.V. Lee Badgett, PhD summarizes, "marriage means adopting
heterosexual forms of family and giving up distinctively gay family forms and perhaps even gay and
lesbian culture." [14]

The institution of marriage is sexist and oppressive; it should not be expanded but weakened. Paula
Ettelbrick, JD, Professor of Law and Women's Studies, wrote in 1989, "Marriage runs contrary to two
of the primary goals of the lesbian and gay movement: the affirmation of gay identity and culture and
the validation of many forms of relationships." [15] The leaders of the Gay Liberation Front in New
York said in July 1969, "We expose the institution of marriage as one of the most insidious and basic
sustainers of the system. The family is the microcosm of oppression.” [16]

Same-sex marriage has undermined the institution of marriage in Scandinavia. Sweden began
offering same-sex couples benefits in 1987, followed by Denmark in 1989 and Norway in 1993.
According to a Feb. 29, 2004 report by Stanley Kurtz, PhD, from 1990 to 2000, Norway's out-of-
wedlock birthrate rose from 39% to 50% and Sweden's rose from 47% to 55%. Unmarried parenthood
in Denmark rose 25% during the 1990s, and approximately 60% of first born Danish children have
unmarried parents. As Kurtz states, "Marriage is slowly dying in Scandinavia." [17]

Marriage is a privilege, not a right. Society can choose to endorse certain types of sexual
arrangements and give support in the form of benefits to these arrangements. Marriage was created
to allow society to support heterosexual couples in procreation and society can choose not to give the
same benefits to same-sex couples. [18]

Marriage should not be extended to same-sex couples because they cannot produce children
together. Allowing gay marriage would only further shift the purpose of marriage from producing and
raising children to adult gratification. [19]

Marriage is a religious rite between one man and one woman. According to a July 31, 2003 statement
from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and approved by Pope John Paul II, marriage
"was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology
can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a
woman…” [54]

Gay marriage is incompatible with the beliefs, sacred texts, and traditions of many religious groups.
The Catholic Church, Presbyterian Church, Islam, United Methodist Church, Southern Baptist
Convention, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, National Association of Evangelicals, and
American Baptist Churches USA all oppose same-sex marriage. Expanding marriage to include same-
sex couples may lead to churches being forced to marry couples and children being taught in school
that same-sex marriage is the same as opposite-sex marriage. [12]

Same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue, and conflating the issue with interracial marriage is
misleading. Matthew D. Staver, JD, Dean of the Liberty University School of Law, explained: "The
unifying characteristics of the protected classes within the Civil Rights Act of 1964 include (1) a
history of longstanding, widespread discrimination, (2) economic disadvantage, and (3) immutable
characteristics... 'Sexual orientation' does not meet any of the three objective criteria shared by the
historically protected civil rights cat

Don't know where to start with your assignment?

HIRE VERIFIED EXPERT
Let our experts help you