- Subscribe Now
Your guide to the Supreme Court oral arguments on same-sex marriage
Already have Rappler+? Sign in to listen to groundbreaking journalism.
This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.
MANILA, Philippines – In May 2015, only two months after he passed the Philippine Bar, Jesus Falcis III filed a petition seeking to legalize same-sex marriage in this predominantly Catholic country.
The petition was the first of its kind.
Marriage equality is typically fought in Congress, and for years, the Philippine Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) movement has lobbied for the enactment of an anti-discrimination law and not a law on same-sex marriage.
The strategy was apparently to wage one battle at a time. Once the proposed anti-discrimination law is passed, then same-sex marriage would follow.
Yet, here we are now.
In a historic first, the Supreme Court will tackle same-sex marriage in oral arguments on Tuesday, June 19, because one young, gutsy, gay lawyer thought this was a battle better fought in the Court, not in Congress.
“Mauuna pa tayo sa mga ibang issues sa Pilipinas, at mauuna pa tayo sa ibang bansa sa Asian region na medyo conservative (We will be ahead of other issues in the Philippines, and we will be ahead of other countries in the Asian region that are conservative),” Falcis said, referring to the oral arguments.
However, “it is not that soon,” the lawyer said. It took the Supreme Court 3 years to schedule his petition for oral arguments. (READ: SC applicants agree with U.S ruling favoring baker in gay wedding cake case )
It has certainly been a long time coming for petitioner-intervenor Ceejay Agbayani, pastor of an LGBT Christian Church, who has been marrying same-sex couples for years, though their marriages are not recognized by the State.
Agbayani is “married” to partner of 12 years Marlon Felipe. The pastor is 44 years old.
“Nanghihina na ako, akala ko hindi ko maaabot ang araw na ito (I’m getting weak, I thought that I wouldn’t live long enough to see this day),” Agbayani said.
He and Felipe intervened in the Falcis petition to boost its legal standing. The couple’s application for a marriage license was denied, making personalities with an actual stake in the case.
Agbayani said he sought out Falcis when he heard in 2015 that the young lawyer had filed a petition.
“Sabi ko, thank Jesus! I love Jesus, both Jesus the attorney and the historical Jesus. Finally, this guy, whom I’ve never met, meron din siyang pagnanasa for marriage equality, eh ang kulang lang namin, actually, attorney. Noon pa man gusto na naming magKorte Supreme pero wala kaming attorney,” Agbayani said.
(I said, thank you Jesus! I love Jesus, both Jesus the attorney and the historical Jesus. Finally, this guy, whom I’ve never met, he also wants marriage equality. The only thing we lacked then was a lawyer. We have always wanted to go to the Supreme Court, but we didn’t have a lawyer.)
At 31, Falcis is one of the youngest lawyers to ever face oral arguments before the Supreme Court. He will have his most-awaited day in Court on June 19. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) will represent the State.
Here is your guide to the oral arguments:
These are the provisions of the Family Code in question:
Article 1: 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. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage within the limits provided by this Code.
Article 2: No marriage shall be valid, unless these essential requisites are present: (1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female
These are the provisions in the Constitution that the petition alleges to have been violated by the aforementioned:
Section 1, Article III: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
Section 3(1), Article XV: The State shall defend the right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood
1. Should the petition be subject to the Court’s power of judicial review?
Petition: Yes, because “Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code trigger a strict judicial scrutiny because it violates the fundamental rights to decisional and marital privacy and because it created a suspect classification.”
A suspect classification happens when a class of individuals is discriminated against. In legal principles, suspect classification should be subject to strict Court scrutiny.
State: No, because “the legal definition of marriage between a man and a woman is a policy issue within the authority of Congress, not the Courts, to decide.”
The OSG also added that the petition was defective because it did not implead Congress, the body that makes laws, and the body that passed the assailed Family Code.
2. What do the laws say?
Petition: The passing of the Family Code provisions limiting marriage to a man and a woman only constitute grave abuse of discretion because the Constitution did not define marriage as solely between a man and a woman. (The Family Code was signed into law on July 6, 1987, or 6 months after the Constitution was ratified in February that year.)
Similarly, the marriage provisions in the 1949 Civil Code did not limit marriages to a man and a woman only.
