Same-sex marriage should be legal

In light of the recent victories of the LGBT rights movement in the U.N. Petition supported by
almost 70 countries, including the entire E.U. and the United States, and the decriminalization of
homosexuality in India, it is time now to examine the next step towards granting this minority
equal rights.
With only 7 countries and 6 states from the U.S. permitting same-sex marriage and another 20
or so permitting civil unions, this issue is far from resolved.
Proposition believes marriage, not just civil partnerships, not just decriminalization, is a human
right which is being denied to the LGBT community. We acknowledge that it is hard to expect
many countries that criminalize LGBT behavior, some even as a capital offense, to make the
huge leap towards legalizing same sex marriage, but we believe this should be end goal in
these countries.

All the Yes points

Minority Discrimination
Importance of Government
Expanding the Right to Marry Serves the State
More than just gay rights
Inadequacy of Alternative Categories
Lack of legal category reinforces negative stereotypes
Governments should not discourage people from their identity
Rebuttal: This is Not a Small Debate
Rebuttal: More than gay rights
Rebuttal: What's in a Word... Everything!!
Rebuttal: Democracy or Majoritarianism
Rebuttal: The road to true equality, legal or social??
Rebuttal: Stereotypes- Propagation and impact.
Proposition Summary

All the No points

Outline of Opposition Clash: A defence of the status quo
Forcing change in liberal democracies is itself illiberal
Moral and legal pluralism in relation to same-sex marriage is acceptable
It creates a social backlash that damages substantive equality for homosexuals
Rebuttal 1: In defence of public opinion
Rebuttal 2: Moral and legal pluralism's rightful place
Rebuttal 3: Homosexuality and moral agnosticism
Rebuttal 4: Why it is ok for civil marriage to be exclusive
Rebuttal 5: The danger of putting the liberal cart before the homophobic horse
Aggressive policies retard gradual social change: why the case for pluralism won [Opposition
Summary]

Rebuttals to arguments for same-sex

marriageExamining the most common
arguments for redefining marital
unions ...and understanding why they
are flawed Brandon Vogt OSV
Newsweekly
Perhaps no issue is more nerve-wracking today than same-sex
marriage. Its a magnet for controversy, evoking strong reactions
from those on either side of the debate. But beneath all the fiery
passion and rhetoric, there are real arguments to evaluate. In this
article, well examine the 10 most common ones made in favor of
same-sex marriage, many of which youve probably heard before.
By pointing out the flaws, well show how each argument
ultimately comes up short.
However, before we begin, lets note a few things. First, this
article concerns civil marriage marriage as defined and
promoted by the state. It doesnt deal with the Churchs
sacramental understanding, although the two often overlap.
Second, the responses to the arguments are emphatically
nonreligious. They dont depend on any sacred text or divine
revelation. Theyre based on reason, philosophy, biology and
history. Third, this article only refutes arguments in favor of samesex marriage. It doesnt touch upon the many positive arguments
supporting traditional marriage.
One more note: This is not an attack on people with same-sex
attractions. All people, regardless of sexual orientation, deserve to
be treated with dignity and respect. Instead, this article is a
rational look at whether civil marriage, an institution that touches
all people and cultures, should be redefined.

1. Marriage has evolved throughout history, so it can

change again.
Different cultures have treated marriage differently. Some
promoted arranged marriages. Others tied marriage to dowries.
Still others saw marriage as a political relationship through which
they could forge family alliances.
But all these variations still embraced the fundamental,
unchanging essence of marriage. They still saw it, in general, as a
public, lifelong partnership between one man and one woman for
the sake of generating and raising children.
This understanding predates any government or religion. Its a
pre-political, pre-religious institution evident even in cultures that
had no law or faith to promote it.
Yet, even supposing the essence of marriage could change,
would that mean it should? We know from other areas of life such
as medical research and nuclear physics that just because you
can do something doesnt mean you ought. After all, such action
may not be ethical or serve the common good. Even if this
argument had historical basis, it would not necessarily be a good
reason to change the meaning of marriage.

2. Same-sex marriage is primarily about equality.

This argument is emotionally powerful since we all have deep,
innate longings for fairness and equality. Moreover, history has
given us many failures in this area, including women banned from
voting and African-Americans denied equal civil rights. The
question, of course, is whether same-sex couples are denied
equality by not being allowed to marry each other.

To answer that, we first must understand equality. Equality is not

equivalency. It does not mean treating every person or every
group in exactly the same way. To use an analogy, men and
women have equal rights, but because they significantly differ
they require separate restrooms. Equality means treating similar
things similarly, but not things that are fundamentally different.
Second, there are really two issues here: the equality of different
people and the equality of different relationships. The current
marriage laws already treat all people equally. Any unmarried man
and unmarried woman can marry each other, regardless of their
sexual orientation; the law is neutral with respect to orientation
just as it ignores race and religion.
The real question is whether same-sex relationships differ
significantly from opposite-sex relationships, and the answer is
yes. The largest difference is that same-sex couples cannot
produce children, nor ensure a childs basic right to be raised by
his mother and father. These facts alone mean were talking about
two very different types of relationships. Its wrong, therefore, to
assume the state should necessarily treat them as if they were
the same.
Same-sex marriage advocates may argue that its discriminatory
to favor heterosexual spouses over homosexual couples. With all
of the benefits flowing from marriage, this unfairly endorses one
set of relationships over another. But if the state endorsed samesex marriage, it would then be favoring gay spouses over
unmarried heterosexual couples. The argument runs both ways
and is ultimately self-defeating.

