9

Chapter II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter reviews the relevant literature which is related to the study.

The review focuses on information about the feasibility of legalizing third sex

marriage in the Philippines, as well as its ethical, moral, and legal implications, as

well as the history of same-sex marriage in other countries.

Marriage

The lawful relationship, condition or status that arises from an agreement

through which one woman and one man, who possess the ability to go into the

said agreement, equally promise to be together within the bond of wife and

husband under the law for a lifetime or up to the lawful end of the bond.

Marriage remains a lawfully sanctioned agreement between the man and

the woman. Going into a contract of marriage changes the lawful status of all

parties, providing the wife and husband new obligations and rights.

The public policy stands strongly approving of marriages based upon the

principle that it upholds the family as an entity. Traditionally, marriages have

been considered as essential to the protection of civilization and morals.

(Retrieved: May 31, 2016, 10:14pm from http://legal-

dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/marriage)
 10

Same-Sex Marriage

Marriages between people of the same, also recognized as gay

marriages, are either through a civil or religious ceremony. In the latter part of

2000, religious ceremonies of marriages without lawful recognition turned out to

be increasingly usual. The initial law allowing for the wedding of persons of

similar sex in contemporary times existed passed in the Netherlands in 2001. As

of April 28, 2016, 15 countries, specifically, Argentina, Brazil, Belgium, Colombia,

Canada, Iceland, France, Ireland, Norway, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, South

Africa, Uruguay, and Sweden, besides particular sub-jurisdictions, like parts

of Mexico, Denmark, New Zealand, the Netherlands, the United States of

America and the United Kingdom, allow couples of the same sex to get married.

A comparable Finland law isn’t yet effective. Polls display rising backing

for lawfully recognizing marriages of the same sex in Australia, the

Americas, and for the most part of Europe. South Africa, by 2015, however,

stays the sole African nation where the marriage of the same sex is

acknowledged formally, and though no Asian nation allows marriage ceremonies

for couples of the same, Israel consents of same-sex weddings performed out of

the country.

The institution of marriage laws on couples of the same sex has differed

by areas, being accomplished in various ways through a governmental or judicial

change towards laws on marriage, a law court decision based upon constitutional

agreements of parity or through direct general ballot vote referendum or initiative.

 11

The acknowledgment of marriage between couples of the same sex is a

social and political issue, as well as also an issue of religion in numerous

countries, besides debates continuing to result from over whether persons in

relationships with the same sex should be permitted marriage or certain similar

category of a public union.

Same-sex weddings can deliver those in relationships between people of

the same sex who shell out their duties with services to the government and

render financial requests on them analogous to those allowed to, as well as

required of people in marriages with the opposite sex.

Same-sex weddings also provide them legitimate protections, like hospital

visitation privileges and inheritance. Various religious communities all over the

planet support permitting people of similar sex to get married, while countless

major faiths oppose marriage between a couple of the same sex.

Opponents of marriages between people of the same sex have claimed

that acknowledgment of gay marriages will erode spiritual freedom, undermine

the right of offspring to be nurtured by their natural father and mother or eat away

the establishment of matrimony itself.

(Retrieved May 31, 2016, 10:24PM from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-

sex_marriage)

Same-Sex Marriage in Different Countries

An increasing number of administrations around the planet are thinking

whether to allow legal acknowledgment of gay marriages. Closely 24 countries

 12

now have nationwide laws permitting lesbians and gays to get married, mostly

within America and Europe. In Mexico, certain jurisdictions let same-sex pairs

marry, while other jurisdictions don’t allow it.

Colombia (2016)

Colombia turned to be the fourth nation in South America consisting of

Catholics as the majority religion of the populace to authorize same-sex wedding

in April of 2016. The first three countries legalizing same-sex marriage were

Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay.

The Constitutional Court of the country, by a six against three votes,

decided that its people exist free to select independently towards starting a family

and maintaining their sexual tendency. As a result, they receive equal

management under the law and the constitution, as stated by the Agence

France-Presse.

United States (2015)

11 years following the first legalization of gay marriage within

Massachusetts, the United States Supreme Court declared that the charter

guarantees it all over the nation. The five against four decision supports partially

the explanation of the court’s 14th Amendment, besides stating that restricting

marriage exclusively to couples of the opposite sex violates the guarantee of the

same protection in the law as cited in the said amendment. Before the verdict,

36 states, as well as the Columbia District had allowed gay marriage.