Here is the pertinent Civil Code provision:
Article 54. Any male of the age of sixteen years or upwards, and any female of the age of fourteen years or upwards, not under any of the impediments mentioned in Articles 80 to 84, may contract marriage.
State: “The Civil Code only allows heterosexual marriage.”
The OSG said that the use of the word “and” in Article 54 – any male aged 16 years or upwards AND any female of the age 14 years or upward – means marriage was limited to a male and female, not male or female.
The OSG added that Title V and VI of the Civil Code mentions a “husband and wife” which further bolsters the claim that the Civil Code “only sanctions heterosexual marriage.”
3. Did Philippine laws intend marriage for procreation?
Petition: No. Articles 2 and 3 of the Family Code “do not require married individuals to procreate or have the ability to procreate.”
Article 45(5) of the Family Code lists as a ground for annulment if either party “is incapable of consummating the marriage with the other, and such incapacity continues and appears to be incurable.” The petition said this is impotency.
“Homosexuals ordinarily are not impotent…because they are ordinarily not sterile,” the petition said, meaning homosexuals have the capacity to consummate the marriage.
On the issue of whether they can procreate, the petition said they are not prohibited by Philippine laws to adopt children. It cited a Supreme Court ruling that sided with a lesbian mother in a custody battle, saing that “sexual preference or moral laxity alone does not prove parental neglect or incompetence.”
State: Yes. “This state and societal interest to encourage procreation in a stable environment of a traditional family had been the reason for limiting marriage between a man and a woman, and in effect, creating a classification between couples that may avail of the special contract of marriage, and those that cannot.”
The OSG also cites Articles 46 and 55 of the Family Code, which count homosexuality as legal grounds for annulment.
Article 46(4): Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in Number 3 of the preceding Article: Concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism or homosexuality or lesbianism existing at the time of the marriage.
Article 55(6): A petition for legal separation may be filed on any of the following grounds: Lesbianism or homosexuality of the respondent
For the petitioner, if Articles 2 and 3 should be declared unconstitutional, then Articles 46 and 55 shall also be declared unconstitutional.
The OSG disagreed, saying that the provisions gave importance to conjugal intimacy which is “after all, the means for procreation of children and establishing a family.”
It cited an SC ruling which voided a marriage based on the wife’s complaint that the husband was not having sex with her.
The ruling said: “To procreate children based on the universal principle that procreation of children through sexual cooperation is the basic end of marriage. Constant non- fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity or wholeness of the marriage.”
4. Does limiting marriage to men and women only violate the equal protection clause?
Petition: Yes, because the classification does not rest on substantial distinction.
To explain, equal protection clause will not apply if these 4 conditions are satisfied:
- It must rest on substantial distinctions
- It must be germane to the purposes of law
- It must not be limited to existing conditions only
- It must apply equally to all members of the same class
There is substantial distinction if it can be justified why a certain class is treated differently. The petition said there is no substantial distinction between same sex couples and opposite sex couples.
If it’s their inability to procreate, the petition asks: Why are old heterosexual couples who are sterile and cannot procreate allowed to marry?
State: No, equal protection clause will not apply because the second condition was met, which is that it is germane or relevant to the purposes of the law.
The OSG goes back to the issue of procreation, and argued that procreation was among the main purposes of limiting marriage between a man and a woman only.
“While societal views of marriage as well as methods for procreation may be arguably changing since then, the laws that these norms initiated are slow to follow suit. The remedy for this perceived lethargy, however, lies with Congress, and not with the judiciary,” the OSG said.
5. Does limiting marriage to men and women only violate Section 3(1), Article XV of the Constitution?
Petition: Section 3(1), Article XV says the State shall defend the right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood.
The petition argues that like Agbayani, individuals belonging to religious denominations believe in same-sex marriage. Therefore, their right to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions is violated.
State: Petitioners cannot invoke Section 3(1), Article XV because it is not a self-executory right.
A self-executory right is one which does not need an enabling law to enforce. In general principles, a person cannot invoke a law that is a non-self executory right to void another law which may be inconsistent with it.
The OSG cited a past SC ruling which says Section 3(1), Article XV are non-self executory and are “mere statements and principles and policies.”
The OSG also said that according to the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, Section 3(1), Article XV was meant to direct Congress to enact laws that will “further its policy for the Filipino family, while prohibiting it from interfering with the number of children that couples may beget.”
“It does not provide for a self-executory right that may be made the legal basis of petitioners’ alleged inequality,” the OSG said.
