Bishop urges public to unite against anti-terror bill -

Thursday, June 4, 2020

Pastoral Statement of the Bishops of Metro Manila -

Monday, March 16, 2020

Priest refutes senator: ‘Divorce will never be pro-family’ -

Thursday, September 19, 2019

2 priests, 2 pro-life activists arrested trying to save babies inside New Jersey abortion center -

Wednesday, July 17, 2019

Respect and Care for Life 2019 -

Tuesday, January 8, 2019

Over 41 million abortions estimated in 2018, making ‘choice’ world’s leading cause of death -

Thursday, January 3, 2019

Everyone must respect the basic human rights of all human beings, pope says -

Friday, December 14, 2018

Parents of ‘miracle’ micro-preemie thankful to bring home healthy girl -

Thursday, November 29, 2018

WATCH: Drag queen admits he’s ‘grooming’ children at story hour events -

Wednesday, November 28, 2018

Brazil elects pro-life president, despite pressure to legalize abortion -

Tuesday, November 6, 2018

Alfie Evans’ parents to ‘form a relationship’ with hospital, ask supporters to return home: BREAKING -

Friday, April 27, 2018

Couples told: ‘Have courage to fight divorce bill’ -

Wednesday, April 11, 2018


Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Pastoral Statement Against Divorce -

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

Cardinal Tagle to lead walk against killings -

Tuesday, February 13, 2018

49 Abortion Clinics Closed in 2017, 77% of All Abortion Clinics Open in 1991 Have Shut Down -

Thursday, December 21, 2017

Bishop condemns killing of priest -

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

Church urges repentance over rampant killings -

Monday, November 6, 2017

Our Lady of Fatima will be icon at prayer for healing -

Monday, October 30, 2017

Church urges faithful to join ‘heal the nation’ Edsa procession -

Monday, October 16, 2017

Much Ado About DOMA

















The US Supreme Court had just decided on DOMA, or the defense of marriage act. Here are some facts on the US ruling, and how it will affect future rulings on marriage and the family here in our country.

1. What just happened at the U.S. Supreme Court?

The court issued two decisions regarding homosexual “marriage.” The first involved the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and the second involved California’s Proposition 8.

2. What is DOMA?

The Defense of Marriage Act is a law passed in 1996 by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton. Among other things, DOMA prevented the federal government from awarding benefits to homosexual couples who were married under state law.

This was at issue in the first case that the Court ruled on.

3. What was the DOMA case about?

A woman who was legally married to another woman in New York state was required to pay a large sum in federal estate taxes because the marriage was not recognized under federal law because of DOMA.

4. What did the Court hold in this case?

The Court held that part of DOMA (not all of it) was unconstitutional and in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment (specifically, the equal protection provision incorporated into it by the Fourteenth Amendment). You can read more about that here.

As a result, if a homosexual couple is legally married in terms of state law, the federal government will now have to give them the same benefits as a heterosexual couple.

5. Does this mean that homosexual marriage is now legal everywhere?

No. In a dissenting opinion that he filed on this case, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote:

The Court does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does not decide, the distinct question whether the States, in the exercise of their “historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,” ante, at 18, may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage.

6. How did the justices vote on this case?

Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion of the court and was joined by Justices Ginsburgh, Breyer, Sotomayer, and Kagan.

Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito filed a combination of dissenting opinions.

7. What is Prop 8?

Proposition 8 is a ballot initiative that amended the California state constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. It was passed by the voters of California in 2008.

8. What was the Prop 8 case about?

After Prop 8 was passed, advocates of homosexual marriage filed suit against it and succeeded in getting it overturned. The California state officials who ordinarily would defend such a law refused to do so, and a group of private individuals attempted to do so.

9. What did the Court hold in this case?

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the private individuals attempting to defend Prop 8 did not have the standing needed to defend it before them. It consequently vacated and remanded the lower court’s decision. Specifically, the opinion of the court holds:

Because petitioners have not satisfied their burden to demonstrate standing to appeal the judgment of the District Court, the Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

10. What does this mean?

It means that, unless another way can be found to defend Prop 8, it is effectively dead and homosexual marriage will be legal in California.

