Advocating for the Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage in the Philippines

Crisjer Gabod Cadampog

INTRODUCTION
The debate over the legalization of same-sex marriage in the Philippines has
long been a contentious issue, intersecting deeply held cultural, religious, and
legal beliefs. However, as the nation progresses in its understanding of human
rights, equality, and justice, it is imperative to address the issue of same-sex
marriage through a legal lens that prioritizes civil rights over religious doctrines.
This paper argues that same-sex marriage should be legalized in the
Philippines, specifically as a civil union, unless religious organizations themselves
choose to recognize such unions. This position is supported by a consideration of
landmark judicial precedents, constitutional rights, and the principle of the
separation of church and state.
DISCUSSIONS
I. U.S Judicial Precedent
I.A Loving v. Virginia
In the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia (1967), the
Court invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage, asserting that marriage is
one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and
survival. The Court emphasized that the freedom to marry is a vital personal right
essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. While this case
concerned racial discrimination, its underlying principles are directly applicable to
the issue of same-sex marriage.
The Loving decision highlights that marriage is not merely a contract but a
profound union that lies at the core of human dignity and personal autonomy. By
denying same-sex couples the right to marry, the state infringes on their ability to
pursue happiness and undermines the principle that marriage is a fundamental
civil right. The Court’s reasoning in Loving demonstrates that the state has no
legitimate interest in restricting marriage based on immutable characteristics,
whether race or sexual orientation.
I.B Obergefell v. Hodges
In 2015, the US Supreme Court held that right of same-sex couple to marry
is protected under the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection clause:
"Judicial precedent has held that the right to marry is a fundamental liberty
because it is inherent to the concept of individual autonomy, it protects the most
intimate association between two people, it safeguards children and families by
according legal recognition to building a home and raising children, and it has
historically been recognized as the keystone of social order. Because there are no
differences between a same-sex union and an opposite-sex union with respect to
these principles, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the right to marry violates
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment also guarantees the right of same-sex
couples to marry as the denial of that right would deny same-sex couples equal
protection under the law. Marriage rights have traditionally been addressed
through both parts of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the same interrelated
principles of liberty and equality apply with equal force to these cases; therefore,
the Constitution protects the fundamental right of same-sex couples to marry. The
Court also held that the First Amendment protects the rights of religious
organizations to adhere to their principles, but it does not allow states to deny
same-sex couples the right to marry on the same terms as those for opposite-sex
couples."

II. Due Process Clause

The prohibition of same-sex marriage can be argued to violate due process of law
on the grounds that it infringes upon the fundamental rights of individuals to
marry and form a family, rights which are protected under the due process clause.
Substantive due process ensures that laws do not infringe on the fundamental
rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, such as the right to life, liberty,
and property. It requires that laws enacted must have a legitimate purpose, and
the means used to achieve that purpose must be reasonable and not oppressive.
1. Legitimate Purpose:
To satisfy the requirements of substantive due process, a law must pursue a
legitimate governmental purpose. Proponents of the prohibition of same-sex
marriage often argue that it serves the state's interest in promoting traditional
family structures, safeguarding societal morals, or encouraging procreation.
However, these purposes must be critically examined to determine if they
genuinely serve the public interest and are not based on outdated or
discriminatory beliefs.
A. Traditional Family Structures – While preserving traditional family
structures might be considered a legitimate purpose, this cannot
justify discriminating against non-traditional families. The notion of
what constitutes a "family" has evolved, and many modern family
structures, including those led by same-sex couples, contribute
positively to society.

B. Safeguarding Societal Morals – Basing laws on a specific set of moral

beliefs, particularly those rooted in religious or cultural traditions, can
be problematic in a pluralistic society. The Constitution mandates
equal protection for all citizens, regardless of their moral or religious
beliefs. Therefore, a law rooted in a specific moral code that denies
 equal rights to a segment of the population lacks a legitimate, secular
purpose.

