LGBTQIA+ activists clap back at Center’s stance against same-sex marriage

The Center’s opposition to recognizing same-sex marriage has drawn criticism from activists and LGBTQ+ community members who claim that despite India’s variety and plurality, the government still thinks that marriage privileges should only be granted to heterosexuals.

The Center’s opposition to recognizing same-sex marriage has drawn criticism from activists and LGBTQ+ community members who claim that despite India’s variety and plurality, the government still thinks that marriage privileges should only be granted to heterosexuals. The Centre stated in an affidavit that legalising same-sex marriage would completely upset the delicate balance of personal laws and widely held social norms. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case on Monday. But, it also stated that although they are not officially recognized, non-heterosexual marriages and unions between people are not illegal.

Equal rights advocate Harish Iyer and a member of the community responded to the Centre’s affidavit by stating that India is a nation of plurality, not homogeneity. “Unity in diversity is a lesson we learn in our schools. Everyone is equal in the eyes of law. Yet we afford marriage rights only to the majority and not us minorities. The state in its stance has confirmed that they believe that marriage is only between a biological man and a biological woman and their offspring,” Iyer said to PTI.

Advertisement

Iyer also criticized the wording employed in the affidavit by the Centre. “The very language reveals that the state needs a crash course on sex, sexuality and gender. The correct terms are a cis man and cis woman. Now that the Supreme Court has written down Section 377, I would like to know from the state how they define LGBT families,” Iyer stated. The government argued in its affidavit that the petitioners cannot assert a basic right for same-sex marriage to be recognized under national legislation, despite Section 377 of the Indian Criminal Code being decriminalized.

Queer intimacies predate the Indian State by many centuries, according to a queer scholar and PhD candidate at the University of St Andrews in Scotland who chooses to go by the name Q, and the State has always been basically heterosexual. “The Centre stated that the traditional heterosexual family unit is foundational to the existence and continuance of the State. This is partly correct. The State has always been fundamentally heterosexual; its institutions, its laws, its capitalist structures, and even its borders veered toward the cis-heterosexual upper-caste male. The State is also drenched in its masculinity. That being said the Centre hides within these truths one distinct untruth – that the continuance of the State has never been in question,” Q stated.

On Monday, the Supreme Court forwarded a number of petitions asking for the Constitution Bench to recognize same-sex marriages as legal.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud was given a list of petitions for legal recognition of same-sex marriage, and the hearing was scheduled for April 18. Although no one is interfering with the right to love, expression, and freedom of choice, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, speaking on behalf of the Center, argues that this does not imply bestowing the right to marriage.

According to SG Mehta, when marriage as a legal institution is established between people of the same sex, the issue of adoption will arise. As a result, parliament will need to consider whether this issue can be raised while taking into consideration the child’s psychology.

He added that the parliament would have to deliberate and decide whether to do so in light of ethics. The adopted kid of a gay or lesbian couple need not, according to the court, be gay or lesbian. This issue, according to SG Mehta, has serious implications. The petitions requesting the legal recognition of same-sex marriage were referred to a five-judge constitution bench by a bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, and the hearing was scheduled for April 18.

Although no one is interfering with the right to love, expression, and freedom of choice, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, speaking on behalf of the Center, argues that this does not imply bestowing the right to marriage.

Asserting that same-sex people living together as partners, which is now decriminalized, is not similar to the Indian family unit and that they are two obviously different groupings that cannot be treated equally, the Centre has previously opposed the claim for legal recognition of same-sex marriage.

The Center submitted the affidavit in opposition to the request made by several petitioners for the recognition of same-sex marriage under law.

The Centre disagreed with the argument and stated that it should be rejected since the petitions seeking legal recognition of same-sex relationships lack validity.

The administration asserted that same-sex couples and heterosexual relationships are obviously different classes that cannot be treated equally in opposition to the petition calling for the legalization of LGBTQ marriage.

The Centre stated in its affidavit that it is up to the legislature to determine and uphold such societal morality and public acceptance based on Indian ethos and that western decisions lacking any foundation in Indian constitutional law jurisprudence cannot be imported in this situation.

The Centre informed the Supreme Court in the affidavit that the concept of an Indian family unit, which consists of a husband, a wife, and children, is not analogous to same-sex partners living together as partners, which is already legal.

In its argument, the Center argued that the principles of legitimate state interest as an exemption to life and liberty under Article 21 would apply in this particular instance.

“There is an intelligible differentia (normative basis) which distinguishes those within the classification (heterosexual couples) from those left out (same-sex couples). This classification has a rational relation with the object sought to be achieved (ensuring social stability via recognition of marriages),” the government stated.

Before the Supreme Court, the Center argued that the statutory recognition of marriage as a union between a “man” and a “woman” is inextricably linked to the acceptance of the heterogeneous institution of marriage and the acceptance of the Indian society based on its own cultural and societal values that are recognized by the appropriate legislature. (ANI)