11. How did the justices vote on this case?

The opinion of the court was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, who was joined by Justices Scalia, Ginsburgh, Breyer, and Kagan.

Justice Kennedy filed a dissenting opinion, and he was joined in it by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayer.

12. What did the dissenters say in this case?

The dissenting opinion filed in this case stated, in part:

In the end, what the Court fails to grasp or accept is the basic premise of the initiative process. And it is this. The essence of democracy is that the right to make law rests in the people and flows to the government, not the other way around. Freedom resides first in the people without need of a grant from government. The California initiative process embodies these principles and has done so for over a century. . . .

In California and the 26 other States that permit initiatives and popular referendums, the people have exercised their own inherent sovereign right to govern themselves. The Court today frustrates that choice by nullifying, for failure to comply with the Restatement of Agency, a State Supreme Court decision holding that state law authorizes an enacted initiative’s proponents to defend the law if and when the State’s usual legal advocates decline to do so. The Court’s opinion fails to abide by precedent and misapplies basic principles of justiciability.

Read more about this at:


Attorney Christina Montes, one of the lawyers representing our petitioners against RH this July 9, had this to say in an interview held after the ruling was given:

Well, in my opinion, the DOMA ruling is wrong in that it assumes that same sex unions are the same as heterosexual marriages. When you talk about the law, the equal protection clause requires that similar things be treated similarly. It does not prohibit making distinctions between things that are substantially different from each other. So you can’t invoke the equal protection clause of the constitution to justify treating same sex unions the same way as heterosexual marriages, and the equal protection clause, corolarily, does not prohibit that such distinctions be made.

There is a world of difference between heterosexual marriages and same sex unions. A heterosexual marriage is the normal context in which children are born into this world, in addition there’s the complementarity between the sexes which makes the marriage unitive as well. Therefore it deserves certain protections which same sex unions are not entitled to.

What is the implication for us here in our country?

The implication is huge for future cases in our country, especially if we come to a point where we can argue the constitutionality of same-sex marriage like the United States are now doing. The passing of the RH law is the start of a slippery slope; after RH comes divorce, same-sex unions, abortion and euthanasia. It does not help that our constitution was framed using the US constitution as a guide. If they are able to say that same-sex marriage is constitutional there in the US, pro-same sex marriage lawyers and proponents will have the necessary precedent  in order for same sex marriage to gain a foothold in the law.

It also does not help that we are slowly being desensitized of our resistance against homosexual behavior. Shows like “My Husband’s Lover” are intended to slowly brainwash the masses into thinking that  homosexual acts are acceptable and therefore the Church’s resistance is not only a nuisance but an assault to freedom of expression.

There’s a storm up ahead. The West is crumbling, and the tempest is about to come our way.




Prolife Philippines Foundation, Inc is a non-profit, nationwide organization that functions as an Educational body coordinating pro-life groups, providing information on life issues it also functions as a political and legislative lobby group that advances the principles and policies with the pro-life and pro-family cause.

“What  Can One Person Do?

Every Single person, in his own little way, can do alot to save a life”

+Sr. Mary Pilar Verzosa, RGS

Foundress, Pro-life Phil. Fdn. Inc.

Sept.24, 1944-Sept.9, 2012

We need your help!

PRO-LIFE PHILIPPINES exists mainly because of the overflowing of your donation supporting our programs and services.

PRO-LIFE PHILIPPINES counts on your support to continue operating.

Take inspiration from knowing that for every peso you give, your a part of the mission of SAVING LIVES ONE STEP AT A TIME.


(Pro-Life Philippines Foundation Inc. is a Donee Institution. We will issue a Certificate of Donation for tax deduction purposes upon your request.) For more info call us at 7337027 / 7349425 / 09192337783




Share via email
Leave A Comment