Is the Philippines ready to accept the concept of same-sex marriage and follow the path of around 30 countries—mostly in the West—that legalized it?
This is emerging as the next “hot” issue that members of Congress will address in the coming months, after President Duterte expressed his support to the proposal to allow same-sex marriage.
For Rep. Rodito T. Albano III of the First District of Isabela, the Philippines is not yet ready to legalize same-sex union.
“I don’t think we are ready for that [same sex-marriage]…. What religion solemnizes same-sex marriage?” Albano asked.
Pending before the House Committee on Women and Gender Equality is House Bill (HB) 6595, or “An Act Recognizing the Civil Partnership of Couples, Providing for their Rights and Obligations,” principally authored by Speaker Pantaleon D. Alvarez and the country’s first transgender lawmaker, Rep. Geraldine B. Roman of the First District of Bataan.
In filing the measure, the authors of the bill, citing Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, said “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the law.”
However, the Family Code of the Philippines said marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life.
But Alvarez clarified that the proposal only covers civil union.
“While there has been great acceptance of minority groups in recent years, it is notable, however, that the Philippines has not made sufficient strides in providing some of the most basic civil rights to couples who are not eligible for marriage under the law. A large part of this affected population is the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender [LGBT] community,” Alvarez said in the explanatory note of HB 6595.
There are at least 26 countries globally that allow same-sex marriage, with Belgium, Canada and Spain among the first jurisdictions to legalize it.
Roman said civil partnership is a more feasible option than same-sex marriage.
Numbers game
“We want to thank President Duterte for his support for the LGBTQI+ community. It only shows that he wants equality for all Filipinos,” Roman said.
“With regard to the President’s support for same-sex marriage, we would like to advocate for the more feasible option, which is the civil-partnership bill, which has already been filed by Speaker Alvarez,” Roman added.
According to the lawmaker, the bill aims to give legal recognition to stable relationships—whether same-sex or otherwise—or those outside the bond of marriage with the corresponding civil and legal rights and obligations.
“Congress is a numbers game and I honestly think that, at this point, my colleagues in the 17th Congress [may] not [be] ready for same-sex marriage. Many of them believe that marriage is an institution with religious connotations, and we respect that,” Roman said.
On the other hand, Roman added that the civil-partnership bill has definitely more chances of being approved.
“What we are interested in is the legal recognition and the civil rights attached to it, bearing in mind what is plausible at this point in time and without offending religious sensibilities,” Roman said.
The measure seeks to allow couples to enter into a civil partnership whether they are of the opposite or of the same sex. It aims to be a landmark effort to provide civil rights, benefits and responsibilities to couples, previously unable to marry, by giving them due recognition and protection from the state.
It also protects civil-partnership couples by penalizing unlawful and discriminatory practices committed by persons or institutions against them on the basis of their civil-partnership status.
Coauthors of the bill are Deputy Speakers Gwendolyn Garcia of the Third District of Cebu, Raneo Abu of the Second District of Batangas, Sharon S. Garin of Aambis-OWA Party-list and Eric D. Singson of the Second District of Ilocos Sur, and Rep. Frederick F. Abueg of the Second District of Palawan.
Clearer purpose
Earlier, Party-list Rep. Mariano Michael M. Velarde Jr. of Buhay Hayaang Yumabong (Buhay) said he is noncommittal to the proposal of Alvarez to push same-sex union, unless the purpose for the passage of the proposal is cleared.
“Family is a basic institution. If you will pursue same-sex marriage, how can you call it a family? Because marriage is solely for a man and a woman,” Velarde said. “But, if you are looking for legal unity, such idea can be looked into,” he added.
Party-list Rep. Aniceto D. Bertiz III of ACTS-OFW, for his part, said: “I stand ‘no’ on the issue because, basically, you can change the Constitution, but you can’t change the law of nature. I stand on the basis that the Divine Law cannot be violated and that the essence and sanctity of marriage should be protected.”
Senior Deputy Minority Leader Lito L. Atienza Jr. of Buhay said the Philippine law defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
“Marriage, as defined by law, is a union between a man and a woman. We are ready to defend the rights of anyone, especially those in the LGBT community. But marriage should exclusively be, as intended by nature, for a man and a woman,” he added.
‘Law of nature’
Archbishop Oscar V. Cruz, in an article posted on the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines News web site, said the Family Code of the Philippines states that marriage is “between a man and a woman” and “this does not apply to same-sex marriage.”
Cruz said the Philippine Constitution also provides that it does not only recognize “family life” and shall also “equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn” and “this does not apply to same-sex marriage.”
He added that the Code of Law of the Church stipulates that marriage is between “a man and a woman” and “this does not apply to same-sex marriage.”
“Natural law—the nature of realities, the objective substance of things, the essence of earthly matters—has already specifically and clearly defined, established and affirmed what is marriage. No church and no pope, no government and no president, no people of any race, color and creed can really change it,” he said.
“Why? Ground realities as categorically and concretely determined by nothing less than the law of nature are beyond denial or contradiction by any contrary human opinion, by any opposite human authority or legislation. Therefore, to think and affirm, to promote and proclaim that marriage is between a man and a man or between a woman and a woman—this is an excellent example of an exercise in futility,” he added.
Cruz said the Church, through all the ages as well as all over the globe, professes and declares that marriage is between a man and a woman.
“She has no choice. This is why the pope himself teaches and affirms that marriage is between a man and a woman,” he said.
“He has no alternative. This is why the Church in the Philippines and the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines maintain and insist that marriage is between a man and a woman. They have no option. To even think, much more to assert and insist, that marriage is not so—this can be done but it does not in any way change the nature or essence of marriage,” Cruz added.
According to Cruz, “homosexuals are human persons with their intrinsic human dignity that should be respected by people of all races, color and creeds. And in the event that a man and another man or a woman and another woman want to live together, this they do at their own personal accountability. Such togetherness can be called a ‘partnership,’ a ‘venture,’ a ‘contract,’ an ‘agreement’ or whatever—but marriage it is not! It takes more but mere human preference to alter the law of nature.”
Image credits: Ivonne Wierink | Dreamstime
1 comment
What is the problem with you people…Don’t you know that even the Koran does not allow marriage between same gender?