skipper27

Associate Justice Marvic Leonen pointed out that the Constitution does not explicitly define marriage as a union only between a man and a woman. 
          	
          	https://twitter.com/rapplerdotcom/status/1011638490432491520
          	
          	I wrote the chapter on "Abortion, Reproductive Health and Same-sex Marriage"  way back on 2014 and  "# Love Wins" in 2015 on ALMC.  Never thought that a couple years later the Supreme Court is hearing the oral arguments for the petition to legalize same-sex marriage.  Flawed or not, it is a landmark case.  
          	
          	As the case progresses, more questions will be raised, prejudices will become evident, and hopefully tempers will be kept in check.  What is obvious at this point is that a lot of the Justices are not ready to face this issue head on.  It might  just pass the buck to Congress where House Bill 6595  seeking to recognize same-sex civil unions has been filed October last year.  Frankly, I don't have that much faith in the institution since a lot of important pieces of legislation have been pending for decades. (Unless of course our politicians feel that the LGBTQ community is a voting block.)
          	
          	Is it a futile effort? Perhaps not.  Even if a lot of people are not ready for it, the conversation has to be initiated.  Same-sex marriage, discrimination, and other LGBTQ concerns have a way of ending up as punch lines or being swept under the rug.   Homophobia and bigotry is as real as it can get.  But one cannot change how people feel about certain issues by attacking and insulting the person at the other side.  So how do we make these issue matter to people who are not in the community? Beats me.  Hopefully, they see past the labels and colors... and discover the humanity underneath us all.
          	
          	It is going to be long journey and slow process.  My hats off to Atty. Falcis for taking on the Supreme Court.

skipper27

Associate Justice Marvic Leonen pointed out that the Constitution does not explicitly define marriage as a union only between a man and a woman. 
          
          https://twitter.com/rapplerdotcom/status/1011638490432491520
          
          I wrote the chapter on "Abortion, Reproductive Health and Same-sex Marriage"  way back on 2014 and  "# Love Wins" in 2015 on ALMC.  Never thought that a couple years later the Supreme Court is hearing the oral arguments for the petition to legalize same-sex marriage.  Flawed or not, it is a landmark case.  
          
          As the case progresses, more questions will be raised, prejudices will become evident, and hopefully tempers will be kept in check.  What is obvious at this point is that a lot of the Justices are not ready to face this issue head on.  It might  just pass the buck to Congress where House Bill 6595  seeking to recognize same-sex civil unions has been filed October last year.  Frankly, I don't have that much faith in the institution since a lot of important pieces of legislation have been pending for decades. (Unless of course our politicians feel that the LGBTQ community is a voting block.)
          
          Is it a futile effort? Perhaps not.  Even if a lot of people are not ready for it, the conversation has to be initiated.  Same-sex marriage, discrimination, and other LGBTQ concerns have a way of ending up as punch lines or being swept under the rug.   Homophobia and bigotry is as real as it can get.  But one cannot change how people feel about certain issues by attacking and insulting the person at the other side.  So how do we make these issue matter to people who are not in the community? Beats me.  Hopefully, they see past the labels and colors... and discover the humanity underneath us all.
          
          It is going to be long journey and slow process.  My hats off to Atty. Falcis for taking on the Supreme Court.

skipper27

24 | abortion, reproductive health and same-sex marriage https://www.wattpad.com/57126769-a-little-more-complicated-24-abortion-reproductive
          
          Laya turned to Jay who was seated the middle row.  "It is the Family Code that defines marriage as a contract between a man and a woman... not the Constitution itself.  It simply refers to marriage as an inviolable social institution.  Section 1 of Article XV recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation.  But over the years the definition of what is a family has changed.  We now recognize family with single parent or absentee parents.  Maybe it is time we re-examine how we view marriage to embrace more than just unions of heterosexuals," she challenged Jay. 
          
          So what's new? 
          
          "But it is unnatural and immoral," Jay argued.  Umandar nanaman ang pagka-chauvinist nito.
          
          "The question is not whether it is unnatural or immoral.  The only concern here is whether the law is Constitutional," Laya rebutted.  "Nowhere in the Constitution will you find an exclusive definition of marriage."