3. Everyone has the right to marry whomever he or

she loves.
Though catchy, few people truly believe this slogan. Most of us
acknowledge there should be at least some limitations on
marriage for social or health reasons. For example, a man cant
marry a young child or a close relative. And if a man is truly in
love with two different women, hes legally not allowed to marry
both of them, even if both agree to such an arrangement.
So, the real question here is not whether marriage should be
limited, but how. To answer that, we must determine why the
government even bothers with marriage. Its not to validate two
people who love each other, nice as that is. Its because marriage
between one man and one woman is likely to result in a family
with children. Since the government is deeply interested in the
propagation and stabilization of society, it promotes and regulates
this specific type of relationship above all others.
To put it simply, in the eyes of the state, marriage is not about
adults; its about children. Claiming a right to marry whomever I
love ignores the true emphasis of marriage.
Notice that nobody is telling anyone whom he or she can or
cannot love. Every person, regardless of orientation, is free to
enter into private romantic relationships with whomever he or she
chooses. But there is no general right to have any relationship
recognized as marriage by the government.

4. Same-sex marriage wont affect you, so whats the

big deal?
Since marriage is a relationship between two individuals, what
effect would it have on the rest of us? At first glance, it sounds like

a good question, but a deeper look reveals that since marriage is

a public institution, redefining it would affect all of society.
First, it would weaken marriage. After same-sex marriage was
legislated in Spain in 2005, marriage rates plummeted. The same
happened in the Netherlands. Redefining marriage obscures its
meaning and purpose, thereby discouraging people from taking it
seriously.
Second, it would affect education and parenting. After same-sex
marriage was legalized in Canada, the Toronto School Board
implemented a curriculum promoting homosexuality and
denouncing heterosexism. They also produced posters titled
Love Knows No Gender, which depicted both homosexual and
polygamous relationships as equivalent to marriage. Despite
parents objections, the board decreed that they had no right to
remove their children from such instruction. This and many similar
cases confirm that when marriage is redefined, the new definition
is forced on children, regardless of their parents desires.Third,
redefining marriage would threaten moral and religious liberty.
This is already evident in our own country. In Massachusetts and
Washington, D.C., for instance, Catholic Charities can no longer
provide charitable adoption services based on new definitions of
marriage. Elsewhere, Canadian Bishop Frederick Henry was
investigated by the Alberta Human Rights Commission for simply
explaining the Catholic Churchs teaching on homosexuality in a
newspaper column. Examples like this show how redefining
marriage threatens religious freedom.

5. Same-sex marriage will not lead to other

redefinitions.
When marriage revolves around procreation, it makes sense to
restrict it to one man and one woman. Thats the only relationship
capable of producing children. But if we redefine marriage as

simply a loving, romantic union between committed adults, what

principled reason would we have for rejecting polygamist or
polyamorous that is, multiple-person relationships as
marriages?
Thomas Peters, cultural director at the National Organization for
Marriage, doesnt see one. Once you sever the institution of
marriage from its biological roots, there is little reason to cease
redefining it to suit the demands of various interest groups,
Peters said.
This isnt just scaremongering or a hypothetical slippery slope.
These aftereffects have already been observed in countries that
have legalized same-sex marriage. For example, in Brazil and the
Netherlands, three-way relationships were recently granted the
full rights of marriage. After marriage was redefined in Canada, a
polygamist man launched legal action to have his relationships
recognized by law. Even in our own country, the California
Legislature passed a bill to legalize families of three or more
parents.
Procreation is the main reason civil marriage is limited to two
people. When sexual love replaces children as the primary
purpose of marriage, restricting it to just two people no longer
makes sense.

6. If same-sex couples cant marry because they cant

reproduce, why can infertile couples marry?
This argument concerns two relatively rare situations: younger
infertile couples and elderly couples. If marriage is about children,
why does the state allow the first group to marry? The reason is
that while we know every same-sex couple is infertile, we dont
generally know that about opposite-sex couples.

Some suggest forcing every engaged couple to undergo

mandatory fertility testing before marriage. But this would be
outrageous. Besides being prohibitively expensive, it would also
be an egregious invasion of privacy, all to detect an extremely
small minority of couples.
Another problem is that infertility is often misdiagnosed. Fertile
couples may be wrongly denied marriage under such a scenario.
This is never the case for same-sex couples, who cannot produce
children together.
But why does the government allow elderly couples to marry? Its
true that most elderly couples cannot reproduce (though women
as old as 70 have been known to give birth). However, these
marriages are so rare that its simply not worth the effort to restrict
them. Also, elderly marriages still feature the right combination of
man and woman needed to make children. Thus they provide a
healthy model for the rest of society, and are still capable of
offering children a home with a mother and a father.

7. Children will not be affected since there is no

difference between same-sex parents and oppositesex parents.
This argument was most famously stated in 2005 when the
American Psychological Association (APA) wrote that not a single
study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be
disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of
heterosexual parents.
However, several recent studies have put that claim to rest. In
June, LSU scholar Loren Marks published a peer-reviewed paper
in Social Science Research. It examined the 59 studies that the
APA relied on for its briefing. Marks discovered that not one of the
studies used a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or

gay parents and their children. Several used extremely small

convenience samples, recruiting participants through
advertisements or word of mouth, and many failed to even include
a control group. Furthermore, the studies did not track the
children over time and were largely based on interviews with
parents about the upbringing of their own children a virtual
guarantee of biased results.
One month later, Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus released a
comprehensive study titled How Different Are the Adult Children
of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships? His research
used a large, random and national sample and its scope was
unprecedented among prior work in this field. Contrary to the
APA, Regnerus found that for a majority of outcomes, children
raised by parents with same-sex relationships drastically
underperformed children raised in a household with married,
biological parents.
He quickly noted that his study didnt necessarily show that samesex couples are bad parents, but that it did definitively put to rest
the claim that there are no differences among parenting
combinations.

