Affirmative Same Sex marriage arguments
arguments for same sex marriage...
Let it be Resolved that Same Sex Marriage be Legalized
Our nation was founded on a bedrock principle that we are all created equal. This is the opening sentence in President Obama’s speech after the U.S Supreme Court recognized that their Constitution guarantees marriage equality. Ladies and gentlemen, I’m going to discuss the necessity of legalizing same sex marriage. The affirmative side believes that same sex marriage should be legalized. Let me first define the terms in the proposition. Same-sex marriage is the union of two individuals of the same sex in a marital relationship, with the full legal rights and responsibilities allotted to this contract in a given jurisdiction.
The United States High Court, on June 26, 2015 finally reaffirmed that all Americans are entitled to the equal protection of the law; that all people should be treated equally, regardless of who they are or who they love. The Philippines, being a nation of democracy, whose history proves that Filipinos would die fighting for equality should now recognize the fairness that has long been clamored by our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers. “Denying LGBT couples the right to marry is unconstitutional.” This is according to the former law dean of the University of the Philippines, Dean Pacifico Agabin. ‘The Family Code’s concept of marriage as a contract between a man and a woman aside from being obsolete, violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. There is a dire necessity to change the status quo where marriage as defined in the New Civil Code should only be between a man and a woman as this definition not violates the equal protection of the laws, but is also discriminatory. Why does this definition violate the equal protection clause. Equal Protection is defined as The constitutional guarantee that no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of th e laws that isenjoyed by other persons or other classes in like circumstances in their lives, liberty, propert y, and pursuit of happiness. Art. III Sec. 1 of our 1987 Constitution states that 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.
The Constitution is specific. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. May it be a straight woman, a straight man, a lesbian, or gay. Equal protection in our laws allows for valid classification when the following requisites concur (1) that the classification should be based on substantial distinctions which make for real differences; (2) that it must be germane to the purpose of the law; (3) that it must not be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) that it must apply equally to each member of the class. There is no valid classification when it comes to every person’s right to marry. The US Supreme Court, in addressing this issue, l isted four distinct reasons why the fundamental right to marry applies to same-sex couples. First, "the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy." Second, "the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals," a principle applying equally to same-sex couples. Third, the fundamental right to marry "safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education"; as same-sex couples have children and families, they are deserving of this safeguard—though the right to marry in the United States has never been conditioned on procreation. Fourth, and lastly, "marriage is a keystone of our social order," and "[t]here is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle"; consequently, preventing same-sex couples from marrying puts them at odds with society, denies them countless benefits of marriage, and introduces instability into their relationships for no justifiable reason.