 13

Greenland (2015)

Greenland, Denmark’s autonomous region, wasn’t exposed to the gay

marriage rule of Denmark, which was passed in 2012. Greenland legislators,

however, passed a proposed law in May of 2015 legalizing gay marriage. Take

note that Greenland is the biggest island in the world.

Ireland (2015)

On May of 2015, Ireland, the majority of its populace being Catholics,

became the pioneer country to authorize gay marriage by way of a widespread

referendum. 62% of the Irish voters voted in support of amending Ireland’s

Constitution to state that weddings may be engaged in agreement legally by

couples without a difference in their genders.

While several leaders of the Catholic Church opposed the modification,

Diarmuid Martin, Archbishop of Dublin, wrote a comment in the newspaper, “The

Irish Times” before the vote, stating that he will not advise people on how to

make their choice. In addition, he expresses having no personal desire to

squeeze his religious opinions down the throat of other people. The affirmative

campaign was highly supported by Enda Kenny, Ireland’s Prime Minster.

Finland (2015)

Gay marriage shall become authorized in Finland this year, 2017. The

Parliament of Finland approved a proposed law legalizing gay weddings in

 14

November of 2014, besides Finland’s head, Sauli Niinistö, endorsed the bill into a

law in the second month of 2015.

The proposed law started as an initiative of the citizens, an open petition

containing 167,000 names and signatures. Finland turned out to be the fifth

Nordic country to sanction same-sex marriage with Iceland, Denmark, Norway,

as well as Sweden.

Luxembourg (2014)

On the 18th of June, 2014, the Chamber of Deputies, the parliament of

Luxembourg, overwhelmingly accepted legislation that allows lesbian and gay

couples to marry and adopt kids. The proposed law that took effect early in

2015, existed championed through the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Xavier

Bettel, who’s openly known to belong to the third sex.

The modifications were a portion of a bigger revision of the small country’s

matrimonial laws, the primary major revision since 1804. Aside from allowing

gay couples to get married and adopt children, the law sets the lawful marrying

age of 18 years and removes the current requirement that pairs who wish to get

married must initially go through a medical examination.

Scotland (2014)

On the fourth day of February 2014, the Parliament of Scotland voted

overpoweringly to favor legislation authorizing same-sex wedding. This allows

 15

same-sex pairs to marry and gives churches, besides other spiritual groups the

choice of determining to administer such weddings or not.

Scotland’s two biggest churches, the Roman Catholic Church and Church

of Scotland, oppose gay marriage, as well as lobbying in opposition to the

proposed law. The bill took effect, however, and gay couples started marrying in

the last month of 2014 in Scotland.

England and Wales (2013)

On the 17th of July 2013, a royal permission was granted by Queen

Elizabeth II to a proposed law legalizing gay marriage in Wales and England.

The day prior to the said date, the bill won ultimate passage within the British

Parliament following months of discussion.

The bill applies only to Wales and England because Northern Ireland and

Scotland are largely self-governing and own separate lawmaking bodies towards

deciding many local issues, counting the description of matrimony. Though the

legislature of Northern Ireland in April 2014 chose a bill that will legalize gay

marriage, the Parliament of Scotland passed a law to sanction gay marriage in

the second month of 2014. The newly passed law in Wales and England, which

stayed of importance for David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party and

the British Prime Minister, permitted lesbian and gay couples to get married

beginning the 29th of March, 2014. The law, however, prohibits gay weddings in

the Church of England that continues to state marriage by way of a contract

between one woman and one man.

 16

Brazil (2013)

On the 14th of May 2013, the National Council of Justice of Brazil ruled

that gay couples must be allowed marriage certificates, allowing gay marriages to

start nationwide. Previous to that, about 50% of the 27 jurisdictions of Brazil had

permitted same-sex weddings.

The traditional Social Christian Party appealed to this decision of the

Council of Justice to the Supreme Court. As Brazil’s legislative body may need

to weigh the matter, it leaves some doubt surrounding the prospect of gay

marriage within the fifth largest country in the world.

France (2013)

On the 18th of May 2013, President Francois Hollande of France

authorized into a rule a bill legalizing gay marriage. This made France the 14 th

nation to allow lesbians and gays the privilege to get married.

Although the law had obtained the approval of the Senate and the

National Assembly in April, the president’s signature needed to wait till a law

court trial filed by UMP, the conventional opposition party, was determined.

On the 17th of May, the Constitutional Council, the chief court of France,

decided that the proposed and approved bill remained constitutional. In the

middle of 2012, President Hollande stood elected, besides his Socialist Party

obtained the majority of the votes in all houses of the legislature of France.