The OSG said that allowing same-sex marriage will complicate other gender specific laws in marriages, like how a husband’s decision will prevail in disagrement over a community property, and how a wife is assumed to have better abilities to raise a child of tender age, or the classification of adultery and concubinage.
For the petitioners, marriage equality will be worth all the trouble. “I am a Filipino, give us this right, we are not different, we are part of this country too,” Agbayani said.
Oral arguments will start 2 pm on Tuesday, June 19. – Rappler.com
Add a comment
Please abide by Rappler's commenting guidelines .
There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.
How does this make you feel?
Related Topics
Recommended Stories
{{ item.sitename }}, {{ item.title }}.
Checking your Rappler+ subscription...
Upgrade to Rappler+ for exclusive content and unlimited access.
Why is it important to subscribe? Learn more
You are subscribed to Rappler+
Human rights abuses are happening right now – start a monthly gift today.
- Videos & Photos
- Take Action
Philippine Supreme Court Considers Same-Sex Marriage
Lawmakers Should Recognize Equal Marriage Rights for LGBT Couples
ryanthoreson
Share this via Facebook Share this via X Share this via WhatsApp Share this via Email Other ways to share Share this via LinkedIn Share this via Reddit Share this via Telegram Share this via Printer
The Philippine Supreme Court heard a long-awaited argument on Tuesday that could open the door to same-sex marriage in the overwhelmingly Catholic country.
The case, which was filed by a gay lawyer named Jesus Falcis in 2015, urges the court to declare the marriage restriction in the country’s Family Code – which limits marriage to one man and one woman – unconstitutional. It also asks the court to recognize marriage equality in the Philippines. Falcis argues that the marriage restrictions violate his rights to due process, equal protection, and forming a family under the Philippine Constitution.
If the Supreme Court rules that the provisions of the Family Code are unconstitutional and permits same-sex marriage, or the national legislature enacts a law allowing same-sex marriage, the Philippines will join Taiwan at the forefront of Asian countries with marriage equality.
Beyond the Supreme Court hearing, the recognition of same-sex partnerships has gained considerable steam in the Philippines.
In the House of Representatives, Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez filed a bill in October 2017 that would create civil partnerships. The bill, HB 6595 , would grant same-sex couples “[a]ll benefits and protections as are granted to spouses in a marriage,” including the ability to jointly adopt, inherit property, obtain tax benefits, and share insurance, health, and pension benefits. The bill was debated by a House panel in January 2018 , but has not been voted on .
President Rodrigo Duterte has sent conflicting messages about his views on same-sex marriage, indicating support for it on the campaign trail , seemingly reversing his position in March 2017 , and then endorsing the idea again in December 2017 .
As the Supreme Court deliberates over the same-sex marriage case, lawmakers have an opportunity to proactively protect the rights of LGBT Filipinos. In 2017, the House of Representatives made history by approving a nondiscrimination law that, if passed by the Senate, would protect LGBT people from discrimination in employment, education, health care, housing, public services, and other areas.
It should now show similar leadership in recognizing and advancing the rights of same-sex couples.
Your tax deductible gift can help stop human rights violations and save lives around the world.
- Philippines
- LGBT Rights
More Reading
For taiwan, a year to go to legalize same-sex marriage.
Philippine City Passes Law Against LGBT Discrimination
“We Have to Beg So Many People”
Human Rights Violations in Nepal’s Legal Gender Recognition Practices
“I Don’t Want to Change Myself”
Anti-LGBT Conversion Practices, Discrimination, and Violence in Malaysia
Most Viewed
A dirty investment.
Q&A: Access to Abortion is a Human Right
A Threshold Crossed
Burkina Faso: Army Massacres 223 Villagers
South Sudan: ‘Disappeared’ Critic Resurfaces
Protecting Rights, Saving Lives
Human Rights Watch defends the rights of people in close to 100 countries worldwide, spotlighting abuses and bringing perpetrators to justice
Get updates on human rights issues from around the globe. Join our movement today.
Every weekday, get the world’s top human rights news, explored and explained by Andrew Stroehlein.
By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy .
The best argument against same-sex marriage
FILIPINOS, SPORTING #LoveWins hashtags and slapping rainbows onto their Facebook profile pictures, have been swept up in the euphoria over the US Supreme Court decision declaring same-sex marriage a fundamental human right. Law professors are heartened to see Justice Anthony Kennedy’s poetic Obergefell decision shared in social media. However, we must also read the powerful dissents and ask why we might prefer that our unelected justices decide this sensitive issue instead of our elected legislators.
Inquirer 2bu quoted teenagers opining that anyone with the capacity to love deserves to have his/her chosen relationship validated. Obergefell’s logic is equally simple. Forget “substantive due process,” “decisional privacy” and “equal protection.” It takes the simple premise that human liberty necessarily goes beyond physical liberty, and includes an unwritten right to make fundamental life choices. Choosing a life partner is one such fundamental choice and the decision of two people to formalize their relationship must be accorded utmost dignity.
The typical arguments against this simple idea are so intellectually discredited that Obergefell no longer discussed them. (My Philippine Law Journal article “Marriage through another lens,” 81 PHIL. L.J. 789 [2006], tried applying them to bisexual and transgender Filipinos.)
One cannot solely invoke religious doctrine, even if thinly veiled as secular “morality.” Religious groups may confront this issue but not impose their choices on others. Their often vindictive tone contrasts sharply with Kennedy’s, and increasingly alienates millennials who revel in individuality. Those criticized as religious zealots should at least strive to be up-to-date, more sophisticated religious zealots.
The most common argument, procreation, is also the easiest to refute. Philippine Family Code author Judge Alicia Sempio-Diy wrote: “The [Code] Committee believes that marriage … may also be only for companionship, as when parties past the age of procreation still get married.”
Another argument reduces marriage to a series of economic benefits and suggests a “domestic partnership” system to govern same-sex couples’ property and other rights. This parallels having separate schools for white and black children and claiming they are equal because both have schools. It implies that some relationships so lack dignity that they must be called something else.
Protecting the “traditional” definition of marriage is too subjective. Obergefell reminds that traditional definitions evolve and once prohibited interracial and accepted arranged marriages, and “it is unrealistic to conclude that an opposite-sex couple would choose not to marry simply because same-sex couples may do so.”
Recent last-ditch arguments alleged harm to children. No party to Obergefell contested that same-sex couples may build nurturing families after adopting or tapping medical advances to produce babies with related DNA. Prohibiting same-sex marriage harms children by making such families unstable, as only one parent may legally adopt and have rights in relation to a child.
With all these discredited, the Obergefell dissents simply raised that marriage is so central a social institution that it is better redefined by democratic process than unelected judges. Proponents may consider opponents homophobic, bigoted, narrow-minded religious zealots, but none of these disqualifies one from being a citizen. Chief Justice John Roberts argued that proponents should have relied on how popular opinion was rapidly shifting in their favor than ending all debate by court order.
Justice Antonin Scalia decried how the US Constitution was turned into a “fortune cookie” in a “judicial Putsch” that declared a radical unwritten right. Roberts cautioned that the first cases to use similar doctrine upheld slavery and struck down labor regulations in the name of laissez faire economics. Although invoking human rights is not subject to an election, it is wise to consult society in defining these, and Obergefell stressed the lengthy public debates the United States experienced at every level.
One thus asks why an instant judicial solution is more appealing than backing Akbayan Rep. Barry Gutierrez’s proposed same-sex marriage bill. The Philippines has not had serious public debate given how we recently focused on reproductive health, and our high court has not even explicitly recognized “decisional privacy.” Further, the petition to legalize same-sex marriage recently filed at our high court is blatantly deficient.
The petition (like the anti-RH petitions) does not even identify a client. There is no actual Filipino same-sex couple, unlike the real Mr. Obergefell who sought to be named the spouse on his partner’s death certificate after their deathbed wedding. This violates the most basic rule that judicial power may only be used in an “actual case” and the high court should have instantly thrown out the no-case petition (like the anti-RH petitions). The petition also has glaring errors (like the anti-RH petitions). It invoked the Philippine privacy decision Ople vs Torres, which involved information in government databases and has nothing to do with the “decisional privacy” of US same-sex marriage debates. Even liberals should be hard-pressed to support this lest they be intellectually inconsistent and validate the anti-RH petitions’ worst features.
Any citizen lacking the patience to back Gutierrez’s bill has every right to short-circuit democracy by seeking an order from unelected judges. One hopes our high court insists that it be sought properly.