8. Opposition to same-sex marriage is based on

bigotry, homophobia and religious hatred.
These accusations are not so much an argument for same-sex
marriage as personal attacks designed to shut down real
dialogue. Lets look at each one.
First, bigotry. A quick visit to Facebook, Twitter or any online
comment box confirms that for many people, support for
traditional marriage is tantamount to bigotry.

So, is the charge accurate? Well, the definition of bigotry is

unwilling to tolerate opinions different than your own. However,
tolerating opinions does not require enshrining them through law.
One can tolerate advocates of same-sex marriage, and seriously
engage the idea, while still rejecting it for compelling reasons.
Second, homophobia. This refers to a fear of homosexuality, and
the assumption is that people who oppose same-sex marriage do
so because theyre irrationally afraid. But as this article shows,
there are many good reasons to oppose same-sex marriage that
have nothing to do with fear. Branding someone homophobic is
typically used to end rational discussion.
Third, religious hatred. Some people disagree with same-sex
marriage solely for religious reasons. But, again, as this article
demonstrates, one can disagree for other reasons, without
appealing to the Bible, divine revelation or any religious authority.
You dont need religious teachings to understand, analyze and
discuss the purpose of marriage or its effects on the common
good.
If these accusations were all true, it would mean that the
overwhelming majority of people throughout time who by and
large supported traditional marriage would likewise be
homophobic, intolerant bigots. That would include the most
profound thinkers in many different traditions: Socrates, Plato,
Aristotle, Musonius Rufus, Xenophanes, Plutarch, St. Thomas
Aquinas, Immanuel Kant and Mahatma Gandhi. Most people
would reject such an absurdity.

9. The struggle for same-sex marriage is just like the

civil rights movement of the 1960s.
The suggestion here is that sex is similar to race, and therefore
denying marriage for either reason is wrong. The problem,

however, is that interracial marriage and same-sex marriage are

significantly different.
For instance, nothing prevents interracial couples from fulfilling
the basic essence of marriage a public, lifelong relationship
ordered toward procreation. Because of this, the antimiscegenation laws of the 1960s were wrong to discriminate
against interracial couples. Yet same-sex couples are not
biologically ordered toward procreation and, therefore, cannot
fulfill the basic requirements of marriage.
Its important to note that African-Americans, who have the most
poignant memories of marital discrimination, generally disagree
that preventing interracial marriage is like banning same-sex
marriage. For example, when Californians voted on Proposition 8,
a state amendment defining marriage as between one man and
one woman, some 70 percent of African-Americans voted in
favor.
According to Peters, Likening same-sex marriage to interracial
marriage is puzzling and offensive to most African-Americans,
who are shocked at such a comparison.

10. Same-sex marriage is inevitable, so we should

stand on the right side of history.
On Nov. 6, voters in three states Maine, Maryland and
Washington voted against marriage as it has traditionally been
understood. In Minnesota, voters rejected a measure to amend
the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and
one woman. Many advocates of same-sex marriage considered
this a sign that the marriage tides are turning. But is that true?
And if so, how does that shift impact the case for same-sex
marriage?

First, if the tide is in fact turning, its still little more than a ripple.
The states that voted in November to redefine marriage did so
with slim margins, none garnering more than 53 percent of the
vote. The tiny victories were despite record-breaking funding
advantages, sitting governors campaigning for same-sex
marriage and strong support among the media.

Before these four aberrations, 32 states had voted on the

definition of marriage. Each and every time they voted to affirm
marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Of the six
states that recognized same-sex marriage before the November
election, none arrived there through a vote by the people. Each
redefinition was imposed by state legislatures and courts. Overall,
Americans remain strongly in favor of traditional marriage. Most
polls show roughly two-thirds of the country wants to keep
marriage as it is.
Yet, even if the tides have recently shifted, that does not make
arguments in its favor any more persuasive. We dont look to
other moral issues and say, Well, people are eventually going to
accept it, so we might as well get in line. We shouldnt do that for
same-sex marriage, either.

How To Argue For Gay Marriage and Win

Any Debate With a Hater
SETH MILLSTEIN
February 20, 2014NEWS

So youre at a party, and the conversation turns to

politics. Its all going swimmingly, but then someone says
something ignorant. And while you know that theyre in
the wrong, and that you could totally engage them and
win if you were a bit more prepared, your words escape
you. Pretty soon, the conversation has moved on, and the
moment is lost.
To make sure that doesnt happen, weve compiled a
series of handy reference guides with the most common
arguments and your counter-arguments for all of
the hot-button issues of the day. This weeks topic: How
to argue for gay marriage.
Common Argument #1: Gay marriage harms the
institution of traditional marriage.

Your Response: Okay, then name one demonstrable,

tangible effect that same-sex marriages have on the
functioning of individual heterosexual marriages. The
ability of same-sex couples to get married doesnt alter a
single aspect of heterosexual marriages directly or
indirectly. The legal rights and benefits of heterosexual
couples are completely unaffected by the existence of gay
marriage. Its not as if straight couples suddenly start
loving each other less or start treating their kids worse
once gay people start getting married.
Have marriage rates been in decline since states started
legalizing gay marriage? Well, sure, but marriage rates
have been declining steadily since the 1970s, decades
before any U.S. jurisdictions legalized gay marriage.
Common Argument #2: Marriage has always
been between a man and a woman. Legalizing
gay marriage would be changing thousands of
years of tradition.
Your response: A lot of things were always that way
before they were changed. For example:
Dictatorial rule by kings and emperors

 Lack of any legally recognized human rights

Prohibition on land ownership by people without
royal blood
Ritual human sacrifice
Curing medical ailments with spells and magic
Should we go back to doing all of that?
Why is long-standing tradition a good reason to prohibit
gay marriage?
Common Argument #3: The purpose of marriage
is to procreate, and same-sex couples cant have
children.
Your Response: So should we also prohibit straight
couples from getting married if theyre biologically
incapable of having kids? What about if they simply dont
want kids?
The percentage of married couples with children has
been declining over the last 25 years, but couples who
don't want kids can still get married. And does adoption
count? Because around 19 percent of same-sex couples
adopt kids.

