legalization of same sex marriage in the philippines research paper

Philippine Legal Research

Analysis on the Legality and Applicability on the Integration of Same-Sex Marriage in the Philippine Legal System

Chapter I – Background of the Study

In the Philippine legal system, marriage is defined as a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with the law. It is the foundation of the family whose nature, consequences and incidents are governed by law.1 This definition has been the roots of all arguments, debates and controversies because of the acceptance of the Filipinos to the rise of LGBT community or the “third-sex” society and the raising of the issue on equal protection clause and their equal right to marry, and conjugal rights.

Same sex marriage is the practice of marriage between two people of the same gender. Although same-sex marriage has been regulated through law, religion, and custom in most countries of the world, the legal and social responses have ranged from celebration on the one hand to criminalization on the other. In the late twentieth century, debates about the legalization of same-sex marriage around the world has been publicly noticeable in view of the strong opposition of Christianity as they consider it as morally wrong. On one hand, some scholars, have argued that same-sex unions were recognized by the Roman Catholic Church in medieval Europe, although others have disputed this claim. Scholars and the general public became increasingly interested in the issue during the late 20th century, a period when attitudes toward homosexuality and laws regulating homosexual behavior were liberalized, particularly in western Europe and the United States. In the year 2000, as research shows, Netherlands granted religious rites of marriage and legal recognition to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Community. In light of its decision, 20 other countries namely Belgium (2003), Canada (2005), Spain (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Argentina (2010), Iceland (2010), Portugal (2010), Denmark (2012), Brazil (2013), England and Wales (2013), France (2013) New Zealand (2013), Uruguay (2013), Luxembourg (2014), Scotland (2014), Finland (2015) Ireland (2015) and United States of America (2015) legalized marriage for same sex couples.2 Though few more countries are in the process of assessing legitimizing same sex marriage, still, majority of these countries doesn’t recognized reformation of marriage in their Constitution, and this include the Philippines.            

The Philippines is a predominantly Christian country, from which morality and Christianity has always been an influence in the society. This has been the core reason why being a conservative individual matters for Filipino, especially one that involves marriage. As a matter of discussion, there are house bills regarding same sex marriage has been introduced in the Philippine laws , to wit: House Bill No. 6595, House Bill No. 3179. In 2011, there was a bill filed to amend Article 26 of the Philippine Family Code, to prohibit “forbidden marriages.” Specifically, this sought to bar the Philippines from recognizing same-sex marriages contracted overseas. However, these bills did not advance.

Several of gay rights organization has been fighting their rights contending that marriage is a human right based on love and not on two sets of genitalia. Ladlad Partylist, a leading LGBT political party in the Philippines has been advocating that the legalization of same sex unions would laid down anti-discrimination and would grant them the equal protection as provided in the Constitution.            

This issue on same sex marriage once again revives its national relevance after President Duterte’s pronouncement, reversing his campaign to support the legislation allowing same-sex marriage, saying that marriage should always be only between a man and a woman. While the Family Code has been clear on its definition on marriage, however, some lawyers and scholars believe that the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, neither discriminates, nor prohibits same-sex marriage. Hence, this analysis.

This research study aims to analyze the nuances of the law regarding marriage and the possibility of approving same sex marriage based on different jurisprudence, the Family Code and the Constitution.

B. Importance of the Study

Marriage in the Philippines is one of the most important features that was granted by our Constitution from which some rights springs up to. It constitutes legal benefits, such as the right for common and conjugal properties, and marital obligations, parental authority and ownership. Moreover, it constitutes equality beyond the realm of married life. This study will enlighten not only the researchers, but also the readers, on what is the legal standing of same sex couples to fight for their right in cognizance with our laws. Moreover, the study will create an impact to the scholars of the law regarding the legalization of same sex marriage in the Philippines.

C. Statement of the Problem            

The always debated topic of same sex marriage is on the LGBT’s continuous fight against discrimination and inequality. In light of United States, an allied country of the Philippines, that recently recognized gay marriage throughout the 50 states of America, were the hopes of Philippines’ LGBT’s plea of approving the constitutionality of same sex marriage. Its adoption in the United States clearly made a huge mark of change in their constitution especially in the sense of rights and benefits in the eyes of the law. This research papers aims to answer the following in its legal sense; 1. Does Same-sex marriage violates the definition of marriage in the Family Code? 2. Is same- sex marriage Constitutional? 3. Does the legalization of same-sex marriage upholds the rights of the LGBT community on right to property, life and liberty? 4. Does the legalization of same sex marriage upholds the equal protection clause of the Constitution?

D. Scope and Limitation of the Study

The study is concerned with the Same Sex Marriage issue in the Philippines – if such is a legal right that LGBT community deserve to have. It also touches on the importance of marriage, its benefits and definition in terms used by the Philippine Laws, the advantage it can make in the country and its significance to the rights of LGBTs. The study mainly spotlights the constitutionality of legalizing same sex marriage in the Philippines comprising LGBT rights against inequality and discrimination and how it contradicts to the definition of marriage in the Family Code. Facts contained herein are limited to secondary data such as news articles, books, international and local literatures and internet web sources released by educational institutions, academes and authors of law.  The data collected from the secondary data serves only as representative and not to generalize as whole, to provide insights for future policy making and research directions. Nevertheless, the study may still be a turning point for the general public.

Chapter II – Review of Related Literature

We are originally from an Asian country which has not yet opened to the same sex marriage. But, we have been given the chance to study in a developed country and see how the world is opening its gate to welcome different people from different suffers. 1

The Philippines is a country whose belief in marriage is mostly in lined with morals and cultural aspects where a majority of its principles were taught through Christianity. Marriage, as stated in Art. 1 of the FC, is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman…. It’s clearly stipulated in the mentioned provision that only a man and a woman can enter into a valid marriage ceremony. However, other countries viewed marriage as a legal right and not merely a privilege.

United States of America (2015)

In 2015,  the US Supreme Court ruled  same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional and  the Republic of Ireland became the first country in the world  to legalize same-sex marriage by popular vote following a country-wide referendum. However, while stigma against LGBT communities is certainly lessening in some countries, many states continue to criminalize same-sex sexual contact under the threat of imprisonment or even death. 2

Ireland (2015)

On May 22, 2015, Catholic-majority Ireland became the first country to legalize same-sex marriage through a popular referendum. More than six-in-ten Irish voters (62%) voted “yes” to amend the Constitution of Ireland to say that “marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.”

While some Catholic Church leaders opposed the change, Dublin Archbishop Diarmuid Martin wrote a commentary in The Irish Times newspaper before the referendum, saying that he would not tell people how to vote and that he had “no wish to stuff my religious views down other people’s throats.” Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny supported the “yes” campaign. 3

Finland (2015)

Same-sex marriage will become legal in Finland starting in 2017. The Finnish Parliament approved a bill legalizing same-sex unions in November 2014, and Finland’s president, Sauli Niinistö, signed the measure into law in February 2015. The bill started out as a “citizens’ initiative” – a public petition with a reported 167,000 signatures.

Finland becomes the last of the five Nordic countries to legalize same-sex marriage, joining Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. 3

Scotland (2014)

On Feb. 4, 2014, the Scottish Parliament voted overwhelmingly to approve legislation legalizing same-sex marriage. In addition to allowing same-sex couples to wed, the measure gives churches and other religious groups the option of deciding whether or not they want to conduct such marriages. The two largest churches in Scotland – the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church – oppose same-sex marriage and lobbied against the bill.

The law took effect and same-sex couples began marrying in Scotland in December 2014. 3

Belgium (2003)

Beginning in 1998, the Belgian parliament offered limited rights to same-sex couples through registered partnerships. Same-sex couples could register with a city clerk and formally assume joint responsibility for a household. Five years later, in January 2003, the Belgian parliament legalized same-sex marriage, giving gay and lesbian couples the same tax and inheritance rights as heterosexual couples.

Support for the law came from both the Flemish-speaking North and the French-speaking South, and the law generated surprisingly little controversy across the country. The long-dominant Christian Democratic Party, traditionally allied with the Catholic Church, was out of power when the parliament passed the measure.

The 2003 law allowed the marriages of Belgian same-sex couples and recognized as married those from other countries where same-sex marriage was legal. Those provisions were broadened in 2004 to allow any same-sex couple to marry as long as one member of the couple had lived in Belgium for at least three months. In 2006, the parliament also granted same-sex partners the right to adopt children. 3

Colombia (2016)

On April 28, 2016, Colombia became the fourth country in Catholic-majority South America to legalize same-sex marriage, following Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil. The country’s Constitutional Court, by a 6-3 vote, ruled that that “all people are free to choose independently to start a family in keeping with their sexual orientation … receiving equal treatment under the constitution and the law,” according to the wire service Agence France-Presse. 3

Though these countries already accepted the marriage between couples who have the same gender, still, a majority of the countries around the world doesn’t recognize such.

Chapter III – Methodology

This chapter describes the research method of the study, the strategy of the researchers in gathering the data needed, and its correlation in the pre-existing phenomenon.

This study is purely research in its approach. The researchers aim to analyze the possibility in integrating same-sex marriage law in the Philippine law by taking into consideration the laws of other countries recognizing same-sex marriage, and the researchers will discuss its constitutionality and applicability with regard to the provisions in the New Civil Code and the rights reserved for the LGBT community inscribed for all humans in our Constitution.

This study applied the descriptive method of research, a fact-finding research which involves adequate and accurate interpretation if findings. The purpose of using the descriptive method is to describe the nature of a condition, as it takes place during the time of the study and to explore the causes. The researchers opted to use this kind of research considering the need to acquire first-hand informations from primary sources, such as laws, jurisprudences, and codes, and at the same time to formulate rational and sound discussions and recommendations for this study.

• Glance at Stance of Other Countries Recognizing Same Sex- Marriage

The researchers first took a step in reviewing the different kinds of laws concerning same-sex marriage from different country;

Leading lawyer, judge, and writer Justice Robert A. Jackson once said: freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.”

