As an Indian - are you in favour of recognition of same-sex marriages in India?

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I personally have no issue with what the LGBT community wants to do. But I find it strange how religious authorities in certain countries are forced by law to officiate such unions.

You can have civil unions- no problem. But I've never understood why some members of the LGBT community want marriages to be conducted by religious confessions that have historically been homophobic(inherently)

I would suggest you don't understand the all-encmpassing nature of hinduism then. Why ccan't LGBTQ communites have access to homophobic religion if they wish? Please answer from a Hindu POV.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

On bisexuality I agree but i have been informed by people that it isn’t true but atleast that’s how it seems to me in American cities that I ve lived in but people seem to think I’m mistaken and that’s not how it works.
Not sure if you know Polyamorous , it’s something that I was lectured on recently, maybe I’m just old.

On Indian society maybe I didn’t hang out in the upper circles but these are not part of the norm irrespective of what a survey says.(I did my schooling and college in Indian cities).

I've been similarly informed but I am convinced that it is true and Im not mistaken

 

[Champ_Pal]

Health problems? Gay intimacy leads to highest number of aids a common knowledge.

That is because they don’t use protection. AIDS do not care if the couple are straight or gay. If one is infected, the other gets it too. It’s common knowledge.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

I would suggest you don't understand the all-encmpassing nature of hinduism then. Why ccan't LGBTQ communites have access to homophobic religion if they wish? Please answer from a Hindu POV.

I dont care about the Hindu POV although it has been more neutral than other confessions with regard to this.

The only point I was making was why not just go for civil unions rather than insist on getting married at a church or whatever.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

India is a progressive nation and people have gradually become more open minded. From the time of Sati Pratha and other taboos, we have come a long way in eradicating all ills of the society. Some people may find it aligning with west but I call it imperial liberalism.

With the above in mind, if two person of same sex want to stay with each other and be happy, there cant be any issue.

How many same sex marriages have you been to in India?

 

[AamchiMumbaikar]

West has a generation coming up which will be confused about their gender, I mean that mental disorder is already spreading among young bunch in the West and things like gender neutral nonsense is already becoming a norm in many sectors there. When are you folks in India joining the confused gender clan?

Societies which support and promote family values and family upbringing will not accept homosexuality and gender neutral stuff.

What is your proposal then for gays/ lesbians ? They should they all be killed is it ?

 

[OldWarHorse]

Yes. Have no issues with same sex marriages being legally recognized.

 

[ex-q-zit]

Gay Couple, Reunited By Kerala High Court In May, Now Exchange Rings

<blockquote class="imgur-embed-pub" lang="en" data-id="a/7OYzEIg" data-context="false" ><a href="//imgur.com/a/7OYzEIg"></a></blockquote><script async src="//s.imgur.com/min/embed.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Adhila Nasarin and Fathima Noora, a gay couple who were reunited by the Kerala High Court in May after being separated by their parents, recently exchanged rings.

The couple last month shared pictures of their seaside function on Instagram with the caption "Achievement unlocked: Together Forever".

Dressed in wedding attire, with traditional jewellery, and exchanging garlands, the couple shared photos on Instagram. Ms Nasarin captioned a picture, "I follow the rules I make," with users congratulating them.

In another picture, Ms Nasarin and Ms Noora are seen holding a cake in the Pride Flag colour.

Ms Nasarin told BBC, "We just tried the photoshoot because we thought the idea was interesting," adding, "We're not married yet, but at some point, we'd like to be."

The couple met in Saudi Arabia when they were students and later decided to live together but faced a tough test after their family objected to their relationship.

Ms Nasarin in her petition said she reached Kerala's Kozhikode in May and met Ms Noora, and for some days they lived in a shelter home, but the police intervened after being tracked by their relatives.

Ms Nasarin's relatives took the couple to Aluva from Kozhikode and after a few days Ms Noora's parents took her away by force as well.

The Kerala High Court ruled in their favour after they were forcefully separated.

The Supreme Court, in 2018, had decriminalised consensual same-sex relationships in its landmark judgments, striking down the colonial-era law.

