The Law is assumed by lawyers to be fair, inclusive and complete. However, we are not lawyers; we are not bound to argue upon the constraints of the legal logic; but rather on the constraint of justice. And on this, we argue.
This post is about legalizing marriage equality; namely allowing gender-neutral marriages for both same- and opposite-sex couples, while prohibiting state and local courts and governments from penalizing religious and religious-supervised institutions, their employees, or clergy for refusing to sanctify or recognize marriages in contradiction with their religious doctrines, or for refusing to provide services and accommodations for such weddings, as seen in wikipedia.
Allowing people to marry the person of their choice is not the answer in this debate, but rather the question, ladies and gentlemen. For we live in a global society that still believes in the supremacy of males and machismo; as well as the inferiority of those who are not.
For the purposes of this discussion, we would be defining marriage as an agreement between two consenting entities to be considered as one juridical entity, for the purposes of rearing up children to be good citizens of the state by establishing a family; not necessarily for procreation.
To address the inadequacies and the need to address the problems we have this period, we should explore legitimization of marriage equality in the Philippines. I further emphasize on the term legalize; meaning that we will present this to the citizens of the state as a legal option AND not a requirement; so that Doomsday Arguments of population reduction in the future are rendered moot.
Measures of this policy will be manifested in the form of amendment of Laws such as the Family Code, Civil Code and similar laws to update and accommodate inadequacies of the law in covering the cases of the LGBTQA community.
In our country, the purpose of the state in sanctifying marriage as a legitimate measure is not procreation, but rather of raising up children. This is reflected in Article 1 of the Family Code which states the said idea. The purpose is to adjust for the idea of infertile heterosexual couples who wish to form a family to rear up children not necessarily their own; to be productive members of society.
However, there is a perceived problem with status quo. Why are we not treating members of the LGBT community and those wishing to be recognized as “gender-neutral” to do so in the same way? They can be considered as such too; apart from they cannot reproduce, they are also assumed to be productive members of society; ergo should also be accorded the same rights as average heterosexuals. IT would be going against the chosen principles of the State, as manifested in our Constitution and our by-laws; as well as limiting their potential in becoming productive members of the State if we do not create a measure to accommodate these people as well, because they are being and will be constrained to adjust for status quo.
Not to mention that the state puts a premium on the identity of the individual as manifested by the State asking you for your basic data (i.e name, age, gender, etc). “When homosexual individuals are denied equal rights of marriage as heterosexual individuals, they are given a choice between their identity and their desires for family and companionship, as well as legal benefits. The moment when a homosexual individual, more often than not a vulnerable and confused teenager, realizes his/her sexuality is a fragile one. They are split between a choice, come to terms with their sexuality, a part of their identity, and follow the ‘gay lifestyle.’ Or deny it, and continue living a facade as a heterosexual man/woman. The sad truth is, many people choose the second, to the harm of themselves, their future spouses, their children and all those who care about their happiness”, according to http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/ .
The question is, why? Why do these people choose to deny their homosexual desires? “Because the society puts too high a price on coming out of the closet. You faced by ridicule and stigma amongst your peers, which while shameful, is still something people can endure. The higher price you pay is being forced to give up your dreams of a family. Knowing you will be denied marriage, you have to choose to sacrifice all you dreamed about for your traditional wedding, for your quaint family life, your children, and settle instead for ‘the gay lifestyle’ of multiple sex partners, a bachelor’s pad, and disease that society wrongfully tells you is the inevitable fate for homosexual. This dichotomy is false, and no one should feel forced to choose between these options”, according to http://debatewise.org/debates/1047-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/.
Having said all of this, we cannot in good faith turn our back on this issue. Individuals who feel the need to express themselves should be allowed to do so as agreed by the state in its contract with the citizens to uphold their rights and welfare. We owe it to our people to start living with our ideals, without biases, and without fear of retribution. For if we do not, we are then living in fear of the tyrant that is the oppresive thinking of the majority.