Netherlands is the very first state that recognized Same Sex Marriages. According to the reports of statistics in Netherlands, the number of homosexual and lesbian couples living together totalled 57 thousand in 2010 where in 14,813 of them had same sex marriage, in which 7,522 were female and 7,291 were male. One in three couples had their relationships officially registered and nearly 11 thousand couples were married and more than 61 thousand had registered partnerships.There have been 1,078 same sex divorces, 734 (two-thirds) of them by female couples. The title of married partners for same sex couples gave them the advantage of building their own family. One of this is the automatic joint parental authority over common children only in the following circumstances:

1.For gay marriage, a consent from the mother of the child is needed;

2.For lesbian marriage, a mother must be one of the couple

In addition, they also extend the right of adoption for same-sex couples.  Article 277 of Civil Code of Netherlands provided that they allow adoptions, except Intercountry adoptions, of same-sex partners (whether married, registered as partners, or neither) of their civil status or gender-combination, as long as the partners have lived together for three years. This rights made equal treatment between different-sex couples and same-sex couples in terms of privileges in having children. The discrimination of capacity of raising a child by same-sex couples diminishes, and has been proven to have nothing different from how different-couples raises their child. In regards to their properties and debts, under their Private laws, each partner are considered to have joint property and considered joint debt. As for property taxes and income taxes, the couple may also take advantage of lower tax rates in certain circumstances which depends on their monthly earnings and salary as individuals. Article 5 of Wet Inkomstenbelasting 2001 provided income tax legislation which assumes that when there is 4% profit on savings and investments, a 30% tax is imposed on this 4% profit. The fact that a relationship can result in a lower property tax follows, no tax is imposed over the first circa EUR 19.000 owned. This changes in marriage, in which registered partnership or informal cohabitation, such amount can be doubled for one of the partners if the other partner is willing to forgo that tax-free threshold. If the latter owns less than circa EUR 19.000, this will result in a lower tax for the couple as a whole. Same-sex couples are also entitled with other legal consequences that different-sex couples have. Among these are entitlement of statutory protection against other partner violence and abuse, legality of organ donation to partner, legally obtaining citizenship of foreign partners and their residence permit with restrictions, and even with testamentary succession. They have also raised the Anti-Discrimination Legislation which prerogative is to prohibit discrimination on many grounds, including sexualorientation and civil status against employers and service providers.  According to the text of Article 7, almost all forms of commercial, professional or public provision of services are covered, including services provided by institutions in the field of housing, welfare, health care, culture and education.

Same-sex marriages has also been long recognized in Canada. Statistics show that of the 72,880 same-sex couples counted in Canada last year, 24,370 of them were married – more than three times the number of married same-sex couples enumerated in 2006. Same-sex couples in general grew in number by just 61 per cent over the same period. That said, marriage brings material benefits, including legal protections, tax advantages and workplace benefits. It can also bestow “cultural legibility,” said Catungal, a journalist.

The only firm conclusion to be drawn from these studies shows inexistence of negative impacts of passage of same-sex marriage in Netherlands and Canada. Purely, equality is the main concern raised by  both states to finally approve the petition of same-sex couples towards a legal recognition of marriage. Both may have experienced flurry of gay marriage lawsuits, debates and arguments due to divided hearts of legislators and citizens in the subject of same-sex marriage, yet what prevails was shown to be in favor of the prayer of the majority. The immediate effects of law amendments has been outdone in the long run, following social, economic and legal changes in the society.

B. Same Sex Marriage in the Philippine Context

Philippines has a strong and ongoing debate of legality of marriage towards same-sex couples. The religious principles, culture and social acceptance, and marriage provisions of the Family Code of the Philippines were the main hindrances that dismisses the petition of LGBT community in the country of making same-sex couple relationships legal in the eyes of law. As of now, the Philippines does not recognize same-sex relationships or same-sex marriages between its citizens. The Family Code defines marriage as “a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman.” It further provides as one of the essential requisites that the contracting parties “must be a male and a female.” It thus clearly prohibits same-sex couples from entering into a contract of marriage. The same law mentions homosexuality and lesbianism, but only as grounds to annul a marriage or to allow legal separation. From this provision, it is thus clear that the law on marriage only allows marriage between a man and a woman, not man and a man nor a woman and a woman. Moreover, article 2 of the Family Code that it is one of the legal impediments in a marriage which makes it void ab initio. Article 26 discusses marriages that where they were validly celebrated is also recognized as valid in our country. This provision is with certain exceptions, such when the marriage is against public policy. Same-sex marriage is considered as marriage against public policy, hence considered as invalid in our country.

However, the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the supreme law of the land, neither discriminates nor prohibits same-sex marriage. It provided only for the significance of marriage, such that marriage, “as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.” This is what most lawmakers contend. The constitution as the fundamental law of the land where all laws must bow down to, does not even prohibit same sex marriage. Thus, there is no impediment against legalizing same-sex marriage in the Philippines.

Chapter IV – Results and Discussions

From the foregoing discussions in the preceding article and based from different researches on laws and jurisprudence, it was shown that there is no impediment in legalizing same-sex marriage in the Philippines. If we based it on the provisions of the Civil Code, it is clear that marriage between two same-sexed people is a legal impediment and is abominable in this state. However, the Constitution, being the supreme law of the land, wherein all laws should agree with, should prevail, support and protect the equality of every individual to life, liberty and property, does not inhibit the said conduct. Hence, it is highly probable to implement a law to allow same-sex marriage and to give the LGBT community to all privilege that a married person could have.

However, there needs to be an enabling law redefining, and changing the parties who may contract, marriage. LGBT community still contends that they felt bereft of anti-discriminatory laws. In 2001, an anti-discrimination bill banning discrimination based on sexual orientation was unanimously approved by the House but it was stalled in the Senate, and ultimately died. A country report initiated by the United Nations Development Program highlighted the fact that while the Philippines is a signatory to many relevant international covenants promoting human rights, the rights of the LGBT community are not always supported by the state. Without marriage, same-sex couples suffer from substantially lesser rights compared to heterosexual couples. There are legal issues involving the former’s adoption and custody of children, hospital and prison visitation rights, management and transfer of properties, medical and burial decisions, and entitlement to insurance proceeds. Same-sex couples resort to certain legal, albeit limited, approaches to legitimize their union — adoption, which is allowed if done by a single LGBT person; business partnership, to jointly own properties; and a special power of attorney, to name a few.

Same-sex marriage is an issue that is still heavily debated upon. Grounds raised against it range from moral to legal. However, the legal impediment against same-sex marriage can be cured by legislation. There is no absolute prohibition against legitimizing — at least, civilly — unions between two Filipinos of the same sex. Hence, it is legally feasible for the legislative branch of the government — the Congress and the Senate — to enact a law which legalizes same-sex marriage in the Philippines.

Chapter V – Conclusion and recommendation

The researchers, therefore finds that same sex marriage is only beneficial to the citizens of same-sex relationship. Although a lot of Filipino citizen willingly accept the relationship of same sex couples, the probability that same sex marriage will be allowed here in the Philippines is for now highly impossible. One main reason is that, the Philippines is a Catholic country and legalizing same sex marriage weakens and contradicts the teachings as well as the doctrines of the Church which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Another reason is that it would ruin the concept of a family. In a normal set up, a family is composed of a father, a mother and a child or children. Father Marcos Gonzales once said, “the Church says that homosexuals should be treated with love and respect but redefining the natural and divine institution of marriage is simply something we are not able to do.” On the bright side, the Philippines is not closing its doors for the changes that may happen in the near future. Especially that the Filipino citizens always go with what we call is “uso” or trending.

The researchers recommend that the citizen of the Philippines reading this to consider the disadvantages and advantages of the adoption of same sex marriage. The legislators should also make the definition of marriage and equal rights in our constitution clear to avoid confusion and conflict involving the rights and privileges of the people. It should also be followed by the proper interpretation of the judiciary.

References :

Sta. Maria, Melencio S., “Persons and Family Law”

Other Countries Where Same-Sex Marriage is Legal. Retrieved from https://www.theweek.co.uk/lgbt-rights/97859/countries-where-gay-marriage-is-legal

The State of LGBT Human Rights Worldwide. Retrieved from https://www.amnestyusa.org/the-state-of-lgbt-rights-worldwide/

Philstar (2018). Palace: Too Soon For Same-Sex Marriage in the Philippines. Retrieved from https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/06/21/1826671/palace-too-soon-same-sex-marriage-philippines

Tan, Rebecca ( 2017). In the fight for gay marriage in the Philippines, Duterte could be an unlikely ally. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/06/19/in-the-fight-for-gay-marriage-in-the-philippines-duterte-could-be-an-unlikely-ally/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.01bdea9ad0ed

Thoreson, Ryan (2018). Philippine Supreme Court Considers Same-Sex Marriage. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/06/19/philippine-supreme-court-considers-same-sex-marriage

Hojilla, Kate Aubrey (2017). Same-sex marriage and its legal hindrance in the Philippines. Retrieved from http://www.accralaw.com/publications/same-sex-marriage-and-its-legal-hindrance-philippines-0

Nussbaum, Martha (2009). A Right to Marry? Same-sex Marriage and Constitutional Law. Retrieved from https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/a-right-to-marry-same-sex-marriage-and-constitutional-law

Encyclopaedia Britannica. Same-Sex Marriage. Retrieved from

https://www.britannica.com/topic/same-sex-marriage

(2018). Should Homosexual Marriage be Legalized?. Retrieved from https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/family-law/should-homosexual-marriage-be-legalized-law-essay.php

(2018). Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships. Retrieved from

(2015). Same-Sex Marriage Laws. Retrieved  from http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/same-sex-marriage-laws.aspx

(2018).  Chronology of Same-sex Marriage Bills Introduced into the federal parliament. Retrieved from https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1718/Quick_Guides/SSMarriageBills

Researchers:

