Comment on Oral Arguments on Same Sex Marriage

The oral arguments on same sex marriage has provided an overview of what
people should consider in dealing with the topic. It is so sensitive that one could not
really come up with a definite solution that would embody the kind of equality as to
rights which everyone is concerned of. I have identified certain points which I find
interesting and I may agree or disagree on.

Same-sex relationship outlasts married relationships among heterosexual

couples. This is one point which may apply only for some. However, this is also is an
indication that same-sex relationships are just the same as those of heterosexual
couples. They are capable of choosing and living a life together, having a shared
commitment, that could be enhanced by rights and obligations which the law
provides same with that for married couples. They could have the benefit of marriage
which may prepare and guide their family life.

Another point is that the prohibition that same sex cannot marry violates the right
to intimacy, choice, and intimate sexual expression. I find this irrelevant because
marriage is definitely not the solution for one who longs a sense of belongingness
towards another person, be it of the same sex or not. The right to choose is not violated
considering that it depends on the individual to make a choice, without any law
restricting him to do so. The interpellation with Justice Leonen included questions
involving marriage as the only way where one could love, have sexual relations, to
have co-ownership, to promise, to commit, to found a family and to have property
relations, in which Mr. Falcis III also answered in the negative. In view thereof, there are
rights and obligations which arise from those which the law protects and limits in order
to avoid injustices between the parties, some of which only applies to married couples
as provided under the Family Code.
All of this boils down to a supreme human right to love regardless of sex, gender,
religion, and ethnicity that all people deserve and to have the same rights provided
for heterosexual couples in the case of homosexuals. As for me, recognition is
important. The society has so much to say, at the same time may be ignorant with
topics like this. To recognize the rights of same-sex couples, same as that of married
couples would provide security in a way that such recognition carry with it
acceptance, as well as rights and benefits protected by law. On the other hand, this
major change in our laws would create criticisms from the public and the Church which
I think also affects how the Court would interpret the questioned fundamental right
provided in the 1987 Constitution, as claimed by the parties praying that inequalities
may be corrected by the Supreme Court.