In addition, there are plenty of legal benefits like

hospital visitation rights, joint tax returns, welfare
benefits for spouses, and estate inheritance that
married couples enjoy regardless of whether or not they
choose to have children. Should the government prevent
straight couples from receiving those benefits until they
have kids?
Common Argument #4: If we legalize gay
marriage, it's a slippery slope to polygamy,
incest, and/or bestiality.
Your Response: Im arguing for one law, and one law
only: Legal marriage rights for same-sex couples.
Anything else is a different policy argument altogether.
Overturning bans on gay marriage has no legal effect on
polygamous, incestuous, or sigh human beinganimal relationships. Those are separate areas of law,
and they wont be affected by the existence of marriage
rights for gay couples.
If youre saying that allowing gay marriage will set a legal
precedent for legalizing other types of relationships, you
need to have some sort of evidence as to why that might
happen. And saying that you, personally, think that
homosexuality is in the same category as incest isnt

evidence. Its a moral judgment, and the Supreme Court

has ruled against laws based onpersonal moral
judgments.
Also, dogs cant physically sign contracts, so theyll never
be able to get married anyway.

Common Argument #5: Children raised by a

mother and a father are more emotionally welladjusted than those raised by same-sex parents.

Your Response: Zero data supports this assertion, and

studies from around the world have all supported the
opposite conclusion. Heres what a 2013 Australian
study comparing gay and straight families concluded:
On measures of general health and family cohesion,
children aged 5-17 years with same-sex attracted parents
showed a significantly better score when compared to
Australian children from all backgrounds and family
contexts. For all other health measures, there were no
statistically significant differences.
Heres an American study from the same year that
focused on adopted children:
An estimated 16,000 same-sex couples are raising more
than 22,000 adopted children in the U.S., and these
findings indicate that these children will likely fare no
differently, as a result of their family type, than those
being raised by heterosexual parents.
And heres the American Academy of Pediatrics, which
analyzed over three decades of data on child
development in same-sex families:

Extensive data available from more than 30 years of

research reveal that children raised by gay and lesbian
parents have demonstrated resilience with regard to
social, psychological, and sexual health despite economic
and legal disparities and social stigma. Many studies
have demonstrated that children's well-being is affected
much more by their relationships with their parents,
their parents' sense of competence and security, and the
presence of social and economic support for the family
than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their
parents.
In short, theres no evidence to support the claim that
children with same-sex parents are worse of and, once
again, I have an intuitive feeling that they probably are
worse off doesnt count as evidence.
Common Argument #6: If same-sex marriage is
legal, religious institutions that oppose gay
marriage will be unfairly forced to marry gay
couples.
Your Response: Legalizing gay marriage wont have
any bearing on what churches, or other religious
institutions, can or cant do. The Supreme Court haslong
upheld the right of tax-exempt religious organizations to

fire, hire, discriminate or not discriminate based on

gender and sexual orientation. While same-sex couples
in Denmark do have the legal right to get married in
churches, theres zero precedent for U.S. courts ruling
the same way.
Common Argument #7: Civil unions are just as
good as gay marriages.
Your Response: Separate but equal was the
argument used in favor of racial segregation in schools.
Ever since the landmark Brown v. Board of
Education ruling in 1954, the Supreme Court has
consistently found separate-but-equal laws to be
unconstitutional.
Heterosexual couples are allowed to get married
regardless of whether they can, or want to, have
children.
There were a lot of atrocious practices that were
longstanding human traditions before we
outlawed them.
Legalizing gay marriages wont have any effect on
religious institutions or the legal status of

bestiality. Theres no legal precedent to suggest

that it will.
Numerous studies from around the world show
that same-sex couples raise more emotionally
well-adjusted children than their straight
counterparts.

Same-Sex Marriage Debate (Question

10)
In Fall 2011, the Undergraduate Fellows enrolled in
the Law, Religion, and Liberty of Conscience Seminar
interviewed experts about the role of conscience in
American life, law and politics. Below are some of
their responses to the students' tenth question:
Many critics of legislation that defines
marriage as exclusively between a male and
female end up asserting that the underlying
(and sometimes only) foundation of this
position is animus, hostility, or moral
opprobrium towards homosexuals and
homosexual activity. Many proponents of such
legislation assert that this is a fundamental
misapprehension of their position and that the
role and function of marriage has a deepseated moral tradition that is natural and
rational (and thus part of the state's
legitimate interests). Whether in litigation or
in public discourse, how might these
arguments be sharpened?
Richard W. Garnett:
I'm not sure. I do not believe that opposition to the
expansion of civil marriage, by courts or by
legislatures, to include same-sex unions necessarily,

or even usually, involves animus or hostility to gay

people. But, that is how this opposition is perceived
by many sincere people, and this makes dialogue
and compromise difficult.
Ira Chip Lupu:
I really dislike the use of the word natural to
describe social norms. Natural does not mean
frequent or typical. Crime is as natural as loving
behavior, but we have social norms that condemn
the former and commend the latter. If natural is just
a surrogate for as God inspired or intended, then
it's a cheat word, being used to smuggle religious
ideas into a debate about the secular good. Of
course, not all opposition to homosexuality is
prejudice or hostility. But all of it is irreducibly
religion-based. I have yet to hear a plausible, fully
secular moral argument against same-sex intimacy
(as I suggest, arguments from what is "natural" are
not honest secular arguments; they are religiously
normative, but masquerading as something else.)
Steven D. Smith:
There are reasons why a great deal of contemporary
argumentation takes the form of accusing one's
opponents of animus, hatred, or bigotry. The
Supreme Court itself has powerfully contributed to,
and in a sense even required, this sort of rhetoric of
demonization. I think this is a highly unfortunate and