Allyanna Patrisha T. Magbanua

Crystine Senadre

Share this:

Published by Jocelle Batapa Sigue

ATTY. JOCELLE BATAPA-SIGUE • Named as one of The Outstanding Women in Nation’s Service of the Philippines or TOWNS for 2016 in the field of Information and Communications Technology or ICT • Positions: Past Vice President (2018) and Past President (2010-2012) and Past Trustee (2013-2017) of the National ICT Confederation of the Philippines or NICP • Founder, Former President and Current Executive Director of the Bacolod-Negros Occidental Federation for ICT or BNEFIT • Served for 3 terms as councilor of Bacolod City • Chosen as one of Asia Society Top Ten Philippines 21 Young Leaders in 2009 • Chosen as the Eisenhower Fellow of the Philippines in 2012 • Awarded as Philippine Individual Contributor of the Year during the International ICT Awards given by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and Industry in the Philippines View all posts by Jocelle Batapa Sigue

Leave a comment Cancel reply

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Perceived psychosocial impacts of legalized same-sex marriage: A scoping review of sexual minority adults’ experiences

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation College of Health and Human Sciences, San José State University, San José, California, United States of America

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation School of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley, California, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation School of Nursing, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America

Roles Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Political Science and Gender and Women’s Studies, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, United States of America

Affiliation Educational, Counseling and School Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, United States of America

Affiliation Center for Human Sexuality Studies, Widener University, Chester, Pennsylvania, United States of America

Affiliation Department of Psychology, Palo Alto University, Palo Alto, California, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation School of Nursing & Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, United States of America

• Laurie A. Drabble, 
• Angie R. Wootton, 
• Cindy B. Veldhuis, 
• Ellen D. B. Riggle, 
• Sharon S. Rostosky, 
• Pamela J. Lannutti, 
• Kimberly F. Balsam, 
• Tonda L. Hughes

• Published: May 6, 2021
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249125
• Reader Comments

A growing body of literature provides important insights into the meaning and impact of the right to marry a same-sex partner among sexual minority people. We conducted a scoping review to 1) identify and describe the psychosocial impacts of equal marriage rights among sexual minority adults, and 2) explore sexual minority women (SMW) perceptions of equal marriage rights and whether psychosocial impacts differ by sex. Using Arksey and O’Malley’s framework we reviewed peer-reviewed English-language publications from 2000 through 2019. We searched six databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, JSTOR, and Sociological Abstracts) to identify English language, peer-reviewed journal articles reporting findings from empirical studies with an explicit focus on the experiences and perceived impact of equal marriage rights among sexual minority adults. We found 59 studies that met our inclusion criteria. Studies identified positive psychosocial impacts of same-sex marriage (e.g., increased social acceptance, reduced stigma) across individual, interpersonal (dyad, family), community (sexual minority), and broader societal levels. Studies also found that, despite equal marriage rights, sexual minority stigma persists across these levels. Only a few studies examined differences by sex, and findings were mixed. Research to date has several limitations; for example, it disproportionately represents samples from the U.S. and White populations, and rarely examines differences by sexual or gender identity or other demographic characteristics. There is a need for additional research on the impact of equal marriage rights and same-sex marriage on the health and well-being of diverse sexual minorities across the globe.

Citation: Drabble LA, Wootton AR, Veldhuis CB, Riggle EDB, Rostosky SS, Lannutti PJ, et al. (2021) Perceived psychosocial impacts of legalized same-sex marriage: A scoping review of sexual minority adults’ experiences. PLoS ONE 16(5): e0249125. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249125

Editor: Peter A. Newman, University of Toronto, CANADA

Received: September 9, 2020; Accepted: March 11, 2021; Published: May 6, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Drabble et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: Dr. Drabble and Dr. Trocki are supported by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R03MD011481 ( https://www.nimhd.nih.gov/ ). Dr. Veldhuis’ participation in this research was made possible through an NIH/NIAAA Ruth Kirschstein Postdoctoral Research Fellowship (F32AA025816; PI C. Veldhuis). Dr. Hughes is funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01 AA0013328, https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/ ). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Legalization of same-sex marriage represents one important step toward advancing equal rights for sexual and gender minorities. Over the past two decades same-sex marriage has become legally recognized in multiple countries around the world. Between 2003 and mid-2015, same-sex couples in the United States (U.S.) gained the right to marry in 37 of 50 states. This right was extended to all 50 states in June 2015, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex couples in all U.S. states had equal marriage rights. As of October 2019, same-sex couples had the right to marry in 30 countries and territories around the world [ 1 ].

National laws or policies that extend equal marriage rights to same-sex couples signal a reduction in structural stigma and have the potential to positively impact the health and well-being of sexual minorities. Structural stigma refers to norms and policies on societal, institutional and cultural levels that negatively impact the opportunities, access, and well-being of a particular group [ 2 ]. Forms of structural stigma that affect sexual minorities—such as restrictions on same-sex marriage—reflect and reinforce the social stigma against non-heterosexual people that occurs at individual, interpersonal, and community levels [ 3 ]. According to Hatzenbuehler and colleagues, structural stigma is an under-recognized contributor to health disparities among stigmatized populations [ 4 – 6 ], and reductions in structural stigma can improve health outcomes among sexual minorities [ 7 , 8 ].

Marriage is a fundamental institution across societies and access to the right to marry can reduce sexual-minority stigma by integrating sexual minority people more fully into society [ 9 ]. Same-sex marriage also provides access to a wide range of tangible benefits and social opportunities associated with marriage [ 9 , 10 ]. Despite the benefits of marriage rights, sexual minorities continue to experience stigma-related stressors, such as rejection from family or community, and discrimination in employment and other life spheres [ 11 ]. In addition, reactions to same-sex marriage appear to differ among sexual minorities and range from positive to ambivalent [ 11 – 13 ]. Extending marriage rights to same-sex couples remedies only one form of structural stigma. Although legalization of same-sex marriage represents a positive shift in the social and political landscape, the negative impact of social stigma may persist over time. For example, a recent Dutch study found that despite 20 years of equal marriage rights, sexual minority adolescents continue to show higher rates of substance use and lower levels of well-being than their heterosexual peers [ 14 ]. This study underscores the importance of understanding the complex impact of stigma at the structural, community, interpersonal, and individual levels.

Impact on sexual minority health

A growing body of literature, using different methods from diverse countries where same-sex marriage has been debated or adopted, provides important insights into the impact of equal marriage rights on the health and well-being of sexual minority individuals. Research to date has consistently found that legal recognition of same-sex marriage has a positive impact on health outcomes among sexual and gender minority populations [ 15 – 20 ]. Studies in the U.S. have found evidence of reduced psychological distress and improved self-reported health among sexual minorities living in states with equal marriage rights compared to those living in states without such rights [ 5 , 21 – 23 ]. One state-specific study also found improved health outcomes for sexual minority men after legalization of same-sex marriage [ 24 ]. Furthermore, sexual minorities living in states that adopted, or were voting on, legislation restricting marriage recognition to different-sex couples reported higher rates of alcohol use disorders and psychological distress compared to those living in states without such restrictions [ 5 , 25 – 31 ]. Consistent with research in the U.S., findings from research in Australia on marriage restriction voting, found that sexual minorities living in jurisdictions where a majority of residents voted in support of same-sex marriage reported better overall health, mental health, and life satisfaction than sexual minorities in locales that did not support same-sex marriage rights [ 32 ].

Although existing literature reviews have documented positive impacts of equal marriage rights on physical and mental health outcomes among sexual minority individuals [ 15 – 20 ], to our knowledge no reviews have conducted a nuanced exploration of the individual, interpersonal, and community impacts of legalized same-sex marriage. An emerging body of quantitative and qualitative literature affords a timely opportunity to examine a wide range of psychosocial impacts of equal marriage rights. Understanding these impacts is important to guide and interpret future research about the potential protective health effects of same-sex marriage.

Potential differences between SMW and SMM

Given the dearth of research focusing on the health and well-being of sexual minority women (SMW), especially compared to the sizable body of research on sexual minority men (SMM) [ 33 , 34 ], there is a need to explore whether the emerging literature on same-sex marriage provides insights about potential differences in psychosocial impacts between SMW and SMM. Recent research underscores the importance of considering SMW’s perspectives and experiences related to same-sex marriage. For example, gendered social norms play out differently for women and men in same-sex and different-sex marriages, and interpersonal dynamics and behaviors, including those related to coping with stress, are influenced by gender socialization [ 35 ]. However, there is little research about how societal-level gender norms and gendered social constructions of marriage may be reflected in SMW’s perceptions of same-sex marriage. Structural sexism (e.g., gendered power and resource inequality at societal and institutional levels) differentially impacts women’s and men’s health [ 36 ], and may also contribute to sex differences in experiences and impacts of same-sex marriage. For example, research from the U.S. suggests that same-sex marriage rights may improve health outcomes and access to healthcare for SMM, but evidence is less robust for SMW [ 37 – 39 ]. Differences in health outcomes appear to be at least partially explained by lower socioeconomic status (income, employment status, perceived financial strain) among SMW compared to SMM [ 40 ]. Further, other psychosocial factors may contribute to differential experiences of legalized same-sex marriage. For example, a study of older sexual minority adults in states with equal marriage rights found that married SMW experienced more LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer) microaggressions than single SMW, but no differences by relationship status were noted among SMM [ 41 ]. Mean number of microaggressions experienced by SMW in partnered unmarried relationships fell between, but were not significantly different from, that of married and single SMW.