Consistent with their election campaign pledges, the Socialists and

Hollande pushed a bill that doesn’t just legalize gay marriage, but likewise gives
 17

lesbian and gay couples the entitlement to adopt kids, a stipulation that has

caused especially tough criticism from the leaders of the French Catholic.

While current polls display that the majority of adults in France support the

bill, opposition towards the modification has been extreme. Since the onset of

2013, some anti-gay wedding demonstrations with sporadically volatile mobs

numbering less than a million have transpired in Paris.

New Zealand (2013)

On the 17th of April 2013, the Parliament of New Zealand gave ultimate

approval to a bill that sanctions same-sex weddings. As a result, New Zealand,

the Pacific isle nation, became the 13th nation on the globe and the pioneer in the

region of Asia-Pacific to permit lesbians and gays to marry.

The bill won support by a 77 to 44 margin within the unicameral legislature

of the country, including approval from John Key, the Prime Minister, and existed

authorized by the governor-general of the country through a procedure known by

way of royal approval on the 19th of April.

The bill became effective in August of 2013. New Zealand proclaimed in

2005 legislation’s permission of same-sex pairs to engage in public agreements.

The 2013 bill doesn’t just legalize gay marriage, but similarly allowed lesbian and

gay couples towards adopting children.

 18

Uruguay (2013)

On the 10th of April, the inferior house of Congress of Uruguay passed a

regulation legalizing gay marriage, seven days after the Senate of the country did

as well. The proposed bill was signed into law by President José Mujica on the

third day of May, making the said country the second in Latin American to

authorize same-sex wedding, following the footsteps of Argentina.

Civil agreements have been allowed in Uruguay starting 2008, as well as

lesbian and gay couples given the right to adopt children in 2009. Uruguay stays

among the highly secular nations in Latin America. A study conducted by the

Pew Research Center on the worldwide religious setting in 2010 discovered that

nearly 40% Uruguayans remain not affiliated with a specific religion. About 58%

of Uruguayans stood as Christian and, in general, in the region of Latin America-

Caribbean, 90% of the populace exists as Christians.

Denmark (2012)

In the middle of 2012, the legislature of Denmark passed a proposed law

legalizing same-sex marriage. The bill was made into a law within the next

couple of days when the bill got the royal assent of Queen Margrethe II. Back in

1989, however, Denmark turned to be the primary country allowing same-sex

pairs to record themselves as home partners.

Then, in 2010, Denmark enacted an edict allowing same-sex couples to

register partnerships with the entitlement of adopting children. Together with the

ratification of same-sex weddings, Denmark’s Evangelical Lutheran Church,

 19

which remains the church of the state, required the permission of same-sex pairs

to wed in a church.

No church clergy member, however, is needed to execute the marriage of

a same-sex couple. Additionally, the edict leaves it a prerogative of other

religious assemblies to decide to permit same-sex marriages in its place of

worship or not.

Argentina (2010)

In the middle of 2010, Argentina turned out to be the primary Latin

American country to authorize same-sex weddings. Despite vigorous

disagreement from the fervent Protestant churches and the Catholic Church, the

bill passed all sections of the legislative body of Argentina and stayed signed into

an edict by President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner.

The decree grants gay couples, who get married, all the responsibilities

and rights enjoyed by married heterosexual partners, including the entitlement to

adopt kids. 10 years before the passing of the gay marriage ruling, a few local

areas, including Buenos Aires, the capital of the nation, had passed laws

permitting lesbians and gays to engage in civil agreements.

Portugal (2010)

In mid of 2010, Portugal developed as the eighth nation to authorize

same-sex weddings. Its assembly had enacted the bill legalizing same-sex
 20

marriage previously, but resulting to its ratification, Anibal Cavaco Silva, the

president of Portugal, requested the Constitutional Court for the review of the bill.

The Constitutional Court later declared the decree to be valid in

accordance with the constitution. It was then signed by the president in May

2010 and became effective in June of the same year. Portugal’s same-sex

marriage edict doesn’t give wedded same-sex pairs the entitlement to adopt kids.

Iceland (2010)

A bill legalizing gay marriage was ratified by the Icelandic legislative body

in June of 2010. Open opinion survey before the voting indicated extensive

support on behalf of the bill and got 100% support from the legislature members

of Iceland. Iceland had permitted same-sex pairs to enlist as home partners as

early as 1996.

10 years later, a bill was passed by the parliament allowing same-sex

couples towards adopting children. Subsequent to the newly approved law

taking effect in the latter part of June 2010, Johanna Sigurdardottir, the prime

minister of the country, wedded Jonina Leosdottir, her long-standing partner,

becoming among the foremost people to wed under the law.