destructive feature of contemporary discourse, but I

don't expect it to go away any time soon because,
once again, current conditions virtually demand such
rhetoric. Nonetheless, it would be good if advocates
would try to avoid it.
Douglas Laycock:
They could be sharpened most obviously by clearly
distinguishing legal marriage from religious
marriage. Legal marriage is about a set of legal
rights: about mutual duties of support, social
insurance, inheritance, joint tax returns, joint
bankruptcy filings, evidentiary privileges, employee
fringe benefits, suits for wrongful death and personal
injury. These legal rights are tied to a human
relationship that involves a long-term mutual
commitment, but they are not tied to any religious
understanding of marriage. And whether or not the
religious understanding is fairly characterized as
simple bigotry, a religious understanding is not a
compelling governmental interest; it is not a basis
for overriding constitutional rights.
Mark R. Wicclair:
The claim that a prohibition of same sex marriage is
based on a deep-seated moral tradition that is
natural and rational (and thus part of the state's
legitimate interests) simply begs the question. One
might have advanced the same claim, not too long

ago, to defend prohibitions of interracial marriage,

not to mention integrated schools and public
accommodations.
Caroline Mala Corbin:
The only basis for opposition to same-sex marriage
is religious. For the state to deny some people
fundamental rights in order to codify other peoples
religious views violates both the Equal Protection
Clause and the Establishment Clause.
Alan Brownstein:
I think the non-religious secular arguments for
limiting marriage to a man and a woman are
extremely weak and unpersuasive. In my judgment,
the primary arguments for denying same-sex
couples the right to marry are religious in nature.
This raises a practical conundrum. Opponents of
same-sex marriage feel compelled to offer secular
arguments in litigation, but these arguments often
seem like makeweight substitutes for the real basis
for their positionwhich is grounded on religious
beliefs.
I think we confront a related problem in evaluating
the argument that opposition to same-sex marriage
is based on animus or hostility toward homosexuals
or homosexual activity. How do we tell whether
religious opposition to an activity or a class should

be characterized as bigotry? If a person sincerely

believes according to his interpretation of scripture
that G-d intended the races to live separately, is that
person a bigot? Are sincere, theologically-based
negative attitudes toward Jews, Catholics, or
Muslims a form of bigotry? The same question can
be asked with regard to religiously based opposition
to same-sex marriage.
Nelson Tebbe:
I think this is a question of contested social
meaning. I don't think there's any question that
Prop. 8 devalues same-sex marriage, but it may do
so only incidentally, as a side effect of "preserving"
different-sex civil marriage. Courts determine social
meaning all the time, particularly in the context of
religious endorsements and in the context of equal
protection. To my mind, the social meaning of samesex marriage exclusions clearly does denigrate
same-sex marriage (and maybe those who
participate in it) but this is contested, as the
question notes.

The former law dean of the University of the Philippines said saying denying LGBTI couples
the right to marry was unconstitutional.
Pacifico Agabin made the comments at a professional lecture given by retired Supreme
Court Associate Justice Jose Vitug.
The Inquirer quoted Agabin as saying, The Family Codes concept of marriage as a
contract between a man and a woman aside from being obsolete, violates the equal
protection clause of the Constitution.
In my opinion to bar the lesbians, the gays, the transsexuals and homosexuals from the
civil right to marry would violate the guarantee of equal protection.
He added that it also intrudes into the right to privacy which is a fundamental right.
Vitug said the Philippines was bucking the trend toward legalizing gay marriage.
He said, A lot of countries really have legalized this [same sex marriages] and here in the
Philippines, I agree with my colleagues in the panel that it may take a while before we would
be able to be in that stage.
In fact, just the opposite, for instance, in the case of the bill pending in Congress, it is
saying we should preserve the right of marriage between natural born male and natural
born females. It may take a while before we can expect any possible changes.
The Philippines ranked number two in the world after the US for searches related
to same-sex marriage in 2012.
Vitug said he did not support gay marriage that the family code should be amended so that
property rights were extended to same-sex couples.

MANILA, Philippines - Same-sex marriage is impossible to be legalized in the country,

Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. said yesterday.
From the point of view of our culture, its an impossibility for quite some time, he told
reporters.
He said he does not see Congress approving a bill allowing same sex marriage because it
is against the Filipinos culture.
The law lives within the culture and not the other way around, he said.
In the same breath, Belmonte said he does not see efforts to have Congress pass a divorce
bill succeeding.
I dont think we are going into something like that anytime soon, he added.

Headlines ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1

He pointed out that despite the absence of a divorce law, couples with irreconcilable
differences could avail themselves of legal separation or annulment of marriage.
The rules on annulment have been eased. Thats why there are many couples applying
for annulment of marriage, he added.
While he is not in favor of same-sex marriage, Belmonte stressed that he is 100 percent
against discrimination on the basis of gender.
He said he hoped the House could pass a bill prohibiting such kind of discrimination.