Theoretical framework

Social-ecological and stigma theoretical perspectives were used as the framework for organizing literature in this review (See Fig 1 ). Stigma occurs and is experienced by sexual minorities at individual, interpersonal, and structural levels, which mirror the levels of focus within the social-ecological framework [ 6 , 42 ]. Consequently, changes such as extending equal marriage rights to same-sex couples may influence sexual minorities’ experiences of stigma across all of these levels [ 43 ]. Gaining access to the institution of marriage is distinct from marital status (or being married) and likely impacts sexual minority adults across individual, interpersonal, and community contexts [ 44 ], regardless of relationship status.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249125.g001

From a social-ecological perspective, individual and interpersonal processes can amplify or weaken the impact of structural level policies, such as equal marriage rights, on sexual minority individuals’ health and well-being [ 43 , 45 , 46 ]. For example, on an individual level, experiences and perceptions of equal marriage rights may influence stigma-related processes such as internalized heterosexism, comfort with disclosure, and centrality of sexual identity [ 47 ]. Interpersonal and community level interactions may trigger stigma-related processes such as prejudice concerns, vigilance, or mistrust. Such processes may in turn, influence the impact of social policy change on sexual minority stress and well-being [ 48 – 50 ].

The impact of equal marriage rights among sexual minority individuals may also be influenced by other social and political factors such as state- or regional-level social climate [ 50 – 52 ], or inconsistency among other policy protections against discrimination (e.g., in housing or public accommodations) [ 11 , 50 ]. Sociopolitical uncertainty may continue long after the right to marry is extended to same-sex couples [ 53 , 54 ]. Monk and Ogolsky [ 44 ] define political uncertainty as a state of “having doubts about legal recognition bestowed on individuals and families by outside systems; being unsure about social acceptance of marginalized relationships; being unsure about how ‘traditional’ social norms and roles pertain to marginalized relationships or how alternative scripts might unfold” (p. 2).

Current study

The overall aim of this scoping review was to identify and summarize existing literature on psychosocial impacts of equal marriage rights among sexual minority adults. Specific objectives were to: 1) identify and describe the psychosocial impacts of equal marriage rights on sexual minority adults; and 2) explore SMW-specific perceptions of equal marriage rights and whether psychosocial impacts differ for SMM and SMW.

Study design

We used a scoping review approach, as it is well-suited for aims designed to provide a descriptive overview of a large and diverse body of literature [ 55 ]. Scoping reviews have become a widely used approach for synthesizing research evidence, particularly in health-related fields [ 55 ]. Scoping reviews summarize the range of research, identify key characteristics or factors related to concepts, and identify knowledge gaps in particular areas of study [ 56 , 57 ]. By contrast, systematic reviews are more narrowly focused on creating a critically appraised synthesized answer to a particular question pertinent to clinical practice or policy making [ 57 ]. We aimed to characterize and summarize research related to psychosocial impacts of equal marriage rights and same-sex marriage, including potential gaps in research specific to SMW. Following Arksey and O’Malley [ 56 ], the review was conducted using the following steps: 1) identifying the research question, 2) identifying relevant studies, 3) selecting studies, 4) charting the data, and 5) collating, summarizing and reporting results. Because this is a scoping review, it was not registered with PROSPERO, an international registry for systematic reviews.

Selection method

The authors used standard procedures for conducting scoping reviews, including following PRISMA guidelines [ 58 ]. Articles that report findings from empirical studies with an explicit focus on the psychosocial impacts of equal marriage rights and same-sex marriage on sexual minority adults are included in this review. All database searches were limited to studies in English language journals published from 2000 through 2019 (our most recent search was executed in June 2020). This time frame reflects the two decades since laws regarding same-sex marriage began to change in various countries or jurisdictions within countries. Literature review articles and commentaries were excluded. To ensure that sources had been vetted for scientific quality by experts, only articles in peer-reviewed journals were included; books and research in the grey literature (e.g., theses, dissertations, and reports) were excluded. There was no restriction on study location. A librarian searched PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Web of Science, JSTOR, and Sociological Abstracts databases using combinations of key search terms. Following is an example of the search terms used in CINAHL database searches: ((TI "marriage recognition" OR AB "marriage recognition") OR (TI marriage OR AB marriage) OR (TI same-sex OR AB same-sex) OR (TI "same sex" OR AB "same sex")) AND ((TI LGBT OR AB LGBT) OR (TI gay OR AB gay) OR (TI lesbian OR AB lesbian) OR (TI bisexual OR AB bisexual) OR (TI transgender OR AB transgender) OR (TI Obergefell OR AB Obergefell) OR (TI "sexual minorities" OR AB "sexual minorities))

Articles were selected in two stages of review. In stage one, the first author and librarian independently screened titles and abstracts for inclusion or exclusion using eligibility criteria. We excluded articles focused solely on the impact of relationship status on health outcomes, satisfaction or dynamics within marriage relationships, or the process of getting married (e.g., choices of who to invite, type of ceremony), or other topics that did not pertain directly to the research aims. For example, a study about the impact of getting married that also included themes pertaining to the impact or meaning of equal marriage rights was included in the full review. The first author and a librarian met to review and resolve differences and, in cases where relevance was ambiguous, articles underwent a full-text review (in stage 2). Table 1 summarizes exclusion categories used in the title and abstract reviews.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249125.t001

In stage two, articles not excluded in stage one were retrieved for full-text review. Each article was independently reviewed by two authors to assess study relevance. Discrepancies related to inclusion were few (less than 10%) and resolved through discussion and consensus-building among the first four authors. This process resulted in an analytic sample of 59 articles (see Fig 2 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249125.g002

Table 2 provides an overview of characteristics of the studies included in this scoping review. Most were qualitative and most aggregated SMW and SMM in analyses. Only 14 studies explored differences in impact for SMW and SMM, or separately examined the specific perceptions and experiences of SMW. Although search terms were inclusive of transgender individuals, samples in the studies we reviewed rarely included or focused explicitly on experiences of transgender or gender nonbinary identified individuals. In studies that explicitly included transgender and nonbinary individuals, sample sizes were rarely large enough to permit examination of differences based on gender identity (e.g., survey samples with 2–3% representation of nonbinary or transgender individuals) [ 44 , 59 – 63 ]. Other studies recruiting sexual minorities may have included transgender and nonbinary individuals (who also identified as sexual minorities), but did not assess gender identity. Among studies in which participant race/ethnicity was reported, most included samples that were majority White.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249125.t002

Studies of the impact of legalized marriage on physical health were not excluded in the original search parameters; however, physical health has been addressed in prior reviews [ 15 – 20 ]. Further, because our research questions focused on psychosocial factors, we excluded studies on physical health unless they also addressed individual, interpersonal, or community psychosocial impacts of same-sex marriage legalization. Studies that focused on physical health impacts or access to health insurance were used only in the introduction.

Civil union was not explicitly included as a search parameter, but articles focusing on civil unions were captured in our search. Although civil unions are not equivalent to marriage, they often confer similar substantive legal rights. We included articles about civil union that explicitly pertained to our research question, such as a study that examined perceived stigma and discrimination before and after implementation of civil union legislation in one U.S. state [ 64 ], and excluded articles that did not (e.g., a study of relationship quality or longevity among same-sex couples in civil unions) [ 65 ].

A majority of the studies were conducted in the U.S. Of the 43 U.S. studies, 20 sampled from a single state, 10 included participants from multiple states, 12 used a national sample, and one had no human subjects (secondary analysis of legal cases). Of those sampling a single state, all focused on the impact of changes (or proposed changes) in same-sex marriage policy: 10 focused on Massachusetts (the first state in the U.S. to legalize same-sex marriage), two focused on Iowa, two on Vermont, and two on California. One article each included study participants from Nebraska, Oregon, Illinois, and a small (unnamed) non-metropolitan town in the Midwest.

Analysis method

We created a data extraction form to ensure consistency across team members in extracting key study information and characteristics including study design (e.g., quantitative, qualitative, or mixed method), location (e.g., country and/or region), sample (e.g., whether the study included or excluded SMW or SMM, assessed and reported race/ethnicity), and key results. Articles were also classified based on findings related to level of impact (e.g., individual, couple, family, community, or broader social attitudes toward LGBTQ+ individuals; see S1 Table ). A final category on significance/implications allowed reviewers to further identify and comment on major themes and relevance to the current review. Themes were then identified and organized using stigma and social-ecological frameworks.

Aim 1: Psychosocial impacts of same-sex marriage rights

Individual level impacts..

Although most studies about the impact of equal marriage rights have been conducted with couples or individuals in committed or married relationships, 15 studies in this review included sexual minority adults across relationship statuses. In general, studies examining the impact of equal marriage rights among sexual minorities suggest that equal access to marriage has a positive impact on perceptions of social acceptance and social inclusion regardless of relationship status [ 47 , 63 , 66 , 67 ]. For example, Riggle and colleagues [ 47 ] examined perceptions of sexual minority individuals in the U.S. during the period in which same-sex couples had equal marriage rights in some, but not all, U.S. states. Sexual minorities who resided in states with equal marriage rights reported less identity concealment, vigilance, and isolation than their peers in states without equal marriage rights. Similarly, using data from the longitudinal Nurses’ Health Study in the U.S., Charlton and colleagues [ 68 ] examined potential positive impacts of equal marriage rights on sexual identity disclosure. They found that participants living in states with any form of legal recognition of same-sex relationships (inclusive of marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships) were 30% more likely than those is states without legal recognition to consistently disclose a sexual minority identity across survey waves [ 68 ].

Researchers have documented ambivalence among sexual minority adults regarding the institution of marriage and whether same-sex marriage would impact other forms of structural or interpersonal stigma. Sexual minority participants in several studies expressed concern about continued interpersonal stigma based on sexual or gender identity, the limitations of marriage as a vehicle for providing benefits and protections for economically marginalized LGBTQ+ individuals, and the possibility that an increased focus on marriage would contribute to devaluing unmarried same-sex relationships [ 12 , 13 , 62 , 69 , 70 ]. Studies also documented concerns about marriage being inherently linked to heteronormative expectations and about assimilation to heterosexist cultural norms [ 60 , 69 , 71 ]. These concerns were summarized by Hull [ 69 ]: “The fact that LGBTQ respondents favor marriage more in principle (as a right) than in practice (as an actual social institution) suggests that marriage holds multiple meanings for them” (p. 1360).