Sweden (2009)

In April of 2009, the parliament of Sweden chose by a great majority

towards legalizing same-sex weddings. Swedish gay pairs had been permitted

to enlist for pubic unions as early as 1995. The law passed in 2009 allows
 21

lesbians and gays to get married in civil and religious ceremonies equally,

although it doesn’t require ordained priests to preside at such rituals.

The Lutheran-allied Sweden Church, to which approximately 75% of all

Swedish belong to, has presented blessings on behalf of same-sex unions since

January of 2007. In October of 2009, the governing board of the church voted

towards allowing its priests to preside at gay marriage rituals.

Norway (2009)

Since January of 2009, same-sex pairs in Norway lawfully have been

permitted to wed, adopt kids, and go through artificial fertilization. The newly

passed law switched a 1993 statute permitting public unions. The law was

passed in 2009 despite conflict from associates of the Progress and the Christian

Democratic Parties, and an open controversy across state financial support for

fecundity treatments aimed at lesbian pairs.

The biggest religious assembly in Norway, the Lutheran-associated

Church of Norway, existed split on the concern. Following ratification of the

newly passed law, the leaders of the church voted towards prohibiting its

ministers from officiating same-sex marriages. The Church of Norway, however,

does permit its clergy towards blessing same-sex partnerships.

South Africa (2006)

The parliament of South African legalized gay weddings in November of

2006, a year following the highest court of the country’s ruling that the earlier
 22

marriage statutes encroached upon the country’s constitution guaranteeing equal

privileges. The newly passed law permits religious organizations and public

officers towards refusing to officiate same-sex wedding ceremonies, a stipulation

that detractors claim to intrude upon the privileges of gay partners under the

charter.

The new bill ratified by a surplus of more than five affirmative to one

negative vote, with backing coming from equally the ruling National Congress of

South Africa and Democratic Alliance, the principal opposition faction. The old

king of the people of the Zulu, however, who accounted for around 20% of the

population of the country, upholds that homosexuality stays morally off beam.

Spain (2005)

A strictly divided parliament of Spain legalized gay weddings in 2005,

assuring identical privileges to the entire married people regardless of gender

orientation. The newly passed bill added language towards the present marriage

law, which currently states that marriage shall have the equal requirements,

besides results once two persons enter into the agreement exists of the different

or the same sexes.

The Catholic Spanish Bishops Conference and Vatican bureaucrats

strongly disapprove the statute, and huge crowds protested in Madrid in support

and contradiction of the bill. After it became effective, the constitutional court of

the country rejected disputes from two judges of municipal courts who refused
 23

wedding licenses towards same-sex pairs. The upper court decided that the

minor court adjudicators lacked lawful standing towards bringing the lawsuits.

Canada (2005)

Canadian same-sex pairs gained mainly the lawful benefits of weddings in

1999 as soon as the provincial and federal governments postponed common

marriage laws to lesbian and gay couples. By way of a sequence of law court

suits commencing in 2003, gay marriage slowly became lawful in nine of

Canada’s 13 territories and provinces.

The Parliament of Canada passed a law in 2005 making gay marriage

lawful nationwide. In the next year, 2006, politicians defeated an initiative by the

majority Canadian Conservative Party to reassess the matter, leaving the statute

unchanged.

Belgium (2003)

Beginning 1998, the parliament of Belgium offered partial rights towards

same-sex pairs through partnerships registered. Gay couples can register

through a metropolitan clerk, as well as formally undertake joint accountability for

a home. In January of 2003, the parliament of Belgium legalized gay marriage,

providing lesbian and gay couples a similar tax, besides inheritance privileges as

that of heterosexual pairs.

Support aimed at the statute came from the French-speaking South and

the Flemish-speaking North equally, and the statute generated amazingly little
 24

disagreement across Belgium. The dominant Christian Democratic Party for

centuries, traditionally associated with the Catholic Church, remained powerless

when the assembly passed the law.

The 2003 statute allowed the weddings of same-sex pairs in Belgium and

acknowledged as wedded those from foreign countries wherein same-sex

weddings were legal. Those stipulations were widened in 2004 towards allowing

any gay couple towards marrying provided one of the pairs had resided in the

country for a minimum of a quarter of a year. By 2006, the congress also

approved same-sex couples the privilege to adopt kids.

The Netherlands (2000)

The Netherlands, in the last month of 2000, became the initial country to

authorize same-sex wedding when the parliament of the Netherlands ratified, by

a three is to one margin, a milestone bill permitting the custom. The legislative

body gave gay couples the privilege to get married, divorce, as well as adopt

kids.