C. Encouraging Procreation – The idea that marriage is solely for

procreation is flawed. Many heterosexual couples who marry do not,
or cannot, have children, yet their marriages are recognized by law.
Moreover, same-sex couples can and do raise children, either through
adoption, surrogacy, or other means. Excluding same-sex couples from
marriage under the guise of promoting procreation fails to recognize
these realities and thus lacks a legitimate purpose.
Reasonable and Non-Oppressive Means
Even if a legitimate purpose were identified, the means used to achieve that
purpose must be reasonable and not oppressive. The prohibition of same-sex
marriage fails on both counts.
A. Reasonableness – A law that outright bans same-sex marriage is not a
reasonable means of achieving any stated legitimate purpose. It imposes a
blanket restriction on a fundamental right—marriage—without considering
less restrictive alternatives. For example, if the state's concern is child
welfare, the focus should be on ensuring that all children, regardless of their
parents' sexual orientation, are raised in supportive and stable
environments, rather than banning same-sex marriage.

B. Non-Oppressiveness – The prohibition is inherently oppressive, as it denies

same-sex couples the legal benefits, social recognition, and personal dignity
associated with marriage. It perpetuates stigma and discrimination against
LGBTQ+ individuals, treating them as second-class citizens. This form of
legal exclusion is a direct violation of the due process requirement that the
law should not be oppressive or arbitrary.
III. Equal Protection of Law
Article III, Section 1 of the Philippine Constitution also enshrines the
principle of equal protection under the law, stating that "no person shall be denied
the equal protection of the laws." This principle requires that individuals in similar
circumstances be treated equally by the law, unless there is a substantial
distinction that justifies differential treatment.
The question, then, is whether there is a substantial distinction between
heterosexual and homosexual unions that would justify the exclusion of same-sex
couples from the institution of marriage. The answer is unequivocally no. Both
types of unions involve two consenting adults seeking to enter into a committed,
legally recognized relationship. The primary purpose of marriage—whether for
procreation, mutual support, or companionship—remains the same regardless of
the sexual orientation of the partners. Thus, the exclusion of same-sex couples
from marriage constitutes unjust discrimination and violates the constitutional
guarantee of equal protection.
IV. Separation of Church and State
The Philippines is a secular state, as affirmed by Article II, Section 6 of the
Constitution, which states, "The separation of Church and State shall be
inviolable." This principle mandates that the government should not favor or
impose religious beliefs on its citizens, particularly in matters of public policy and
law. The opposition to same-sex marriage in the Philippines is largely rooted in
religious doctrine, particularly within the Catholic Church, which views marriage
as a sacrament between a man and a woman.
However, in a secular state, the government's definition of marriage should
be grounded in civil rights and equality, not religious doctrine. The state has a duty
to protect the rights of all its citizens, including those who do not subscribe to the
dominant religious beliefs. While religious organizations have the right to define
marriage according to their doctrines, the government must ensure that civil
marriage is accessible to all, regardless of sexual orientation.
CONCLUSION
The ethos of our society has evolved, and with it, the law must also evolve.
As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg eloquently stated, "The arc of the moral universe is
long, but it bends toward justice." The law, as a living entity, must adapt to the
changing values and understandings of society. Just as the law once evolved to
recognize the equality of women, dismantling centuries of legal discrimination, and
just as it evolved to end the scourge of racial segregation, it must now evolve to
recognize the validity and equality of same-sex unions.
The denial of same-sex marriage is not just a denial of a personal right; it is
a denial of the progress we have made as a society in understanding that all
individuals, regardless of gender, race, or sexual orientation, are entitled to equal
protection and dignity under the law. As society’s understanding of equality and
justice deepens, so too must our legal framework. The recognition of same-sex
marriage is not merely a matter of tolerance; it is a matter of justice. It is time for
the Philippines to enshrine this justice in its laws, to reflect the evolving ethos of
our society, and to affirm that love, in all its forms, is worthy of legal recognition
and protection.