The Centre’s response to legalising same-sex marriage and the court ruling following it on March 13 was a highly anticipated event. If the union of LGBTQ+ members receives legal recognition, India would become the second country in Asia to do so after Taiwan. However, the Centre’s response has come across as a disappointment to many LGBTQ activists and members, and it has stirred up a backlash.
The Centre opposed giving legal recognition to same-sex marriages with the reasoning that it would disrupt the existing balance of personal laws and accepted societal values.
Marriage Equality Still A Dream?
The Central Government, in its affidavit to the Supreme Court, conveyed that same-sex marriage does not conform with societal morality and Indian ethos. They are of the opinion that while living together as partners and having sexual relationships by same-sex individuals is decriminalised, it can not be compared with the Indian family unit that traditionally includes a husband, wife, and children born out of the union. They strongly opposed the pleas against seeking recognition of same-sex marriage.
In response to this, activists and members of the LGBTQ+ community have criticised it, saying despite India’s plurality and diversity, the government still believes that marriage rights can only be given to heterosexuals. Equal rights activist Harish Iyer said that India is supposed to be a nation of plurality, not homogeneity. Expanding on this, Iyer said that Indians had been taught “Unity in Diversity” and that “Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law” since school, yet marriage rights are denied to a section of the minorities.
Speaking about the Centre’s affidavit, Iyer criticises the language used to convey their dissonance. He stated that the “language reveals that the state needs a crash course on sex, sexuality, and gender.” Correcting the terminology, Iyer says that the correct terms to be used are “cis man and cis woman.” With the Supreme Court writing down Section 377, several members look forward to the State respecting their rights to build unions and families. So even though the government has decriminalised Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), they refuse the members the fundamental right to same-sex marriage.
Same-Sex Couple & Marriages
A report by New Indian Express cited an unnamed queer scholar and PhD candidate in Scotland, who believes that the State has always been fundamentally heterosexual. Traditional heterosexual families are considered the foundational unit for the existence and continuance of the State. All institutions, laws, and structures are framed keeping these heterosexual groups in mind. The scholar commented, “the Centre hides within these truths one distinct untruth – that the continuance of the State has never been in question.”
Bangalore-based Shubhankar Chakravorty, who identifies as a gay man, noted that rights and freedoms have seldom been provided in advance of a mass struggle or in anticipation of a sizable demand. And so, in a complex and deeply-rooted system such as marriage law, there needs to be a solid case of favourable public impact to see a change come into the host of laws.
Chakravorty says that India, despite having an LGBTQ+ population of at least 50 million, still struggles to find a few thousand same-sex couples in need of marriage rights. He believes that with fewer people demanding for it to be made into a legal right, there’s not enough pressure on the government to bring a change in the laws. According to him, there needs to be large-scale activities and campaigns to relay the importance of marriage equality and the impact it could have on hundreds of thousands of lives. Until such a movement is brewed, Chakravorty believes that there isn’t much to counter it with, regardless of how unfair the government’s stand could be.
https://thelogicalindian.com/h-upload/2023/03/13/500x300_230518-untitled-design.webp
LGBTQ+
2023-03-13 08:36:08.0
‘Marriage Equality Against Indian Ethos’: Centre’s Opposition To Same-Sex Unions Stirs Backlash From LGBTQ+ Members
