Defining marriage
Filipino LGBTs (Lesbians Gays Bisexual and Transgenders) hold hands as they gather for a Gay Pride rally Saturday, June 27, 2015 in Mania, Philippines to push for LGBT rights and to celebrate the U.S. Supreme Court decision recognizing gay marriages in all U.S. states as a victory for their cause. The rally was scheduled to commemorate the 1969 demonstrations in New York City that started the gay rights movement around the world. Jonas Bagas, executive director of the pro-LGBT rights group TLF Share, said the U.S. court ruling “will reverberate in other corners of the world.” AP
If the purpose of marriage is procreation, then childless couples—those who, by choice or circumstance, do not have children—should be required to end their marriage once it has been determined that siring children is not in their future.
And yet I know of many couples without children who still choose to stay together in a loving relationship. I also know of couples who choose to adopt, raising children by choice and considering them their own flesh and blood.
Some of these couples are same-sex couples, gay men or women who choose to enhance or enrich their relationship by engaging in a joint “project” to raise a child or children, to become a family. Society as a whole, I would think, would laud such couples, praising them for choosing parenthood and all the arduous challenges that come with the package: sleepless nights, colic, the “terrible twos,” teenage rebellion.
And yet society, Philippine society in particular, would also deny gay couples, with or without children, the right to marry. The law defines marriage as “the union of a man and a woman,” and only a man and a woman. Those who fall outside of this box are denied the right and privilege of marriage, even if they fulfill one of the major reasons for marriage, though not the only reason. One would think we would bend over backwards to help families at this time of familial crisis and child neglect. But instead of recognizing or rewarding the good done by gay adoptive parents, we ignore it, indeed even suspect their motivations.
* * *
The legalization of gay marriage would seem to be farfetched in this the only country in the world (save for the Vatican state) where divorce is still illegal.
Gay couples, and not all of them celebrities or show biz figures, manage to get around this legal obstacle by marrying in countries or states where same-sex marriage has been legalized. With the recent US Supreme Court decision stating that the US Constitution guarantees the right of marriage to gay couples, gay Filipino couples seeking a form of legal recognition of their union—though without any practical impact here—can now choose to marry anywhere in the United States (does Guam, a US territory, count?).
An American marriage license may not confer any legal recognition to a married gay couple here, but it does provide a semblance of legitimacy, and communicates to others that the two are serious in their relationship, and that they intend to bring the relationship forward beyond a few months or years.
What many of us forget, though, is that even a lavish wedding uniting a man and a woman, with hundreds of family and friends in attendance, is no guarantee that the marriage will last.
Why get married then? Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority in the US Supreme Court decision, explains: “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.”
* * *
“Love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family.” The words define, in their simplicity and profundity, what marriage is all about—or should be.
People get married not because they wish to make their love legal—no license is needed for that—but because they wish to tell the world that their love is so strong and durable that it is worth a lifelong commitment, a public declaration, a solemn vow. Of course, they may be mistaken, in their intent if not their aspiration. That is why divorce exists. But what does the gender orientation of the people intending to get married have to do with the marriage’s success or failure?
In the Philippines, the objections stem from a deep-seated fear—or is it abhorrence?—of homosexuality itself. Many have said Filipinos seem more “accepting” of gays than many of our neighbors or fellow Asians. But just consider the outcry raised when night club bouncers recently turned away transgenders, suspecting them of being nothing but street walkers, even if they had the necessary IDs to “prove” their gender.
That’s why our legislators balk at any measure that would seem to confer additional rights to gay men and women than those they already enjoy as citizens. That’s why the antidiscrimination bill has so far failed to move out of committee level, even if in the real world the sexual orientation and even mere appearance of gays have resulted in discrimination, abuse, if not outright violence and death.
* * *
So will the Philippines follow in the footsteps of the United States?
Reports on the US Supreme Court decision emphasize that this milestone ruling was achieved only after decades of struggle and legal challenge that began with a petition to overrule a law declaring homosexual acts illegal, followed by a case asking for legal recognition of a gay spouse’s rights to the estate of a deceased partner, and culminating in this latest recognition of gay marriage.
I don’t know how far gay proponents, including party-list groups of gays or those supporting gay rights, have brought their advocacy in Congress and in the Supreme Court.
But we must remember that the US Supreme Court victories were timed together with gradual changes in American public opinion and support for the “gay cause.” We may well be approaching this shift, since public opinion polls show steady progress in terms of support for divorce and for gay rights. We may not be as stuck in the mud as our laws and official attitudes might indicate.
