Negative

Not necessary
Honorable judges, worthy opponents, my countrymen, ladies and gentlemen, a
morning of enlightenment to us all!
In the much celebrated case of Chua-Qua vs Clave, the Supreme Court, speaking
through Justice Regalado said, The heart has reasons of its own which reason does
not know We agree with this legal truism. In fact, we agree that love is universal
and that a man is capable of loving another man of the same sex. However, while
we believe that the LGBT community has every right to love and be loved, we do
not agree that redefining marriage to include same sex marriage is within the
province of civil law; otherwise norms and cultures, which are the foundations of law
will be put aside in favor of biases, prejudices and the choice of only a few.
We believe that same sex marriage should not be legalized in the Philippines for the
following reasons: It is NOT NECESSARY, NOT BENEFICIAL, AND NOT
PRACTICABLE.
First, our present Family Code does not in any way violate the equal protection
clause of the Constitution for reasons I will expound later, hence there is no
necessity to amend the same. Second, the LGBT is widely accepted in the
Philippines as studies show and in fact, gay right discrimination is low in this side of
the world. Legalizing marriage will not, therefore, have a significant impact to the
economy as homosexuals are enjoying fairly the same rights as any other citizen for
that matter. Third, no empirical case has been made that a homosexual partnership
and a marriage are indistinguishable.
Allow me first to rebut the arguments on the first speaker of the Affirmative side
and in the process, advance my own.
The Affirmative side would like us to believe that the present Family Code infringes
the equal protection accorded by the Constitution. This argument misleads us.
Those who now argue that same-sex couples should be included, as a matter of civil
right, within the legal definition of marriage are appealing to the constitutional
principles of equal protection and equal treatment. But this is entirely inappropriate
for making the case for same-sex "marriage." To argue that the Constitution
guarantees equal treatment to all citizens, both men and women, does not say
anything about what constitutes marriage, or a family, or a business enterprise, or a
university, or a friendship.
To illustrate, my dear friends, can the equal protection clause lead a court to require
that a small business be called a marriage just because two business partners
prefer to think of their business that way? Can this equal protection clause be
invoked so that the court can conclude that those of us who pray before the start of
debate competitions should be allowed to redefine our debate clubs as churches?
The absurdity is very obvious.

In the words of Justice Puno in the case of People vs Temporada, it is a general

rule of statutory construction that a law should not be so construed as to produce
an absurd result. The law does not intend an absurdity or that an absurd
consequence shall flow from its enactment. If the words of the statute are
susceptible of more than one meaning, the one that has a logical construction
should be adopted over the one that will produce an absurdity. Statutes should
receive a sensible construction, such as will give effect to the legislative intention
and so as to avoid an unjust or an absurd conclusion. Indeed a ridiculous situation
will arise if we will invoke the equal protection clause everytime a legal terminology
has to be defined.
The simple fact is that the civil right of equal treatment cannot constitute social
reality by declaration. Civil rights protections function simply to assure every citizen
equal treatment under the law depending on what the material dispute in law is all
about. Law that is just must begin by properly recognizing and distinguishing
identities and differences in reality in order to be able to give each its legal due. In
other words, while the law says you should be protected, reality may not translate
to this protection. Mere wordings of the law do not create a social reality.
Ladies and gentlemen, let me paint you a picture. Let's say you contract with me to
paint your house. The law of contract does not define ahead of time what might be
contracted; it simply clarifies the legal obligations of the contracting parties and the
consequences if the contract is broken. Governments and lawyers and the law do
not create the people, the house, the paint, and my desire to paint your house for a
price that you want to pay. The point is that even in contract law, the law plays only
a limited role in the relationship. The law encompasses the relationship only in
a legal way.
Those who choose to live together in life-long homosexual relationships;
or brothers and sisters who live together and take care of one another; or
two friends of the same sex who are not sexually involved but share life
together in the same homeall of these may be free to live as they do,
and they suffer no civil rights discrimination by not being identified as
marriages.
In addition, lawyers and the honorable judges here would agree that there is no civil
rights discrimination against a minor who is denied the right to enter into marriage.
There is no civil rights discrimination being practiced against a youngster who is not
allowed the identity of a college student because she is not qualified to enter
college. There is no civil-rights discrimination involved when the law refuses to
recognize my debate club as a church. A marriage and a homosexual relationship
are two different kinds of relationships and it is a misuse of civil rights law to use
that law to try to blot out the difference between two different kinds of things.
In other words, civil rights law should not be misused and invoked to define an
apple as an orange and to equate the word love as synonymous to marriage. For
while everyone can love, not everyone can marry under civil law.