Five studies explicitly examined racial/ethnic minority identities as a factor in individuals’ perceptions of same-sex marriage; one qualitative study focused exclusively on Black individuals in the U.S. [ 72 ] and the other four examined differences by race/ethnicity [ 64 , 66 , 67 , 73 ]. McGuffy [ 72 ] conducted in-depth interviews with 102 Black LGBT individuals about their perceptions of marriage as a civil rights issue before and after same-sex marriage was recognized nationally in the U.S. The study found that intersecting identities and experiences of discrimination related to racism, homophobia, and transphobia influenced personal views of marriage. For example, although most participants were supportive of equal marriage rights as a public good, many felt that the emphasis on marriage in social movement efforts overlooked other important issues, such as racism, economic injustice, and transgender marginalization.

The four other studies examining racial/ethnic differences in perceptions about whether equal marriage rights facilitated inclusion or reduced interpersonal stigma yielded mixed results. One found that residing in states with equal marriage rights was associated with greater feelings of acceptance among sexual minorities; however, White sexual minorities reported greater feelings of inclusion than participants of color [ 66 ]. By contrast, in a quasi-experiment in which SMW in a midwestern state were interviewed pre- or post- passage of civil union legislation, those interviewed after the legislation reported lower levels of stigma consciousness and perceived discrimination than those interviewed before the legislation; however, effects were stronger among SMW of color than among White SMW [ 64 ]. In a study of unmarried men in same-sex male couples, Hispanic/Latino men were more likely than non-Latino White participants to report perceived gains in social inclusion after equal marriage rights were extended to all U.S. states [ 67 ]. However, men who reported higher levels of minority stress (enacted and anticipated stigma as well as internalized homophobia) were less likely to show improvement in perceptions of social inclusion. Lee [ 73 ], using data from a national Social Justice Sexuality Project survey, found no statistical differences in Black, White and Latinx sexual minorities’ perceptions that equal marriage rights for same-sex couples had a moderate to major impact on their lives. In analyses restricted to Black participants, individuals with higher level of sexual minority identity salience reported significantly higher importance of equal marriage rights. Lee suggests that same-sex marriage was perceived by many study participants as a tool to gain greater acceptance in the Black community because being married is a valued social status.

Couple level impacts.

We identified 15 studies that focused on couples as the unit of analysis. Findings from studies of the extension of equal marriage rights in U.S. states suggest positive impacts among same-sex couples, including access to financial and legal benefits as well as interpersonal validation, such as perceptions of being viewed as a “real” couple and increased social inclusion [ 12 , 59 , 63 , 74 , 75 ]. Furthermore, couples in several studies described the potential positive impacts of legal recognition of their relationship on their ability to make joint decisions about life issues, such as having children and medical care [ 75 ]. Couples also described having a greater sense of security associated with financial (e.g., taxes, healthcare) and legal (e.g., hospital visitation) benefits and reduced stress in areas such as travel and immigration [ 75 ]. Collectively, these findings suggest that marriage rights were perceived to imbue individuals in same-sex relationships with a sense of greater security, stability, and safety due to the legal recognition and social legitimization of same-sex couples. Although equal marriage rights were perceived as an important milestone in obtaining civil rights and reducing institutional discrimination, concerns about and experiences of interpersonal stigma persisted [ 76 – 78 ]. The social context of legal same-sex marriage may create stress for couples who elect to not marry. For example, in a study of 27 committed, unmarried same-sex couples interviewed after the U.S. Supreme Court decision on Obergefell, couples who chose not to marry described feeling that their relationships were less supported and perceived as less committed [ 79 ].

Reports from the CUPPLES study, a national longitudinal study of same-sex couples in the U.S. from 2001 to 2014, provided a unique opportunity to examine the impact of different forms of legal recognition of same-sex relationships. In wave three of the study during 2013–2014, open-ended qualitative questions were added to explore how individuals in long-term committed partnerships perceived the extension of equal marriage rights in many U.S. states. Themes included awe about the historic achievement of a long-awaited civil rights goal, celebration and elation, and affirmation of minority sexual identity and relationships, but also fears of backlash against sexual minority rights [ 80 ]. Some individuals who divorced after institutionalization of the right to same-sex marriage reported shame, guilt, and disappointment—given that they and others had fought so hard for equal marriage rights [ 81 ].

Studies outside the U.S. have also found evidence of positive impacts of legal recognition of same-sex couple relationships (e.g., increased social recognition and social support), as well as potential concerns [ 82 – 86 ]. For example, in a study of couples from the first cohort of same-sex couples to legally marry in Canada, participants described marriage as providing them with language to describe their partner that was more socially understood and helping to decrease homophobic attitudes among the people around them [ 83 ]. Some couples said they could fully participate in society and that marriage normalized their lives and allowed them to “live more publicly.” Couples also discussed the safety, security, and increased commitment that came from marriage, and some felt that marriage opened up previously unavailable or unimagined opportunities, such as becoming parents. However, some participants noted that their marriage caused disjuncture in relationships with their family of origin, as marriage made the relationship feel too real to family members and made their sexual identities more publicly visible.

Family level impacts.

Seventeen studies examined the impact of equal marriage rights on sexual minority individuals’ or couples’ relationships with their families of origin. Although these studies predominately used cross-sectional survey designs, one longitudinal study included individuals in both different-sex and same-sex relationships before and after the U.S. Supreme Court decision that extended marriage rights to all states [ 44 ]. This study found that support from family members increased following national legalization of same-sex marriage [ 44 ]. A cross-sectional online survey of 556 individuals with same-sex partners in Massachusetts (the first U.S. state to extend equal marriage rights to same-sex couples), found that greater family support and acceptance of same-sex couples who married was associated with a stronger overall sense of social acceptance [ 66 ].

Other cross-sectional surveys found mixed perceptions of family support and feelings of social acceptance. For example, a study of 357 participants in long-term same-sex relationships found that perceived social support from family did not vary by state-level marriage rights or marital status [ 47 ]. However, living in a state with same-sex marriage rights was associated with feeling less isolated. The finding of no differences in perceived support might be partly explained by the fact that the sample included only couples in long-term relationships; older, long-term couples may rely less on support from their family of origin than younger couples [ 12 ].

In studies (n = 6) that included dyadic interviews with same-sex married couples [ 74 , 79 , 85 , 87 – 89 ], participants described a wide range of family members’ reactions to their marriage. These reactions, which emerged after same-sex marriage legalization, were typically described by couples as profoundly impactful. Couples who perceived increased family support and acceptance described these changes as triumphant [ 85 ], transformative [ 88 ], and validating [ 74 , 87 ]. Conversely, some same-sex couples reported feeling hurt and betrayed when familial reactions were negative or when reactions among family members were divided [ 85 , 87 , 89 ]. Findings from these and other studies suggest that if certain family members were accepting or rejecting prior to marriage, they tended to remain so after equal marriage rights and/or the couple’s marriage [ 61 , 74 , 90 , 91 ]. In some cases, family members were perceived as tolerating the same-sex relationship but disapproving of same-sex marriage [ 85 , 90 ].

Findings from studies of married sexual minority people suggest that family (especially parental) disapproval was a challenge in the decision to get married [ 92 ], possibly because disclosure of marriage plans by same-sex couples frequently disrupted family “privacy rules” and long-time patterns of sexual identity concealment within families or social networks [ 87 ]. In a few studies, same-sex partners perceived that their marriage gave their relationship more legitimacy in the eyes of some family members, leading to increased support and inclusion [ 61 , 66 , 89 – 91 ]. Further, findings from two studies suggested that participating in same-sex weddings gave family members the opportunity to demonstrate support and solidarity [ 87 , 93 ].

Two qualitative studies collected data from family members of same-sex couples. In one, heterosexual siblings (all of whom were in different-sex marriages) described a range of reactions to marriage equality—from support for equal marriage rights to disapproval [ 80 ]. The other study interviewed sexual minority migrants to sexual minority friendly countries in Europe who were married and/or raising children with a same-sex partner, and these migrant’s parents who lived in Central and Eastern European countries that prohibited same-sex marriage. Parents found it difficult to accept their adult child’s same-sex marriage, but the presence of grandchildren helped to facilitate acceptance [ 94 ].

Community level impacts.

Twelve studies in this review examined the community-level impacts of same-sex marriage. These studies focused on community level impacts from two perspectives: impacts of equal marriage rights on LGBTQ+ communities, and the impacts of equal marriage rights on LGBTQ+ individuals’ interactions with their local communities or extended social networks.

LGBTQ+ communities . A prominent theme among these studies was that marriage is beneficial to LGBTQ+ communities because it provides greater protection, recognition, and acceptance of sexual minorities, their families, and their relationships—even beyond the immediate impact on any individual and their relationship or marriage [ 12 , 62 , 89 , 95 ]. Despite these perceived benefits, studies have found that some sexual minority adults view marriage as potentially harmful to LGBTQ+ communities because of concerns about increased assimilation and mainstreaming of LGBTQ+ identities [ 12 , 50 , 62 ], stigmatizing unmarried relationships [ 62 ], and weakening of unique and valued strengths of LGBTQ+ culture [ 12 ]. For example, Bernstein, Harvey, and Naples [ 96 ] interviewed 52 Australian LGBTQ+ activists and legislators who worked alongside activists for equal marriage rights. These authors described the “assimilationist dilemma” faced by activists: a concern that gaining acceptance into the mainstream societal institution of marriage would lessen the salience of LGBTQ+ identity and ultimately diminish the richness and strength of LGBTQ+ communities. Another downside of the focus on marriage as a social movement goal was the concern about reinforcing negative heteronormative aspects of marriage rather than challenging them [ 95 ].