The legislative body altered one sentence within the present civil wedding

statute that now states that a wedding can be signed by a couple of the same or

different sex. The sole opposition within the parliament originated from the

Christian Democratic Party that at that time wasn’t a member of the ruling

coalition.

After the statute became effective, the Netherlands’ Protestant Church,

which at that time represented around 12% of the population of the country,
 25

announced that separate congregations can decide as to officiate same-sex

wedding ceremonies or not. Although the traditional Christian sets and Muslims

continue to clash with the statute, same-sex weddings are widely received by the

public in the Netherlands.

Countries Where Same-sex Marriage exists Legal in Certain Jurisdictions

Mexico (2009)

The Supreme Court of Mexico issued a law in 2015 creating it very easy

for lesbian and gay couples to get married. The ruling gave gay couples the

privilege to pursue an injunction in court against national laws outlawing gay

weddings. Although it didn’t technically authorize same-sex contracts

nationwide, it stood as the main step towards that way.

The Supreme Court of Mexico also released a law favoring same-sex

weddings in 2010, stating that gay marriages undertaken in the city existed valid,

besides being accepted all throughout the nation. Mexico City legalized same-

sex marriage in the last month of 2009.

Starting 2011, the Mexican Quintana Roo state also allowed same-sex

marriages. Coahuila’s congress, Mexico’s northern state, approved gay

weddings in 2014, as well as its neighboring Chihuahua following suit in 2015.

(Retrieved: June 1, 2016, 10:44PM from

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/06/26/gay-marriage-around-the-world-

2013/#argentina)
 26

Why Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage in PH is good for all Filipinos

There exists a minimum of a million LGBT persons contribute each day to

Filipino existence outside and in the Philippines in a host of modes socially,

culturally, politically, financially, spiritually, and vocationally. These inputs can be

fathomed only through the ratification of a law in support of same-sex weddings.

These individuals should be considered equally irrespective of gender, religion,

besides everything else in accordance with law.

Improve physical, social, and psychological well-being amid LGBT persons

Same-sex wedded couples can possess stable social and psychological

well-being because they could also revel in the benefits and rights of any normal

Filipino citizen living outside or inside the country. LGBT individuals can obtain

their complete potential when given the entire freedom and rights as that of

married couples of the opposite sex.

Promote the stability of the family

The children of this generation represent the future of the Philippines and

it’s the best interest of the country to back their progress, notwithstanding who

their parents are. The rejection of gay marriage can badly affect the children

nurtured by gay couples. They could always be singled out and harassed by

other kids due to their gay parents.

 27

Provide business and economic opportunities

The authorization of gay weddings in other nations has been seen for

some time to offer a boost to the economy. Planning for weddings is among the

finest businesses that stay on the rise. Small companies on wedding preparation

and reception in cities can increase their potential customers by twofold if gay

marriage stands legalized. Reports stated that the New York State made a

$260-million boost to the economy following the ratification of gay marriage.

Strengthen international and national reputation

Unmarried gay couples from nations where gay marriage remains illegal,

frequently find themselves in conflict. They have the tendency to experience low

self-confidence because of the absence of acknowledgment. Legalizing gay

marriage will erase these misgivings.

Promotes real religion freedom

Religious freedom allows an individual or a group of people to follow the

exercise of his own faith without the interference of the government of the leading

church. The fairest and most ethical method, which considers all persons equally

heedless of spiritual affiliation, exists to exclude religious viewpoints when

forming marriage regulations within a civil context.

At hand are other benefits a wedded gay couple could enjoy, such as

employee’s subsidies, paternal or maternal leave, insurance for the family, real

estate sharing, and many others. Conversely, there’s no advantage in not

 28

sanctioning same-sex weddings. The highly dominant faith in the Philippines, the

Roman Catholic, is the top opponent of same-sex marriage, although it’s always

lacking in containing its inner problems.

The abuse of children amid Catholic ministers remained a blistering topic

with no any strong preventive measures issued from Vatican City. And similar to

it are the issue of pregnancy among nuns. Same-sex marriage in the country

should be legally valid for the benefit of everybody. There’s no practical reason

for this ruling not to be ratified.

(Retrieved: June 2, 2016, 10:11 AM from http://www.thephilippinepride.com/why-

legalizing-same-sex-marriage-in-ph-is-good-for-all-filipinos/)

The Homophobic Comments of Manny Pacquiao Continue to harm him

The homophobic outbursts of boxer Manny Pacquiao have previously

harmed his Nike endorsement deal and presently caused his being excluded

from a famous LA shopping complex, The Grove, for another time. The

welterweight boxer ignited a blaze when he stated that the animals or beasts

were better off than gay folks during his appearance on a TV talk show in the

Philippines last February.

