 |
| http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2013/06/27/after-the-doma-ruling-faqs-about-the-rights-of-same-sex-couples/ |
Before the DOMA and Proposition 8 ruling of the Supreme
Court of the United States (SCOTUS), a good friend once asked me if I thought
that same sex marriages would ever be recognized legally here in the
Philippines. I had no doubt with my answer, “Not in this lifetime.” Regardless
of how Philippine society has already matured and moved on from its
conservative roots, the Church still has a strong hold on the laws passed by
Congress. My friend then retorted, “Sa
bagay, kung ang divorce nga ng
legal couples, hindi ma-pass eh, ang same
sex marriage pa kaya.” (“It makes
sense since if divorce laws for legal couples cannot be passed, what more same
sex marriages.”)
I then replied that realistically speaking, if same sex
marriages cannot be legalized, what I truly hope for in this country is the
passing of laws governing same sex unions. Under the Family Code, property
relations between a man and a wife who are “living in” are provided for.
Property relations between same sex couples, however, are not, since they are
considered void ab initio and can
never ripen into validity for being against public morals. At the very least, I
hope that laws are passed giving same sex unions some rights as regards
property and inheritance if they meet certain standards that would make them
pass as “ordinary” couples.
 |
| http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/26/supreme-court-doma-prop-8-rulings |
This is the reason why I, together with the entire LGBT
community, was elated with the decision of the SCOTUS in United States v. Windsor which struck down a provision in the
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that denies federal benefits to legally married
same-sex couples such as Social Security benefits. The decision, penned by
Justice Anthony Kennedy, recognized the equal dignity of same sex marriages.
The case was filed by Edie Windsor, an 83-year old lesbian who married her
partner after living together for more than four decades. Upon the death of her
partner, Windsor inherited her partner’s estate but was charged with a huge
amount of estate taxes since the then prevailing DOMA did not recognize her as
the legal spouse. The victory of Windsor in the SCOTUS signified not only the
return of the taxes she had paid, but a victory of the world-wide LGBT
community, especially those affected and living in the U.S.
With the Windsor decision,
the SCOTUS likewise ruled on the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8 (the
State of California’s ban on same-sex marriages) albeit based on a mere
technicality. Hollingsworth v. Perry
was dismissed on the ground that the defendants did not have legal standing in
court. Being mere private individuals who were not defended by public
officials, i.e. the attorney-general , the defendants were deemed to have no
capacity to sue in support of Proposition 8. The Hollingsworth decision does not have as much impact as the Windsor decision, since the SCOTUS in
the former case did not dwell on its substantial issues. However, the result is
something the LGBT community can be happy about since it, in effect, reinstated
a lower court’s decision which ruled that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
 |
The Windsor
and Hollingsworth cases may not have
a compelling effect in Philippine law. After all, our Civil Code (which
includes the laws on family and property relations) was based on Spanish, and
not American, laws. The Philippine Supreme Court rarely cites U.S. cases as
legal basis for family courts cases; these are more common in commercial cases which
involve the Corporation Code or transactional cases. However, given the strong
influence which the U.S. has over Philippine culture, I am hopeful that this is
the start of a paradigm shift which our country has against the LGBT community
which would result in equality among all peoples – be they straight or
otherwise.