Four studies explicitly examined possible community level impacts of same-sex marriage. In a mixed-methods study with 115 LGBTQ+ individuals in Massachusetts, participants reported believing that increased acceptance and social inclusion as a result of equal marriage rights might lessen reliance on LGBTQ+-specific activism, events, activities, and venues for social support [ 13 ]. However, a majority of study participants (60%) reported participating in LGBTQ+-specific events, activities, or venues “regularly.” A few studies found evidence of concerns that the right to marry could result in marriage being more valued than other relationship configurations [ 12 , 62 , 79 ].

Local community contexts and extended social networks . Studies examining the impact of same-sex marriage on sexual minority individuals’ interactions with their extended social networks and in local community contexts yielded mixed results. In an interview study with 19 same-sex couples living in the Netherlands, Badgett [ 66 ] found that LGBTQ+ people experienced both direct and indirect increases in social inclusion in their communities and extended social networks as a result of equal marriage rights. For example, direct increases in social inclusion included people making supportive comments to the couple and attending their marriage ceremonies; examples of indirect increases included same-sex spouses being incorporated into family networks [ 66 ]. Other studies found mixed or no change in support for LGBTQ+ people and their relationships. Kennedy, Dalla, and Dreesman [ 61 ] collected survey data from 210 married LGBTQ+ individuals in midwestern U.S. states, half of whom were living in states with equal marriage rights at the time of data collection. Most participants did not perceive any change in support from their community/social network following legalization of same-sex marriage; other participants reported an increase or mixed support from friends and co-workers. Similarly, Wootton and colleagues interviewed 20 SMW from 15 U.S. states and found positive, neutral, and negative impacts of same-sex marriage on their interactions in work and community contexts [ 50 ]. Participants perceived increased positivity about LGBTQ+ issues and more accepting attitudes within their extended social networks and local communities, but also reported hearing negative comments about sexual minority people more frequently and experiencing continued sexual orientation-based discrimination and stigma [ 50 ]. Many SMW reported feeling safer and having more positive conversations after Obergefell, but also continued to have concerns about being out at work as a sexual minority person [ 50 ].

Two studies examined the experiences of LGBTQ+ people in U.S. states in which same-sex marriage restrictions were decided by voters through ballot measures. These studies documented mixed impacts on participants’ interactions with extended social networks and community. Maisel and Fingerhut [ 28 ] surveyed 354 sexual minority adults in California immediately before the vote to restrict recognition of marriage to one man and one woman in the state (Proposition 8) and found that about one-third experienced interactions with social network members that were positive, whereas just under one-third were negative, and the rest were either mixed or neutral. Overall, sexual minority people reported more support than conflict with extended social network members and heterosexual community members over the ballot measure, with friends providing the most support [ 28 ]. Social support and solidarity from extended social network members in the face of ballot measures to restrict marriage recognition were also reported in an interview study of 57 same-sex couples residing in one of seven U.S. states that had passed marriage restriction amendments in 2006 [ 97 ]. However, some LGBTQ+ people also experienced condemnation and avoidance in their extended social networks [ 97 ].

Societal level impacts.

Sixteen studies examined ways that same-sex marriage influenced societal attitudes about sexual minority individuals or contributed to additional shifts in policies protecting the rights of sexual minority individuals. Findings suggested that the right of same-sex couples to marry had a positive influence on the political and socio-cultural context of sexual minorities’ lives. For example, changes in laws may influence social attitudes or result in LGBTQ positive policy diffusion across states (jurisdictions). There is debate over whether legal changes, such as equal marriage rights, create or are simply reflective of changes in social attitudes toward a group or a social issue [ 98 ]. Flores and Barclay [ 98 ] theorize four different socio-political responses to changes in marriage laws: backlash, legitimacy, polarization, and consensus. Some scholars argue that changes in law are unlikely to impact social attitudes (consensus), while others argue that legal changes influence the political and social environment that shapes social attitudes. Possible effects range from decreased support for sexual minorities and attempts to rescind rights (backlash) to greater support for the rights of sexual minorities and possible future expansion of rights and protections (legitimacy).

Findings from research generally suggest a positive relationship between same-sex marriage and public support for the overall rights of sexual minorities (legitimacy), and mixed results related to changes in mass attitudes (consensus) [ 98 – 106 ]. For example, in a panel study in Iowa before and after a state Supreme Court ruling in favor of equal marriage rights, Kreitzer and colleagues found that the change in law modified registered voters’ views of the legitimacy of same-sex marriage and that some respondents felt “pressure” to modify or increase their expressed support [ 102 ]. Similarly, Flores and Barclay [ 98 ] found that people in a state with equal marriage rights showed a greater reduction in anti-gay attitudes than people in a state without equal marriage rights. Studies based on data from European countries also found that more positive attitudes toward sexual minorities were associated with equal marriage rights; improvements in attitudes were not evident in countries without equal marriage rights [ 9 , 105 , 106 ].

There is some evidence to support the third possible socio-political response to changes in marriage laws in Flores and Barclay’s model: increased polarization of the general public’s attitudes toward sexual minorities. Perrin, Smith, and colleagues [ 107 ], using successive-independent samples study of conservatives, moderates, and progressives across the U.S. found no overall changes in opinions attitudes about sexual minorities immediately after the Supreme Court decision extending equal marriage rights to all same-sex couples in the U.S. However, analyses by subgroup found that those who were conservative expressed more prejudice toward gay men and lesbians, less support for same-sex marriage, and less support for LGB civil rights immediately after the decision. Similarly, drawing on data from approximately one million respondents in the U.S. who completed implicit and explicit measures of bias against gay men and lesbian women (Project Implicit), Ofosu and colleagues [ 100 ] found that implicit bias decreased sharply following Obergefell. However, changes in attitudes were moderated by state laws; respondents in states that already had equal marriage rights for same-sex couples demonstrated decreased bias whereas respondents in states that did not yet have equal marriage rights evidenced increased bias [ 100 ]. Using data from the World Values Survey (1989–2014) in European countries, Redman [ 103 ] found that equal marriage rights were associated with increases in positive opinions about sexual minorities, but that the increase was driven largely by those who already held positive views.

Little support has been found for the hypothesis that the extension of equal marriage rights would be followed by a backlash of sharp negative shifts in mass attitudes and public policy [ 98 , 108 , 109 ]. For example, a general population survey in one relatively conservative U.S. state (Nebraska) found public support for same-sex marriage was higher after the Supreme Court ruling than before, suggesting no backlash in public opinion [ 108 ]. Similarly, Bishin and colleagues [ 109 ], using both an online survey experiment and analysis of data from a U.S. public opinion poll (National Annenberg Election Studies) before and after three relevant policy events, found little change in public opinion in response to simulated or actual policy changes.

Although equal marriage rights confer parental recognition rights, there are still legal challenges and disparate rulings and interpretations about some family law issues [ 77 , 110 , 111 ]. For example, some states in the U.S. have treated the parental rights of same-sex couples differently than those of different-sex (presumed heterosexual) couples. Both members of a same-sex couple have traditionally not been automatically recognized as parents of a child born or adopted within the relationship. However, the presumptions of parenthood after same-sex marriage was legalized have forced states to treat both members of same-sex couples as parents irrespective of method of conception or adoption status [ 112 ]. Still, results from a cross-national study of laws, policies, and legal recognition of same-sex relationships suggests that parental rights are recognized in some jurisdictions but not others [ 111 ].

Aim 2: SMW-specific findings and differences by gender

A total of 13 studies included in this review conducted SMW-specific analyses or compared SMW and SMM’s perceptions and experiences of same-sex marriage and equal marriage rights. In studies that included only SMW [ 50 , 64 , 68 , 77 , 81 , 86 , 89 , 91 ], findings emphasized the importance of relational and interpersonal impacts of same-sex marriage. Examples include creating safety for sexual identity disclosure and visibility [ 68 , 81 ], providing legal protections in relation to partners and/or children [ 77 , 81 ], offering social validation [ 86 , 89 ], and reducing stigma in larger community contexts [ 50 , 64 ]. Relational themes centered on concerns and distress when experiencing rejection or absence of support from family members or extended social networks [ 50 , 81 , 86 , 89 , 91 ].

Two of the studies of SMW documented sexual identity and gender identity differences in interpersonal experiences associated with same-sex marriage [ 86 , 89 ]. Lannutti’s interview study of the experiences of 26 married or engaged SMW couples with different sexual identities (bisexual-lesbian couples) revealed how the right to marry made them feel more connected to LGBTQ+ communities through activism and being “counted” as a same-sex married couple. However, same-sex marriage made some bisexual women feel more invisible within LGBTQ+ communities [ 89 ]. Scott and Theron [ 86 ] found that married lesbian women and cisgender women partners of transmasculine individuals (i.e., masculine-identifying transgender individuals) faced different challenges as they navigated through gendered social expectations and made choices about conforming or rejecting heteronormativity.

Only five of the studies focusing on psychosocial impacts of equal marriage rights explicitly examined potential differences by sex [ 28 , 66 , 73 , 76 , 95 ]. Some studies found perceptions of greater social inclusion [ 66 ], or feelings of ambivalence (simultaneously holding positive, negative, and critical perspectives about marriage as an institution) [ 95 ] that were similar among SMW and SMM. Maisel and Fingerhut’s study of consequences of a state-level campaign to restrict marriage rights [ 28 ] showed that SMW and SMM experienced similar negative impacts on personal well-being and interactions with extended social networks. However, Lee found that, compared with Black SMM, Black SMW perceived same-sex marriage to have a larger impact on their lives [ 73 ]. Other studies found that SMW were more likely than SMM to report positive perceptions of same-sex marriage, possibly because they are more likely than SMM to have children and to be concerned about parental protections [ 73 , 95 ]. SMW and SMM may be differentially impacted by interpersonal stigma despite equal marriage rights. For example, one study found that SMW experienced higher levels of distress than SMM when their relationships were not treated as equal to heterosexuals’ [ 76 ].