Pacquiao, having beforehand made public disclosure of his antipathy

based on his faith towards the same-sex community, faced a massive backlash,

besides eventually making him apologize while appealing his intention was not to

judge anyone.
 29

He likewise said that he’s rather following the Lord’s commandment than

conforming to the craving of the body. He firmly believes that he’s just saying the

facts based on what is said in the Holy Bible. His lukewarm apologies, however,

did almost nothing to appease his detractors, including The Grove’s owner, an

upscale shopping complex within the vicinity of the training center he currently

uses to prepare for his April 9 bout against Timothy Bradley.

Pacquiao, as well as his staff, was allegedly spotted at the mall watching a

film as reported by TMZ. Rick Caruso, Grove’s owner, reacted to Pacquiao’s

statements to Rolling Stone as statements of hatred. Lots of folks from the

same-sex community patronize The Grove.

Thus, they possess the right to feel comfortable and, as a result, no longer

welcome Manny Pacquiao. The Grove actually had banned Manny Pacquiao

before for his anti-gay grandiloquence last 2012. The shopping mall took the

issue with the boxer’s critical remarks allegedly made in response to the support

President Barack Obama gave for gay marriage.

After Pacquiao claimed that he never referred to a Bible verse exclaiming

for the third sex to be executed, the first ban was canceled. The comments of

Caruso weren’t dissimilar from that of Nike’s that ended a relationship of decades

with the boxer on February 17 when Pacquiao’s anti-gay pomposity became

viral. They find Pacquiao’s remark as abhorrent.

Also, Nike firmly opposes bias of all kinds, besides having a lengthy

history of standing up and supporting the entitlements of the community of

 30

LGBTs. A spokesperson of Nike told MSNBC that they no longer hold an

association with Pacquiao.

Cyd Zeigler, the managing editor of OutSports, also told MSNBC that

banning Pacquiao was an added step in the march of Nike towards equality.

Being gay, he further added that comparing her husband and herself to beasts or

telling that they are worse than wildlife will never work for any major company,

Nike included.

Some of the peers of Pacquiao in the boxing world have likewise moved

away from him. WWE superstar and actor David Bautista, having an explicitly

gay mom, is publicly calling Pacquaio a fucking idiot. In addition, Ronda Rousey,

former unbeaten UFC champion, also have been disapproving of Pacquiao to the

point of recently informing TMZ that she understands that lots of persons use

their faith as a basis to be in opposition of gay persons, but there’s no “Thou

Shall Not Be Gay” statement in any holy book.

Even Floyd Mayweather, his long-standing boxing opponent, though

known to have made hot homophobic remarks himself, condemned Pacquiao by

saying that they should allow people to live lives in the manner they wish to do

so. In another interview, he told TMZ that the each to each own principle should

be respected.

Meanwhile, aside from his following fight that’s anticipated to be the last,

Pacquiao pursues a seat in the Senate of the country. He has worked for the

House of Representatives of the Philippines since 2007 and earned a name for a

not-so-glitzy record of attendance.

 31

Nevertheless, he did fight arduously to block legislation that will have

arranged for more accessibility to contraception aimed at citizens with low

income, which eventually prevailed.

(Adam Howard, MSNBC, 2016)

Will Liza Diño and Aiza Seguerra challenge the meaning of matrimony in

the Philippines?

Amid debates concerning the administration policy of Obama to endow

federal welfares, protection, besides services to the entire American married gay

couples equal to people granted to their counterpart of heterosexual couples,

multi-talented singer and actress Aiza Seguerra recently proposed to wed her

sweetheart, Liza Diño, a model and actress in the Philippines.

Filipinos exist generally extra conservative, as well as opposing same-sex

weddings, however, similar to many traditional American Republicans, the

subtleties change whenever a family member admits being gay, besides

professing to wed her partner or lover.

It appears that the Liza-Aiza engagement stayed received very well by

numerous “kababayans” all over the globe, as shown by the happy reaction to

the newscast on the mood meter of Rappler.com. This evidences that countless

Filipinos remain considerate of the Aiza’s situation due to her status as a

celebrity.

In spite of everything, many countrymen have been monitoring Aiza from

her childhood days being the funny cute little miss of Eat Bulaga until now as a
 32

candidly gay, exceptional musician. Although many stands excited concerning

the engagement of the couple, there also are those who inquire how the pair can

conceivably marry.