Subscribe to our daily newsletter
React: [email protected] , Twitter @oscarfbtan, facebook.com/OscarFranklinTan.
Fearless views on the news
Disclaimer: Comments do not represent the views of INQUIRER.net. We reserve the right to exclude comments which are inconsistent with our editorial standards. FULL DISCLAIMER
© copyright 1997-2024 inquirer.net | all rights reserved.
We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more, please click this link.
Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .
Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.
- We're Hiring!
- Help Center
Legalizing Same Sex Marriage in the Philippines (Positive Side
Related Papers
Douglas Sanders
ScienceRise: Juridical Science
Hitesh Chawla
Surrogacy gives hope to couples who are unable to carry child on their own. Single men, women and same-sex couples can also opt surrogacy to have their own genetic child. Surrogacy has adjourned the practice of adoption by childless couples who can bear the cost of surrogacy. Recent past has witnessed the blooming of surrogacy clinics all over the world. Eligibility of surrogates, process, legality and expenses, involved in surrogacy, differ from country to country. Most of the countries do not have surrogacy regulating legislation in force. Few countries prohibit surrogacy, while some ban commercial surrogacy and permits altruistic one. Even international surrogacy is not allowed in some jurisdictions. Easy availability and low costs of surrogacy procedures in developing countries have made surrogacy a lucrative business. India developed into a hub of commercial surrogacy with no harsh laws, regulating surrogacy clinics. Even though commercial surrogacy has been banned, still lack ...
Journal of Southeast Asian Human Rights
The United Nations human rights system has recognized rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex individuals (LGBTI), with key decisions in 2011 and 2016. To what extent are the rights of these groupings respected in Southeast Asia? The visibility of LGBTI is low in Southeast Asia and government attitudes vary. Criminal laws, both secular and Sharia, in some jurisdictions, have prohibitions, but active enforcement is rare. Discrimination in employment is prohibited by law in Thailand and in local laws in the Philippines. Change of legal ‘sex’ for transgender individuals is sometimes possible. Legal recognition of same-sex relationships has been proposed in Thailand and the Philippines, but not yet enacted. Marriage has been opened to same-sex couples in neighboring Taiwan. Laws on adoption and surrogacy generally exclude same-sex couples. So-called ‘normalizing surgery’ on intersex babies needs to be deferred to the child’s maturity, to protect their health and...
MAXINE MODELL
Ijeoma Ucheibe
Same sex marriages are happening everywhere around the world and it has received a significant boost in numbers since the landmark ruling given in Obergefell v. Hodges which made it legal in the 50 states across the United States of America. It is a given that it has come to stay going with the way gay pride parades and marches have been held around the world especially in countries where it has been legalised like the United Kingdom, the Netherlands to mention a few. The list of issues that defy a conclusive reasoning is non exhaustive especially within the context of the same sex marriage debate and they include - the socio-cultural and psychological disconnect that children are exposed to when their parents are gay or transgender, the ever evolving definition of a family unit, the inadequacy of the laws available to take care but largely vague in interpretation, who raises the children in a same sex marriage setting among others. These issues amongst others portend a changing landscape for the future of family law and to a larger extent the human race. In practice, same sex marriage is argued from the viewpoint of being a human rights issue but this project work will try to sieve through the raging controversy which has greeted this debate from both moral, political and even from proponents of the traditional family institutions. It is trite to note that even where regulations exist to excuse or better still legalise this form of marriage, it is still not acceptable in major cultures and civilisation across the world and particularly in many African countries like Malawi, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Nigeria. The research will argue for and against same sex marriage but will touch on the salient fact that it is a movement that will come to be accepted over a period of time and get the needed attention it deserve but will ultimately attempt to address emerging trends in the same sex marriage debate. Keywords: same sex marriage, regulation, institution.
An analysis of what LGBTI issues are prominent in various countries in Asia, followed by an updated analysis of moves to recognition of same-sex relationships in Asia, notably in Vietnam, Thailand and Taiwan. Paper was presented at the Asian Law Schools Conference in Beijing.
