Indian Church refuses to endorse political party in election
Assam Christians outraged by Hindu leader’s “divisive” remarks
Moral theologians address challenges in biomedical ethics in India
Persecution of Christians has worsened around the globe, according to new study
Pope to Cardinals-elect: Keep your eyes raised, your hands joined, your feet bare
Tribal Christians avoid travel fearing attack in India’s Manipur
Pope Francis’ visit to Singapore ‘has revived the faith of our people,’ cardinal says
Cardinal Dolan: Harris received ‘bad advice’ to skip Catholic charity dinner
The Supreme Court of the Philippines has reiterated its dismissal of a petition to redefine marriage in the country to include same-sex couples.
The court had initially dismissed the petition in September 2019, on the grounds that the applicant lacked standing because he did not have a partner, nor was he seeking a same-sex marriage.
In a Jan. 6 order, the Philippine News Agency reported, the Supreme Court said the motion for reconsideration was “denied with finality,” adding, “No further pleadings or motions will be entertained.”
The court said that “no substantial arguments were presented to warrant the reversal of the questioned decision.”
The petition had been filed in 2015 by 33-year-old lawyer and radio show host Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III and the LGBTS Christian Church Inc. Falcis sought to challenge provisions in the country’s Family Code that defined marriage as a “permanent union between a man and a woman.” He also challenged clauses declaring homosexuality as grounds for legal separation and declaring concealment of homosexuality at the time of marriage as an act of fraud that constitutes grounds for annulment.
According to CNN, Falcis said he “decided to use the tool of litigation, because it has been successful in other countries — such as the United States — to have gay marriage legalized.”
However, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the petition in September, saying he lacked legal standing and had failed “to raise an actual, justiciable controversy.”
Leave a Comment