Same-sex weddings are not lawful in the country after all! And even when

they marry in California, USA, as reportedly planned, their wedding will never be

accepted in their native country. This signifies that should Liza and Aiza get

married in the United States and fully acknowledged as a couple in the US, they

would still not be capable of enjoying the welfares and security accorded by the

law to married people in a customary Philippine marriage.

A Fil-Am lawyer and community leader, Attorney Arnedo Valera, who

majors in human rights and international law, said that the options Liza and Aiza

have under the given circumstance are:

Option 1: Become a citizen of America first.

Valera stated that when Liza, an American permanent legal resident or

holder of a green card becomes an American citizen, the couple can be married

in any state wherein gay weddings are legal. Then, they can be able to own all

the protection and benefits the Philippine decrees give towards heterosexual

pairs in their native country in an old-fashioned marriage.

A clash of rulings under the global law could arise when you tackle marital

and property entitlements of gay couples wedded outside of America and stay as

citizens of the US, but have opted to reside permanently within the country, have

some Philippine property investments, and any or both of the parties decide

towards embracing dual nationality.

 33

Attorney Valera mentioned that the bordering conflict of edicts under the

global law remains between the edict legally acknowledging same-sex marriage,

as well as Family Code’s Article 26, which stipulates that all weddings

solemnized elsewhere the country in agreement with the effective rulings in the

United States, for example, where they stood solemnized and lawful there shall

likewise be lawful in the country.

Take note that Articles 35 (1), (4), and (6), 36, 37, and 38 (71a) are

excluded. Valera contended that it’s to be evidently noticed that Article 26

doesn’t mention Same-Sex Marriages by way of VOID since it’s excluded from

the list. The Family Code, however, in Article 1 describes this by way of between

a male and a female and it’s a vital requisite to weddings.

This applies, however, only to citizens of the Philippines who signed up for

marriage within the country. He clarified that the Philippines’ Family Code is

founded on an obsolete “siete partidas codigo civil” in our three centuries of

existing as a Spanish colony.

He added that on the foundation of a legal challenge attached on the

essential civil liberty and right of a person or individual, this Family Code portion

on expressing marriage amid woman and man should be acknowledged as

unconstitutional.

Option 2: Marry now, as well as take a licit battle to a law court.

Valera further said that the pair should marry in California as intended. He

expounded that the Liza-Aiza marriage would raise a legal challenge versus the

definition of matrimony in the Civil Code based upon equal security laws. The
 34

reality that the wedding was genuinely recognized wherever undertaken is

adequate.

Attorney Valera also pointed to the manner the Constitution of the

Philippines doesn’t define matrimony as a lawful union amid one woman and a

man as cited in Section 1 of Article XV. The country recognizes the family in the

Philippines as the nation’s foundation.

Accordingly, it strengthens its unity and keenly promotes its complete

development. In Section 2, matrimony, as an unbreakable social organization, is

the family’s foundation and should be safeguarded by the government. In the

third section, it states that the government shall protect:

1. The privilege of husbands and wives to establish a family consistent

with their convictions in religion and the needs of functional parenthood;

2. The entitlement of kids to support, including appropriate nutrition and

care, and superior protection from any form of abuse, neglect, cruelty,

mistreatment, and similar conditions harmful to their growth;

3. The family’s right to a domestic living income and wage; and,

4. The merit of family associations or families to take part in the formation

and execution of programs and policies that concern them.

Section 4 states that the family holds the responsibility to support its aged

members, yet the government may likewise do so by way of its just agendas of

social safety. Valera stated that it’s the Philippine Family Code that defines

weddings as a distinct contract of perpetual union amid a woman and a man. He

pointed out that it’s a strong legal position for the lawful dispute of the Philippine
 35

Family Code. The charter has preeminence and is the ultimate ruling of the

country.

Thus, should Liza and Aiza creates a historical record and defies the

legality of the restrictive definition of matrimony in the Philippine Family Code

under the theory of fairness for everyone?

(Gel Santos Relos, Asian Journal, 2014)

SC inquiry: Allow gay marriage in the PH?

A news in Manila, Philippines disclosed that a youthful Filipino attorney

asked the Supreme Court of the Philippines to cancel same-sex wedding

prohibitions within the nation's almost three decades old Family Code. The

attorney, who branded himself by way of a clear gay person in his petition filed

last May 18, argued that restricting civil weddings and the privileges that

accompany such agreements to people of the opposite sex violate the protection

guaranteed by the constitution for the same treatment, unwarranted interference

towards liberty entitlements and matrimonial autonomy.