Overall, findings from this scoping review suggest that psychosocial impacts of equal marriage rights among sexual minorities are apparent at all levels of our social-ecological and stigma framework. Sexual minority-specific stigma occurs on multiple levels (e.g., individual, interpersonal, and structural simultaneously and changes in social policies have cascading effects on sexual minority individuals’ experiences at each level. Generally, equal marriage rights had a positive impact on perceptions of social acceptance and social inclusion for sexual minority individuals, couples, and the LGBTQ+ community as a whole. However, many studies described mixed, ambivalent, or complicated perceptions of same-sex marriage, as well as stigmatizing interactions that were unaffected or exacerbated by equal marriage rights.

Although research does not unequivocally suggest the presence of a backlash in public opinion after equal marriage rights, there has been an increase in laws and policies at the U.S. state and federal levels that explicitly allow for religious-belief-based denial of services to sexual minority individuals and same-sex couples. For example, by 2017, 12 states in the U.S. enacted laws permitting the denial of services (e.g., allowing government officials to refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses, allowing magistrates to refuse to perform same-sex marriages, and permitting adoption and child welfare agencies to refuse same-sex couples’ adoption or fostering children) based on religious beliefs [ 113 ]. Research has documented negative health and psychological outcomes among sexual minorities living in U.S. states with policies that permit denial of services to sexual or gender minorities [ 114 , 115 ] and in states that do not have legal protections against discrimination [ 38 , 116 , 117 ]. Additional research is needed to examine how changes in local or national laws impact the health and well-being of sexual and gender minorities—particularly over the long term.

Gaps & future research needs

Research is limited in terms of examining how same-sex marriage may differentially impact sexual minority individuals based on sex, gender identity, or race/ethnicity. Only 14 studies included in this review addressed the psychosocial impacts of same-sex marriage among SMW. More research is needed to understand the unique experiences and psychosocial impact of same-sex marriage for SMW and SMM. Further, many study samples were largely homogenous and included an overwhelming majority of White participants. The few studies with substantial sample sizes of people of color, and that compared people of color to White people, found differences by race in perceived impact of same-sex marriage [ 64 , 67 , 73 ], demonstrating the need for additional work in this area.

There were also very few studies in this review that explored differences by sexual identity (e.g., monosexual vs. plurisexual), gender identity (e.g., transgender vs. cisgender), gender expression (e.g., masculine vs. feminine presentation), or differences based on sex/gender of participants’ partners. Although transgender and nonbinary individuals were included in eight studies, five provided only descriptive information and only three described any unique findings from transgender study participants. For example, McGuffey [ 72 ] found that transgender individuals who identified as heterosexual described same-sex marriage rights as less relevant than issues of gender identity and expression and Hull found that cisgender sexual minority men generally expressed more enthusiasm about marriage than both cisgender women and transgender individuals [ 69 ]. Transgender and nonbinary individuals who perceive positive impacts of equal marriage rights may still experience challenges in navigating heteronormative and cisnormative expectations [ 72 , 86 ]. Other qualitative studies documented concerns that LGBTQ+ advocacy efforts, once marriage rights were secured, might fail to address rights and protections for transgender and nonbinary individuals [ 62 , 69 ]. Future studies that include the voices of transgender and nonbinary individuals are needed to better understand perceptions across both sexual and gender identities [ 118 ].

There is limited research on immediate and extended family members’ perceptions of equal marriage rights. There is also a need for prospective studies that examine whether familial acceptance increases over time. Many studies did not account for differences in LGBTQ+ identity salience and connection to LGBTQ+ and other communities, which may influence differences in perceptions and reactions to same-sex marriage.

The majority of studies (43 of 59) we reviewed were conducted in the U.S. Eleven of these collected data after Obergefell (June 25, 2015). Only two used longitudinal research designs that included data collection before and after national same-sex marriage legalization [ 44 , 107 ]. The legal and social landscapes have changed since this time and there is a need for re-assessment of the impact of same-sex marriage over multiple future timepoints.

Limitations

Although this scoping review used a systematic approach and, to our knowledge, is novel in its focus on impact of equal marriage rights on sexual minorities’ personal lives, interpersonal relationships, and social/community contexts, we acknowledge several limitations. We did not conduct a search of grey literature (e.g., reports, policy literature, working papers) or books and, consequently, likely excluded some scholarly work aligned with our focus. Our inclusion criteria of only peer-reviewed studies may have led us to exclude dissertations that focus on emerging areas of research, such as differences by gender identity, sexual identity, or race and ethnicity. As with all scoping reviews, studies may have been missed because of the search strategy. For example, it is possible that relevant studies were indexed in databases not used in our review. We also restricted our review to English language literature, excluding potentially relevant studies published in other languages. Studies in other languages may provide useful insights from other countries where English is not widely used. Although we focused exclusively on empirical studies, we did not assess the quality of the studies. Findings of the review are also limited by the collective body of research questions, designs, and analyses that have been pursued. For example, as noted above, few studies explored psychosocial impacts of same-sex marriage among SMW or explored differences by sex; consequently we were limited in our ability to address our second research aim.

This scoping review identified and described psychosocial impacts of equal marriage rights among sexual minority adults and explored potential SMW-specific experiences and differences by sex. Our results highlight four points. First, equal marriage rights are associated with a wide range of positive impacts on the psychological and social well-being of sexual minority adults. Second, the potential positive impacts of equal marriage rights are amplified or weakened by the presence or absence of stigma in interpersonal interactions and in the larger political and social environment. Third, although there is a growing body of global research on the impact of same-sex marriage, most studies have been conducted in the U.S. Cross-cultural studies can improve understanding of individual, interpersonal, and community level impacts of same-sex marriage in different cultural contexts. Fourth, given indications of differences between SMW and SMM in perceived impact of same-sex marriage, there is a need for research that examines the specific perspectives of SMW and that explores possible differences in perspectives and experiences by sex. Research is also needed to understand differences based on race/ethnicity, gender identity, and age. The right of same-sex couples to marry does not merely address the concerns of sexual minorities, it aims to right a far bigger wrong: the exclusion of some individuals from one of the most important institutions in social life.

Supporting information

S1 table. articles included in scoping review on the psychosocial impact of equal marriage rights among sexual minority adults..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249125.s001

S1 Checklist. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249125.s002

S1 Text. Definitions.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249125.s003

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Karen F. Trocki for providing input during the initial conceptualization of this project. Our thanks to Carol A. Pearce, MLIS, who helped with finding records, removing duplicates, title and abstract review, and data management.

• 1. Pew Research Center. Same-sex marriage around the world. Fact Sheet [Internet]. 2019; (Oct 28). Available from: https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/gay-marriage-around-the-world/ .
• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 3. Herek GM. Sexual stigma and sexual prejudice in the United States: A conceptual framework. In: Hope DA, Editor. Contemporary perspectives on lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities. New York: Springer; 2009. p. 65–111.
• 10. Lannutti PJ. Experiencing same-sex marriage: Individual, couples, and social networks. New York: Peter Lang; 2014.
• 35. Umberson D, Kroeger RA. Gender, marriage, and health for same-sex and different-sex couples: The future keeps arriving. In: McHale SM, King V, Van Hook J, Booth A, editors. Gender and Couple Relationships. National Symposium on Family Issues, Vol 6. Switzerland: Springer International; 2016. p. 189–213.
• 37. Carpenter C, Eppink ST, Gonzales Jr G, McKay T. Effects of Access to Legal Same-Sex Marriage on Marriage and Health: Evidence from BRFSS. National Bureau of Economic Research; 2018. Contract No.: No. w24651.
• 113. Movement Advancement Project. Equality Maps: Religious Exemption Laws 2020 [Available from: https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/religious_exemption_laws .

RESPICIO & CO.

Legal status of same-sex marriage in the philippines: an overview.

The legal status of same-sex marriage in the Philippines remains a complex and evolving issue, reflecting broader socio-political and cultural debates within the country. As of now, same-sex marriage is not legally recognized in the Philippines. This stance is deeply rooted in the country's legal framework, societal norms, and the predominant religious beliefs, with the Roman Catholic Church playing a significant role in shaping public opinion and policy.

Constitutional and Legal Framework

The 1987 Philippine Constitution does not explicitly address the issue of marriage equality. However, the Family Code of the Philippines, enacted in 1987, specifies in Article 1 that "marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman." This definition inherently excludes the possibility of legal recognition for same-sex unions under current legislation.

Several attempts have been made to challenge and change these legal barriers. Notably, petitions have been filed with the Supreme Court seeking to legalize same-sex marriage. However, as of now, these efforts have not succeeded. In a landmark decision in 2015, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition for same-sex marriage on procedural grounds, stating that the petitioner lacked legal standing and that the case did not present an actual, justiciable controversy.

Legislative Attempts and Public Discourse

Efforts to introduce legislation that would recognize same-sex unions, if not marriage explicitly, have also been part of the ongoing discourse. Bills aiming to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples have been filed in Congress but have faced significant opposition and have not been enacted into law.

The debate over same-sex marriage in the Philippines is not solely a legal issue but also a cultural and moral one. Advocates for LGBTQ+ rights continue to push for recognition and equality, emphasizing human rights and non-discrimination. Opponents, including major religious institutions, argue from the perspective of tradition and religious doctrine.

Legal Considerations and Future Directions

The legal considerations surrounding the issue of same-sex marriage in the Philippines are multifaceted. They involve constitutional interpretations, the potential need for legislative change, and the influence of international human rights norms. The Philippines is a signatory to various international treaties that advocate for equality and non-discrimination, which supporters of same-sex marriage argue should compel the country to recognize marriage equality.

Furthermore, the legal status of same-sex marriage in the Philippines could be influenced by developments in international law and the legal precedents set by other countries. As more nations legalize same-sex marriage, there may be increased pressure on the Philippines to reconsider its stance.

