I agree that people should be able to marry whoever they want. None of our laws define what a man and a woman are, even if the Family Code defines a marriage as a special contract between the two.
But I wouldn’t say that there isn’t anything in our laws that specifically disallows us to make such definitions. The Constitution recognizes the family as the basic unit of society, and though it doesn’t proscribe any sort of regulation on that institution, I don’t think it isn’t there for a reason. Our Constitution is (and is not) many things, but one thing’s for sure: the framers always had a reason for doing what they did.
And this where the problem comes from. The fact that the Constitution does in fact recognize the family gives both the legislature and the judiciary license to interfere, whether for good or bad. If our Supreme court were to hear the Ganzon case, it would have to decide it along lines that take into consideration these provisions. Why? Simply because its there. It’s in the law, fundamental and statutory. And what does this law reflect? The values of the framers, who were basically church-going, god-fearing men steeped in post-colonial spanish and american thought. these are men who have never thought of changing their sex, or at least would never admit in public to having done so.
I have nothing against church-going, god-fearing men. I have everything though against anyone who thinks that their moral values should apply to everyone else. The problem with our Constitution (as well as many of our laws) is that they are precisely one group’s version of right and wrong imposed on the rest of the country. Which, allow me to qualify, may not be so bad if we had a political system that could prevent the moneyed few from controlling everything. But the reality is: we don’t. And for as long as that’s the case, I believe the premium must be placed on the protection of individual liberties.
Entries (RSS)