“Probably, the main issue is triumphalism.”

By all indications, it would seem the appeal to legalize same sex marriage in the Supreme Court is facing tremendous rigor and may soon be in rigor mortis. This is regardless of the opposition on moral grounds by the usual critics such as the religious institutions.

The complications even at the fringes of the law on same sex marriage are more gargantuan than the law itself unless the proposal should untangle itself from the traditional concept of marriage. Questions on the legal applications and intricacies such as divorce, annulment, bigamy laws, adoption, gender related issues, among others, could eat up the floor of the Supreme Court whose backlog is higher than their building in Ermita.

Besides, who would be the “mommy and daddy” in the family, which could confuse the adopted child endlessly!

However, the proponents, mostly from the LGBT communities, are adamant on calling the law “marriage.”

Presently, even without the legal entitlement, homosexual relationships have been around since society’s subconscious had accepted with reservations the third sex and its consequences eons ago. If homosexuals would seek deeper commitment and bonding among partners, then an ordinary legal contract specifying acts and terminal dates suffice.

So, why insist on calling same sex marriage as ‘’marriage?’’

Probably, the main issue is triumphalism. The sodomification of society is at the end of the string that would pull the LGBT community to more noble heights of finally dismantling the sting that society and religious morality have put on homosexual relationships. It would be a sigh of freedom that, finally, society has cut off its chains from the biblical mandate that “God made man, male and female” and eventual deletion of the ‘’Sodom and Gomorrha” episode in the Bible!

It would be an extreme experience with finality the liberation from sexual discrimination either true or perceived.

It is all about triumph.

However, there are limits to triumphalism of this sodomification of society. Justice Marvic Leonen questioned the timing of this law. Of course, since the inception and acceptance of the LGBT community, the timing has become irrelevant; neither is it relevant to many in society especially among those who would rather spend time worrying about their own economic welfare than such issues that may affect them the least.

Yet, despite such general indifference, much of our conservative society still clings to our moral uniqueness of some sort. The Philippines is the last of the two remaining countries that does not have a divorce law, and we take pride in it.

The present Congress is, in fact, dilly-dallying on passing the law. In the same stream comes the abortion law, and the reproductive law whose wings have been clipped to very limited functionality by the conservatives in the Supreme Court.

Despite its liberal apparel, our society remains conservative to the core and that is a hurdle.

The proposal to legalize same sex marriage would definitely be the subject of the most rigorous legal battle both in the Supreme Court and even in Congress. And much even more on the moral floor.

The triumph may just be delusional at the moment.

But there are no apologies.