Jesus Nicardo Falcis III, the petitioner, said that the restrictions enforced

by the Family Code of 1987 just favoring marriages between people of the

opposite sex revoked the Civil Code of 1949, which failed to make such a

difference. His request was given to the Supreme Court a couple of days prior to

a momentous Ireland referendum that approved gay weddings.

He expressed happiness with the change as it gave him optimism that the

Catholic nation can consent to gays being equal within the law’s point of view.
 36

The implication it provides is that persons can be sensible in defining between

spiritual views, besides legal or secular views. He further added that a person’s

religion should never be forced on other people. Same-sex weddings are of

awe-inspiring importance towards the country due to the presence of millions of

Filipino lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender all throughout the Philippines

who exist deprived of walking down the church’s aisle with the person they love

or want.

The petition said that those who follow same-sex relations despite the

dishonor are not provided by the pack of privileges that arise from a lawful

acknowledgment of the relationship of a couple, such as custody, succession,

and visitation rights, real estate, and similar privileges bestowed to those having

relations with their opposite sex.

Protestant Pastor said that Same-Sex Weddings are Possible to be “not an

issue of religion” in the Constitution of the Philippines

Same-sex marriage exists possible in the Constitution of the Philippines

and must be considered as a subject of the same protection over the law instead

of an issue of religion. This is the pronouncement of a Protestant minister who

officiates same-sex marriages.

Reverend Ceejay Agbayani, the founding priest of the Lesbian, Gay,

Bisexual, and Transgender Christian Church Incorporated, a self-governing

Protestant church, claimed that reproduction shouldn’t be the foundation of

 37

matrimony. Mutual affection, respect, besides support stays the core of

matrimony.

In a meeting with Varsitarian, Agbayani stressed that procreation is not

mentioned as a prerequisite of marriage. Most Christian and Catholic churches

hold matrimony as an eternal union directed toward the union of the wife and the

husband to produce offspring.

Agbayani stated, however, that religion must not impact the argument over

the ratification of gay marriage within a worldly country, such as the Philippines.

It is not an issue of religion, but the equal security of the rule. He even pointed

out that the legalization of same-sex weddings is no threat to marriages of people

with different sexes.

Also, Agbayani said that it’s unnecessary to revise the 1987 Philippine

Constitution that uses the word, “spouses,” towards allowing same-sex weddings

in the country. The word, “spouses,” can also denote same-sex pairs, he said.

Section 2 of Article XV of the Constitution of 1987 states that weddings, as a

sacrosanct social organization, is the family’s basis and ought to be safeguarded

by the government.

Section 3 stipulates that the government shall protect the entitlement of

married couples to establish a family consistent with their spiritual convictions, as

well as the requirements of being responsible parents. There remains, however,

a necessity to revise Executive Order No. 209 or the Family Code, which

describes marriage by way of a singular contract of lasting union amid a woman

 38

and a man entered in agreement with the law aimed at the founding of the family

and conjugal life, according to Agbayani.

US Decision

Debate on same-sex weddings in the country was initiated through the

June 26 decision of the United States Supreme Court announcing same-sex

weddings as a right under the constitutional in the entire 50 states. Prior to that,

it existed discretionary in every state towards legalizing same-sex weddings

under the American federal government system, which splits powers amid the

state and federal governments.

The five against four votes caused the US to be the 21st, besides being

the most populated country to sanction same-sex weddings. The decision,

authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy states that as several of the lobbyists in

these instances demonstrate, matrimony embodies an affection that can endure

even beyond death.

It will misunderstand these women and men to state they disregard the

thought of a wedding. Their appeal exists that they respect it very deeply to the

point that they look to encounter its implementation for themselves. On the other

hand, John Roberts, a Chief Justice, wrote a forceful dissent as the three other

people in the interest group did.

Roberts stated that the greater part of people created an entitlement not

covered by the United States Constitution, besides past laws, and concluded the
 39

discussion in place of handing over the topic to the state governments. The

decision of the majority is an action of preference, not a legal conviction.

The privilege it heralds has no footing in the US Constitution or a

precedent in court. The law court refutes the laws of matrimony by greater than

50% of the States, as well as orders the conversion of the social organization

that has molded the foundation of humanity for ages, including the Han Chinese,

Kalahari Bushmen, Aztecs, and Carthaginians.

(Retrieved: June 2, 2016, 10:55 AM, from

http://varsitarian.net/news/20150705/same_sex_marriage_not_a_religious_issue

_possible_under_ph_constitution_says_protestant)