Philippines wont follow move

Sen. Aquilino Pimentel III expressed doubt that the Philippines will follow the move of
the US Supreme Court that allowed same sex marriage in all of its 50 states.
Pimentel said policy-makers would fear the backlash of the Catholic Church, a big
influence over state affairs in the country.
He said same sex marriage may not even be constitutional under Philippine laws.
Unlike in the laws covering abortion and reproductive health, Pimentel pointed out that
there is no law yet on same-sex marriage in the country.
We cannot always imitate what they do in America in terms of the law because they
have different legal minds. They have a different Constitution compared to ours. We have
our laws on abortion, for example, Pimentel said.
I think its impossible for us now, he said.
The Catholic Church has a strong influence on our moral sense of right or wrong, which
is in our laws. Our laws have Catholic influence, which will be a big opposition on samesex marriage.
Same-sex marriage is still out of the radar of the Philippines, Pimentel said. With
Christina Mendez
Headlines ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1

Same sex marriage

Posted on July 16, 2011 by Philbert E. Varona Posted in Civil Law, Commercial
Law, Philippines - Cases, Philippines - Law

On 24 June 2011, the New York legislature voted to legalize same-sex marriage.
Following suit, on 26 June, the Metropolitan Community Church of Metro Baguio
hosted a mass same-sex marriage ceremony, preceding the 5th Baguio Lesbian,
Gays, Bisexuals and Transgender Pride Parade. The National Statistics Office
has announced, however, that the Baguio marriages celebrated on 26 June in
Baguio City have no legal binding effect and cannot be registered in the NSO.
Previously, in 2006, Senator Rodolfo Biazon and his son, Representative Rozano
Biazon, filed bills to amend the Philippine Family Code to explicitly provide that a
marriage must take place between anatural-born male and a naturalborn female. Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago also filed a bill which seeks to
expressly bar local recognition of same-sex marriages celebrated abroad.
As is the case in several other jurisdictions, the Philippine legal framework does
not recognize marriages between persons of the same gender. The Family Code
defines marriage as 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. (Emphasis supplied.) In Silverio vs. Republic (G.R. No. 174689,
19 October 2007), a man who had undergone sex reassignment surgery (i.e., a
male-to-female post-operative transsexual, as described by the Supreme
Court) sought to change his name and gender in his birth certificate to reflect
what (s)he believed was his(her) true sexual identity. Through Justice Renato
Corona, the Supreme Court denied the petition, and held
Under the Civil Register Law, a birth certificate is a historical record of the facts
as they existed at the time of birth. Thus, the sex of a person is determined at
birth, visually done by the birth attendant (the physician or midwife) by
examining the genitals of the infant. Considering thatthere is no law legally
recognizing sex reassignment, the determination of a persons sex made at the
time of his or her birth, if not attended by error, is immutable.
When words are not defined in a statute they are to be given their common and
ordinary meaning in the absence of a contrary legislative intent. The words
sex, male and female as used in the Civil Register Law and laws
concerning the civil registry (and even all other laws) should therefore be
understood in their common and ordinary usage, there being no legislative
intent to the contrary. In this connection, sex is defined as the sum of
peculiarities of structure and function that distinguish a male from a female or
the distinction between male and female. Female is the sex that produces
ova or bears young and male is the sex that has organs to produce
spermatozoa for fertilizing ova. Thus, the words male and female in
everyday understanding do not include persons who have undergone sex
reassignment. Furthermore, words that are employed in a statute which had at
the time a well-known meaning are presumed to have been used in that sense
unless the context compels to the contrary. Since the statutory language of the
Civil Register Law was enacted in the early 1900s and remains unchanged, it
cannot be argued that the term sex as used then is something alterable
through surgery or something that allows a post-operative male-to-female
transsexual to be included in the category female. For these reasons, while
petitioner may have succeeded in altering his body and appearance through the
intervention of modern surgery, no law authorizes the change of entry as to sex
in the civil registry for that reason. Thus, there is no legal basis for his petition
for the correction or change of the entries in his birth certificate.
[Allowing a post-operative male-to-female transsexual to change the entries in
his birth certificate to correspond to that of a female] will have serious and wideranging legal and public policy consequences [M]arriage, one of the most
sacred social institutions, is a special contract of permanent union between a

man and a woman. One of its essential requisites is the legal capacity of the
contracting parties who must be a male and a female. To grant the changes
sought by petitioner will substantially reconfigure and greatly alter the laws on
marriage and family relations. It will allow the union of a man with another man
who has undergone sex reassignment (a male-to-female post-operative
transsexual). Second, there are various laws which apply particularly to women
such as the provisions of the Labor Code on employment of women, certain
felonies under the Revised Penal Code and the presumption of survivorship in
case of calamities under Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, among others. These
laws underscore the public policy in relation to women which could be
substantially affected if petitioners petition were to be granted.
(Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.)
Notably, however, it might be argued that the legal obstacles to recognition of
same-sex marriages lie only on a statutory and not a Constitutional level. The
Constitution does state that [t]he State recognizes the sanctity of family life
and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic social institution (Article
II, Section 12) and that [m]arriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the
foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State (Article XV, Section
2), but does not definewhat is and is not constitutive of a marriage from a
legal standpoint. For example, it could be argued that simply amending the
Family Code to define marriage as a special contract of permanent union
between two persons (without distinction as to gender) does not violate the
Constitution and would be sufficient to allow legal recognition to same-sex
marriages (and also avoid the impression that the issue is limited to persons
who wish to undergo sex reassignment surgery). (Of course, a progressive
thinker might argue that the definition should be further amended to allow
marriages among two or more persons, but that is a separate issue for
another day.)
The Supreme Court seems inclined to think that the policy changes may take
place on a statutory levelin Silverio, the Court observed that [i]n our system
of government, it is for the legislature, should it choose to do so, to determine
what guidelines should govern the recognition of the effects of sex
reassignment, and recognized that there are people whose preferences and
orientation do not fit neatly into the commonly recognized parameters of social
convention and that, at least for them, life is indeed an ordeal. However, the
remedies petitioner seeks involve questions of public policy to be addressed
solely by the legislature, not by the courts.

Any move to so amend the Philippine legal framework will provoke widespread
discussion and, in all likelihood, strong opposition from the more conservative
sectors of society, such as the Roman Catholic Church. Only time will tell if the
Philippine Congress will follow in the footsteps of other jurisdictions (e.g., New
York and the United Kingdom) and enact legislation allowing same-sex
marriages. Until then, unions between persons of the same gender will continue
to be denied recognition under Philippine law.

