Click the link above.
Excerpts:
"Notably, however, it might be argued that the legal obstacles to recognition of same-sex marriages lie only on a statutory and not a Constitutional level. The Constitution does state that “[t]he State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic social institution” (Article II, Section 12) and that “[m]arriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State” (Article XV, Section 2), but does not define what is and is not constitutive of a “marriage” from a legal standpoint. For example, it could be argued that simply amending the Family Code to define marriage as a special contract of permanent union “between two persons” (without distinction as to gender) does not violate the Constitution and would be sufficient to allow legal recognition to same-sex marriages (and also avoid the impression that the issue is limited to persons who wish to undergo sex reassignment surgery). (Of course, a progressive thinker might argue that the definition should be further amended to allow marriages among “two or more persons,” but that is a separate issue for another day.)
The Supreme Court seems inclined to think that the policy changes may take place on a statutory level—in Silverio, the Court observed that “[i]n our system of government, it is for the legislature, should it choose to do so, to determine what guidelines should govern the recognition of the effects of sex reassignment,” and recognized that “there are people whose preferences and orientation do not fit neatly into the commonly recognized parameters of social convention and that, at least for them, life is indeed an ordeal. However, the remedies petitioner seeks involve questions of public policy to be addressed solely by the legislature, not by the courts.”
