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)
January 16th, 2005 at 1:17 pm
No one should consider a sex changed person like Guazon a woman under our laws for much the same reasons that nobody believes that Micheal jackson is White and that nobody believe that Orlando Bloom is an elf. Spending a small nation’s GDP on one’s looks will not change that.
These are just wonders of plastic surgery and make up that allow people to alter their PHYSICAL APPEARANCE.
THese changes are limited in that they only change one’s physique. Our LAW recognizes that it is birth and not an operation that confers legal personality. Wishfull thinking on the part of those who under go plastic surgery will not change that.
The democratic principles of our Constitution mandate that our laws are the will of the people. So far the people have been silent on ways to change one’s legal personality (after operations or otherwise)and the same will of the people has limited marriage to that of a man and a woman. There is no question of the democracy of these principles since of our Constitution was overwhelmingly approved by a majority of the people way back in 1986.
This does not infringe upon the rights of sex changed individuals (SCI) since there is no statute that forbids this. In fact the silence of a statute shows the democratic principles of our Constitution at work since SCIs are in effect asking for special treatment as very few individuals can afford to spend so much on surgery. If granted, should the government then grant those making their ears more pointed special priveleges by allowing them to alter their legal personalities to reflect their ELVISHNESS? What about the Vulcans, the Klingons and God knows what surgery can produce?
Guazon cannot be treated as a woman by law, since his birth confered the legal personality of a man on him. The law does not condemn what he did but neither should it go against the democratic principles of our Constitution by granting him special priveleges such as the right to marry another man. If he wants people to treat him as a woman then that is truly a personal matter for him and his peers to sort out
February 27th, 2006 at 7:42 am
“dura lex sed lex”: you’ve got to live with it, man; or if don’t like it, then search for another campground to stake your tent.¿comprendes, amigo?