Against Same Sex Marriage

Against Same Sex Marriage - The Six Point Case

Each of these six points against same sex marriage will be explained in detail in the
following articles. Click on each link for more explanation.
1. Natural marriage is the foundation of a civilized society.
2. Homosexual behavior is inherently destructive.
3. The law is a great teacher, and it encourages or discourages behavior.
4. Government-backed same-sex marriage would encourage and normalize
homosexual behavior, and it would harm natural marriage, children, adults, and
homosexuals themselves.
5. The law should promote behaviors that are beneficial and prohibit (or at least not
endorse) those that are destructive.
6. Therefore, the law should promote natural marriage, and it should provide no option
for government-backed same-sex marriage or civil unions.

Against Same Sex Marriage - The Executive Summary

Same-sex marriage is a very emotional issue for many people. However, when one
separates emotions from facts, it is clear that the state has compelling reasons to endorse
natural marriage and not same-sex marriage or civil unions.
1. Natural marriage is the immune system of civilization. When our marriages are
strong, our civilization is strong; when they are weak, individuals and communities
suffer.
2. Legal endorsement of same-sex marriage would destroy the institution of marriage,
resulting in negative effects on children, crime rates, health and health-care costs,
tax rates, and religious freedom.
3. Same-sex marriage activists want to redefine marriage as simply a personal
relationship between two committed parties, but marriage is much larger than the
two parties involved in a marriage.
o Marriage is a social institution of long-established rules (based on the natural
design of the human body) that provides society with the very foundation of
civilizationthe procreating family unit. That is, marriage is fundamentally
about children and the civilization of society both now and for the future.
o Only natural marriage can procreate and consistently provide a nurturing and
stable environment for the growth and maturation of children. In this sense,
the most basic and effective form of government is the natural two-parent
family.
o Statistically, children and adults inside of natural marriage are much better off
socially, physically, financially, mentally, and emotionally than those outside of
natural marriage.
o Those outside of natural marriage are not only worse off personally by those
measures, but they cost society billions of dollars in social welfare and lawenforcement expenses.

4. The law is a great teacherit encourages or discourages behavior.

5. Since the law is a great teacher, government-backed same-sex marriage or civil

unions would put societys stamp of approval on same-sex relationships and
behavior. This endorsement would fundamentally change the institution of marriage
to our detriment. It would do the following:
o Equate same-sex marriage with natural marriage, thereby teaching citizens
the socially disastrous ideas that natural marriage is no better than any other
relationship and that marriage is not a prerequisite for children.
o Disconnect marriage from childbearing by making marriage just about
coupling. This will result in soaring cohabitation and illegitimacy and painful
costs to children and society.
o Encourage more homosexual behavior, which is medically destructive to
those who engage in it and financially burdensome to the public in general.
o Result in higher medical, health insurance, and tax costs to the general
public.
o Provide legal grounds to restrict or prohibit religious freedom and free
speech.

6. Much of this is already happening in countries that have government-backed samesex marriage. Natural marriage is weakest and illegitimacy strongest where samesex marriage is legal.
7. Most homosexuals are not interested in marriageapproximately 96 percent of
homosexuals in countries with same-sex marriage do not get married. They want
government-backed same-sex marriage because it would validate and normalize
homosexuality throughout society. (Homosexuals can already marry privately and
many of them dowhat they want is government endorsement.)
8. Some homosexual activists admit that they would like to destroy natural marriage by
legalizing same-sex marriage. Since they refuse to live by societys standards, they
will only feel validated if they beat down those standards to the level of their own
behavior. If they succeed, everyone in our country will be harmed in some way.

9. All common objectionsincluding those that cite discrimination or equal rights

are fallacious.

10 Reasons Why Homosexual Marriage is Harmful and Mus

By TFP Student Action
652 Comments

1. It Is Not Marriage
Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a
covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the
procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.
The promoters of same-sex marriage propose something entirely different. They propose
the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological,

physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their
complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the
perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.
Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

Please help us fight for marriage as a Guardian of Truth -- Click here for details.

Click "like" for TRUE marriage!

2. It Violates Natural Law

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in
human nature and thus governed by natural law.
Natural laws most elementary precept is that good is to be done and pursued, and evil is
to be avoided. By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for
him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong
to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the acts purpose.
Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act
violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.
Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the
entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always.
Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart
of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)
3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother
It is in the childs best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father
and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who
are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.
The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex

marriage. A child of a same-sex marriage will always be deprived of either his natural
mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship
with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.
Same-sex marriage ignores a childs best interests.
4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle
In the name of the family, same-sex marriage serves to validate not only such unions
but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.
Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very
important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They
externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyones perception and
evaluation of forms of behavior.
Legal recognition of same-sex marriage would necessarily obscure certain basic moral
values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.
5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right
Homosexual activists argue that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue similar to the
struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.
This is false.
First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman
wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other
white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are
insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and
thus the requirements of nature are respected.
Same-sex marriage opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their
race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an
insurmountable biological impossibility.
Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and
changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man

and a woman and the marriage between two individuals of the same sex.
6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union
Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do
violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends
to create families.
On the contrary, same-sex marriage is intrinsically sterile. If the spouses want a child,
they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The
natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true
marriage.
7. It Defeats the States Purpose of Benefiting Marriage
One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by
its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable,
affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of childrenall fruit
of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and
strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.
Homosexual marriage does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively
speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It
is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.
8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society
By legalizing same-sex marriage, the State becomes its official and active promoter. The
State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to
teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses
disapproval.
In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to
this new morality, businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for
same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples
as tenants.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all
people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an
attack on the natural order and Christian morality.
9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution
In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships
between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is
being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex marriage.
If homosexual marriage is universally accepted as the present step in sexual freedom,
what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality,
and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain avant garde
subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.
The railroading of same-sex marriage on the American people makes increasingly clear
what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:
"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not
even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view
of homosexuality."
10. It Offends God
This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order
established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex marriage does just this.
Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.
Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for
our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: God created man in
His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God
blessed them, saying: Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. (Gen. 1:28-29)
The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: From the beginning of the creation, God
made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and
shall cleave to his wife. (Mark 10:6-7).
Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality:

The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those
cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the
soil. (Gen. 19:24-25)
Special Request: Please consider supporting TFP Student Action as a special Guardian of
Truth member. Click here for details.
Other resources:

Why 'Gay Marriage' is Wrong: Answering Top 10 Objections

Is Sodomy No Longer a Sin?