Shelley Cobb
This chapter argues that the images of Ellen and Portia’s same-sex wedding, refigure lesbian identity within the ‘postfeminist culture [that] both assumes and creates a female subject who desires marriage’. At the same time, their high-profile celebrity wedding helped to mainstream the same-sex marriage equality campaign through their mutual celebrity brand. Paradoxically, then, their celebrity lesbian marriage is both a political act against heteronormativity and a neo-conservative image of homonormativity and postfeminist female identity. If, as Dana Heller has shown, the ‘celesbian’ (defined as a celebrity who is ‘known or alleged’ to be a lesbian) is a ‘disruptive laborer within the affective economies that organize the intimate celebrity logic of capitalism’, then the ‘celesbian couple’ is the ultimate labor force of neoliberal capitalism in their ability to ‘make queer feeling (or feeling queer) appropriate through performances that allow them to draw together that which has been kept apart—the homo and the hetero, the celebrity system and queer politics—within the norms of global capitalism’.
OGIRISI: a New Journal of African Studies
Lateef Adeyemo
This paper examines the objectification of persons using same sex married couples situation. It argues that the legislation of same sex marriage creates “artificial infertility” and promotes dependency on cloning for procreation of genetically related children. The aim of this work is to highlight the legalisation of same sex marriages as “creating a pool of infertile persons” for purposes which go beyond the happiness of same sex couples. The methods adopted are analogical, casuistry and normative. Arguments put forward use same sex married couples situation to buttress the objectification of infertile persons in human cloning. The finding shows a relationship between the legalisation of same sex marriages and cloning. The work concludes that the ban on human cloning should not be lifted since self inflicted harm must be avoided.
Linda Barkacs
After the 2004 Presidential election, America was proclaimed to be a nation of red and blue states, with red states purportedly disfavoring same sex marriage and civil unions, and blue states seemingly more tolerant. Election day polling convinced most of America that the feelings on same sex relationships run deep, given that one in every five voters cited “moral values” as their top priority in determining their vote. But what was left out of the polls and post-election hype was this: American businesses, including most of the Fortune 500, have been providing increasing benefits to same sex couples for years, even in the red states. Will the attitude of society catch up to the business community? And will new laws, including those banning civil unions, become a factor in where businesses choose to locate, or perhaps even inspire the business community to promote more tolerance toward same sex relationships and encourage the broader society to follow its lead? This paper examines the history of same sex benefits, civil unions, and same sex marriage, comparing the attitudes of the business community with those of society at large.
RELATED PAPERS
International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology (IJERT)
IJERT Journal
Kevin Young
Cell Transplantation
Marta Rasmus
Setuko Masunari
JMTS: Jurnal Mitra Teknik Sipil
Aniek Prihatiningsih
International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences
Yalamoussa TUO
Joan Bech-serra
New Threats and Countermeasures in Digital Crime and Cyber Terrorism
Darrell Norman Burrell
Journal of Agronomy
LEONARDO GOMEZ
Michael Montgomery
Journal of Materials Science
sampad biswas
economic jurisprudence studies
فصلنامه علمی مطالعات فقه اقتصادی ایران
TAPROBANICA: The Journal of Asian Biodiversity
Jayanta Mallick
Bioresource Technology
Wael Suleiman
International Journal of Academic Research in Public Policy and Governance
Journal of Marine Systems
Ariel Troisi
European Journal of Radiology
Munemasa Okada
Tạp chí Nghiên cứu Y học
María Inés Carella
Jurnal Online Mahasiswa Bidang Pertanian
Ahmad Hasan Rifai
Actas Dermo-Sifiliográficas
Luis Mazzuoccolo
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Cheryl Beseler
hukyytj jkthjfgr
Cellular Immunology
Richard Ciavarra
Hope Jacob Tama
- We're Hiring!
- Help Center
- Find new research papers in:
- Health Sciences
- Earth Sciences
- Cognitive Science
- Mathematics
- Computer Science
- Academia ©2024
Home / Essay Samples / Sociology / Same Sex Marriage / Marriage Equality: The Fight for Same-Sex Unions in the Philippines
Marriage Equality: The Fight for Same-Sex Unions in the Philippines
- Category: Social Issues , Sociology
- Topic: Gender Equality , Homosexuality , Same Sex Marriage
Pages: 2 (726 words)
Views: 1319
- Downloads: -->
--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.
Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?
are ready to help you with your essay
You won’t be charged yet!
Communication Skills Essays
Propaganda Essays
First Impression Essays
Nonverbal Communication Essays
Public Speaking Essays
Related Essays
We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.
By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.
Your essay sample has been sent.
In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.
samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->