In conclusion, while same-sex marriage currently lacks legal recognition in the Philippines, the debate continues to be a significant part of the country's socio-legal landscape. The issue encapsulates broader discussions about human rights, equality, and the role of law in reflecting or challenging prevailing social norms. The future legal status of same-sex marriage in the Philippines will likely depend on a combination of legal action, legislative change, and shifts in public opinion.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

Brill | Nijhoff

Brill | Wageningen Academic

Brill Germany / Austria

Böhlau

Brill | Fink

Brill | mentis

Brill | Schöningh

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

V&R unipress

Open Access

Open Access for Authors

Open Access and Research Funding

Open Access for Librarians

Open Access for Academic Societies

Discover Brill’s Open Access Content

Organization

Stay updated

Corporate Social Responsiblity

Investor Relations

Policies, rights & permissions

Review a Brill Book

Author Portal

How to publish with Brill: Files & Guides

Fonts, Scripts and Unicode

Publication Ethics & COPE Compliance

Data Sharing Policy

Brill MyBook

Ordering from Brill

Author Newsletter

Piracy Reporting Form

Sales Managers and Sales Contacts

Ordering From Brill

Titles No Longer Published by Brill

Catalogs, Flyers and Price Lists

E-Book Collections Title Lists and MARC Records

How to Manage your Online Holdings

LibLynx Access Management

Discovery Services

KBART Files

MARC Records

Online User and Order Help

Rights and Permissions

Latest Key Figures

Latest Financial Press Releases and Reports

Annual General Meeting of Shareholders

Share Information

Specialty Products

Press and Reviews

Share link with colleague or librarian

Stay informed about this journal!

• Get New Issue Alerts
• Get Advance Article alerts
• Get Citation Alerts

Weaponising Religious Freedom: Same-Sex Marriage and Gender Equality in the Philippines

This article spells out the ways in which religious freedom has been deployed against proponents of same-sex marriage and gender equality in the Philippines. While the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer ( LGBTQ ) community and allies have appealed to religious freedom to gain equal rights under the law, conservative Christian entities have fought back by invoking the same notion. They have appropriated religious freedom, which has historically been interpreted by the courts in favour of individual liberties, to defend majoritarian values surrounding sexuality. This article describes this move as the weaponisation of religious freedom in defence of the dominant religion and an assumed majority of Filipinos whose moral sensibilities are purportedly under attack. Towards the end, the article relates this weaponisation to the experience of the Catholic Church in the contemporary public sphere and the militant character of Christianity that continues to view the Philippines as a Christian nation.

Access options

Get access to the full article by using one of the access options below.

Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):

Other access options

Institutional Login

Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials

Personal login

Log in with your brill.com account

Content Metrics

Reference Works

Primary source collections

COVID-19 Collection

How to publish with Brill

Open Access Content

Contact & Info

Sales contacts

Publishing contacts

Stay Updated

Newsletters

Social Media Overview

Terms and Conditions  

Privacy Statement  

Cookie Settings  

Accessibility

Legal Notice

Terms and Conditions   |   Privacy Statement   |  Cookie Settings   |   Accessibility   |  Legal Notice   |  Copyright © 2016-2024

Copyright © 2016-2024

• [66.249.64.20|185.66.15.189]
• 185.66.15.189

Character limit 500 /500

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

Conventus Law

More results...

Same-Sex Marriage And Its Legal Hindrance In The Philippines.

June 26, 2017 by Conventus Law

26 June, 2017

Leading lawyer, judge, and writer Justice Robert A. Jackson once said: “[f]reedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.”

Touching the very heart of the existing order is the issue on same-sex marriage or — more accurately — unions. US-based Pew Research Center noted that the number of governments which consider granting legal recognition to same-sex marriage are growing. Around two dozen countries, mostly in Europe and the Americas, already allow same-sex marriage. However, as of date, a marriage or union between two Filipino citizens of the same sex is not legally recognized in the Philippines.

The issue once again found its way to national relevance after President Rodrigo Duterte’s pronouncement. Reversing his 2016 campaign promise to support legislation allowing same-sex marriage, President Duterte said that while he has no issue with anyone’s sexuality, he believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. He anchors this statement on Philippine laws, particularly Executive Order No. 209, otherwise known as “The Family Code of the Philippines,” which governs the law on marriage.

While President Duterte’s change of stance was widely criticized by rights groups, it was welcomed by the Roman Catholic Church, from which staunch opposition against same-sex marriage largely comes. Philippines is known as Asia’s bastion of Roman Catholicism and this heavily explains the church’s political influence over more than 80% of the population who are its members.

The Family Code defines marriage as “a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman.” It further provides as one of the essential requisites that the contracting parties “must be a male and a female.” It thus clearly prohibits same-sex couples from entering into a contract of marriage. The same law mentions homosexuality and lesbianism, but only as grounds to annul a marriage or to allow legal separation.

However, the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the supreme law of the land, neither discriminates nor prohibits same-sex marriage. It provided only for the significance of marriage, such that marriage, “as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.”

Thus, there is no impediment against legalizing same-sex marriage in the Philippines. However, there needs to be an enabling law redefining, and changing the parties who may contract, marriage.

Bills protecting the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) community, which include the legalization of same-sex civil marriage, are not among those which the House of Representatives prioritizes. As early as 18 years ago, a bill legalizing same-sex marriage was filed by former Representative Etta Rosales, but it never progressed from first reading. The same counterpart measure was sponsored by Senator Risa Hontiveros last year but it only also reached as far as first reading. Numerous anti-discrimination proposals have been served on the table but none of which was a success.

A country report initiated by the United Nations Development Program highlighted the fact that while the Philippines is a signatory to many relevant international covenants promoting human rights, the rights of the LGBT community are not always supported by the state.

It is a fact that same-sex activity is not criminalized in the Philippines and sexual orientation is mentioned in various laws. However, national legislation is bereft of anti-discriminatory laws which allow the LGBT community to fully exercise their fundamental rights to equality and non-discrimination. Though there are victories in the form of ordinances passed by local government units, such as Quezon City, Angeles, Cebu, Bacolod, and Davao, addressing discrimination against the LGBT community, there is not much to revel in terms of the latter’s opportunities to build a family.

Without marriage, same-sex couples suffer from substantially lesser rights compared to heterosexual couples. There are legal issues involving the former’s adoption and custody of children, hospital and prison visitation rights, management and transfer of properties, medical and burial decisions, and entitlement to insurance proceeds. Same-sex couples resort to certain legal, albeit limited, approaches to legitimize their union — adoption, which is allowed if done by a single LGBT person; business partnership, to jointly own properties; and a special power of attorney, to name a few.

In the landmark case of Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. COMELEC, no less than the highest court of the land recognizes “that practical solutions are preferable to ideological stalemates; accommodation is better than intransigence; reason more worthy than rhetoric. This will allow persons of diverse viewpoints to live together, if not harmoniously, then, at least, civilly.”

Same-sex marriage is an issue that is still heavily debated upon. Grounds raised against it range from moral to legal. However, the legal impediment against same-sex marriage can be cured by legislation. There is no absolute prohibition against legitimizing — at least, civilly — unions between two Filipinos of the same sex. Hence, it is legally feasible for the legislative branch of the government — the Congress and the Senate — to enact a law which legalizes same-sex marriage in the Philippines.

Our freedom to differ and, ultimately, our freedom to choose must not be limited by existing laws, especially when there is nothing that prohibits legislation accommodating legitimate calls for equality, which the Constitution itself enshrines.

For further information, please contact:  

Kate Aubrey G. Hojilla, Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz (ACCRALAW)

 [email protected]

Register for your monthly Asia legal updates from Conventus Law

Error: Contact form not found.

Philippines – DivinaLaw At The 2024 LAW AsiaPac Meeting.

Philippines – DivinaLaw Senior Partner Atty. Jay Layug Joins As A Panelist At ECCP’s Luncheon Meeting On PPP.

India – SEBI’s ESG Disclosure Mandates: Unveiling The Value Chain.

CONVENTUS LAW

CONVENTUS DOCS CONVENTUS PEOPLE

3/f, Chinachem Tower 34-37 Connaught Road Central, Central, Hong Kong

[email protected]

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

Medicine - Programa de Formaci?n M?dica Continuada Acreditado

C. Belda-iniesta

Environmental Science & Technology

Anna Harding

Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care

Shweta Hugar

Anticancer research

Mapy Pistillo

Alessandro Pascolini

Continuous Computing Technologies for Enhancing Business Continuity

Nijaz Bajgoric

Isaya Kapakala

Mary Gottschalk

Machrus Ali

Jurnal Samudra Bahasa

prima nucifera

Indrė Grudzinskaitė

The MIT Press eBooks

Rachel Berney

BMC Public Health

Gerry Mugford

Samakia : Jurnal Ilmu Perikanan

astik umiyah

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Mohamed Elashal

Azaibi Tamin

JAMA oncology

Hagazi Gebre Meles

ACS Open Access

Mamadou Kalan DIALLO

Cahiers philosophiques

Mélissa Thériault

Revista Brasileira de Política e Administração da Educação

vera peroni

Physical Review B

Giuseppe Santoro

Jurnal PLANS : Penelitian Ilmu Manajemen dan Bisnis

Armin Nasution

Casarrubias Hernández José Armando

Geotechnical Testing Journal

Andrew Tallin

Journal of food & industrial microbiology

Rachel Giese

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• français
•   BAHÁNDÌAN Home
• College of Law
• Juris Doctor

Feasibility of legalizing third sex marriages in the Philippines: Ethico-moral and legal implications

Thesis Adviser

Defense panel chair, share , description, suggested citation, shelf location, physical description, collections.

• Juris Doctor [144]

The following license files are associated with this item:

• Creative Commons

CPU Henry Luce III Library

EXTERNAL LINKS DISCLAIMER

This link is being provided as a convenience and for informational purposes only. Central Philippine University bears no responsibility for the accuracy, legality or content of the external site or for that of subsequent links. Contact the external site for answers to questions regarding its content.

If you come across any external links that don't work, we would be grateful if you could report them to the repository administrators .

Click DOWNLOAD to open/view the file. Chat Bertha to inform us in case the link we provided don't work.