Are We Still One Nation Under God?

Equality's Next Victims: Transgendering Our Children

Video: Attacked by "Tolerance"

12 quotes: Why "marriage" equality will literally destroy natural marriage

To receive free pro-family updates, subscribe to our newsletter now.

Taking a Principled not a Personal Stand

In writing this statement, we have no intention to defame or disparage anyone. We are not
moved by personal hatred against any individual. In intellectually opposing individuals or
organizations promoting the homosexual agenda, our only intent is the defense of
traditional marriage, the family, and the precious remnants of Christian civilization.
As practicing Catholics, we are filled with compassion and pray for those who struggle
against unrelenting and violent temptation to homosexual sin. We pray for those who fall
into homosexual sin out of human weakness, that God may assist them with His grace.
We are conscious of the enormous difference between these individuals who struggle with
their weakness and strive to overcome it and others who transform their sin into a reason

for pride and try to impose their lifestyle on society as a whole, in flagrant opposition to
traditional Christian morality and natural law. However, we pray for these too.
We pray also for the judges, legislators and government officials who in one way or another
take steps that favor homosexuality and same-sex marriage. We do not judge their
intentions, interior dispositions, or personal motivations.
We reject and condemn any violence. We simply exercise our liberty as children of God
(Rom. 8:21) and our constitutional rights to free speech and the candid, unapologetic and
unashamed public display of our Catholic faith. We oppose arguments with arguments. To
the arguments in favor of homosexuality and same-sex marriage we respond with
arguments based on right reason, natural law and Divine Revelation.

Same-Sex Marriage Not Yet Legally Recognized in the Philippines

The state of New York recently passed a law that legalizes same-sex marriages. That
means gay and lesbian couples could marry, with legal protection ordinarily granted
to male-female couples. NY is the latest US state that allows same-sex marriage.
Also recently, weve seen Filipino gay and lesbian couples getting married in the
Philippines, re-sparking the debate on same-sex marriage. These individuals may
have undergone such a ceremony to express their love and commitment to one

another. They may have done it to rekindle the debate. They may have other
reasons, but it could NOT include seeking legal protection and benefits that flow
from marriage.
Philippine laws do not recognize and protect same-sex marriage. It doesnt matter
which religion you belong. Unlike certain matters divorce, for instance, which is
allowed for the Muslim community the legal non-recognition of same-sex
marriage applies to all groups and religions.
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. This is part of the definition provided in Section 1 of the Family Code.
The Supreme Court stated in a 2007 case that one of the most sacred social
institutions is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman,
referring to the institution of marriage. One of its essential requisites of marriage is
the legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female. The
SC also noted that allowing a change of name by reason of a sex reassignment
surgery (sex change) will allow the union of a man with another man who has
undergone sex reassignment (a male-to-female post-operative transsexual).
In our previous post Mr. Lito Basilio submits that same-sex marriage may be
allowed under exceptional circumstances. Art. 26 of the Family Code recognizes as
valid in the Philippines those marriage solemnized abroad and are valid there as
such, except for marriages forbidden under Art. 35(1), (4), (5) and (6) and Art. 36,
37 and 38 of the Family Code. The argument makes sense because none of the
provisions cited Art. 35(1), (4), (5) and (6) and Art. 36, 37 and 38 of the Family
Code prohibit same-sex marriage. This might lead some couples to go abroad,
perhaps New York or some other states/countries that recognize same-sex marriage,
and have it recognized here in the Philippines. However, the Family Code provides in
no uncertain terms that the couple must be a man and a woman. While a samesex marriage is allowed in other jurisdictions, it cannot be recognized here because
it is contrary to law, public order and public policy.

Another reader which goes by the name syelapin states that [w]ith our history and
culture as a backdrop, [I] highly doubt well see THE change in our lifetimes. I
would hazard a guess that divorce would be allowed way before same-sex marriage
is recognized, if ever it is recognized. Our informal poll reveals that a majority
supports divorce, but a majority opposes same-sex marriage.
There are a number of privileges that apply only to marriage, some of which are
discussed in the previous post on Common-Law Marriage. They are not considered
compulsory heirs to each other, which means one could not inherit from the other,
except when there is a last will and testament that designates each other as an heir.
If one or both of the partners have children when they were single, the other
partner cannot have parental authority over such children.
On the other hand, it is not correct to say that there is no existing law which
governs the property relations between the same-sex couples. They could enter into
a contract, which has the force and effect of law between the parties, with respect
to their properties. General laws, including the rules on co-ownership, could apply in
the absence of such contract.
We previously noted that the solution is to amend the Family Code. On second
thought, this seems problematic because incorporating same-sex unions into the
concept

of

marriage

may

be

contrary

to

the Constitution.

The Constitution provides that: Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the

foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State (Sec. 2, Article XV
[Family]). While the Constitution does not explicitly provide that only a man and a
woman may get married, I presume that the constitutional deliberations would
show that marriage is between a man and a woman.