Four years after its judgment, the Supreme Court has sought the Centre's response in separate pleas by two gay couples seeking enforcement of their right to marry and a direction to the authorities to register their marriage under the Special Marriage Act.

The pleas seek a direction that the right to marry a person of one's choice be extended to the LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, queer) people as part of their fundamental right.

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/pic...-high-court-in-may-now-exchange-rings-3561090

 

[rickroll]

Gay Couple, Reunited By Kerala High Court In May, Now Exchange Rings

<blockquote class="imgur-embed-pub" lang="en" data-id="a/7OYzEIg" data-context="false" ><a href="//imgur.com/a/7OYzEIg"></a></blockquote><script async src="//s.imgur.com/min/embed.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Adhila Nasarin and Fathima Noora, a gay couple who were reunited by the Kerala High Court in May after being separated by their parents, recently exchanged rings.

The couple last month shared pictures of their seaside function on Instagram with the caption "Achievement unlocked: Together Forever".

Dressed in wedding attire, with traditional jewellery, and exchanging garlands, the couple shared photos on Instagram. Ms Nasarin captioned a picture, "I follow the rules I make," with users congratulating them.

In another picture, Ms Nasarin and Ms Noora are seen holding a cake in the Pride Flag colour.

Ms Nasarin told BBC, "We just tried the photoshoot because we thought the idea was interesting," adding, "We're not married yet, but at some point, we'd like to be."

The couple met in Saudi Arabia when they were students and later decided to live together but faced a tough test after their family objected to their relationship.

Ms Nasarin in her petition said she reached Kerala's Kozhikode in May and met Ms Noora, and for some days they lived in a shelter home, but the police intervened after being tracked by their relatives.

Ms Nasarin's relatives took the couple to Aluva from Kozhikode and after a few days Ms Noora's parents took her away by force as well.

The Kerala High Court ruled in their favour after they were forcefully separated.

The Supreme Court, in 2018, had decriminalised consensual same-sex relationships in its landmark judgments, striking down the colonial-era law.

Four years after its judgment, the Supreme Court has sought the Centre's response in separate pleas by two gay couples seeking enforcement of their right to marry and a direction to the authorities to register their marriage under the Special Marriage Act.

The pleas seek a direction that the right to marry a person of one's choice be extended to the LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, queer) people as part of their fundamental right.

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/pic...-high-court-in-may-now-exchange-rings-3561090

Is this unnecessarily popularized in the media more than it needs to be just because the women are (were) muslim or is this really a landmark news?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Is this unnecessarily popularized in the media more than it needs to be just because the women are (were) muslim or is this really a landmark news?

India will only be able to show a genuine acceptance of homosexuality when they can celebrate a Hindu union in the same manner, as Hindus represent the vast majority of Indians. Especially as Hinduism should be all encompassing and should have the least problems with same sex unions.

My verdict is that there is still stern opposition to LGBTQ rights in India based on this observation alone. It is not even open opposition which is even more pathetic.

 

[ex-q-zit]

"Love Is Love": Dutee Chand's Instagram Post With Partner

New Delhi:

Star athlete Dutee Chand has posted a photo on Instagram with her partner, Monalisa, both wearing celebratory attire.

The Olympian, Arjuna awardee and world gold medallist in the photo caption wrote, "Love is love."

Dutee Chand, 24, and Monalisa took the photo at the wedding of the star athlete's sister.

Monalisa is in a dark blue embroidered traditional dress, while Dutee Chand is in a crisp blue jacket and trousers.

The sprinter holds the national record for completing a 100-metre race in 11.17 seconds.

<blockquote class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-captioned data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/Clp0NuXrskW/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14" style=" background:#FFF; border:0; border-radius:3px; box-shadow:0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width:540px; min-width:326px; padding:0; width:99.375%; width:-webkit-calc(100% - 2px); widthlc(100% - 2px);"><div style="padding:16px;"> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/Clp0NuXrskW/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" style=" background:#FFFFFF; line-height:0; padding:0 0; text-align:center; text-decorationne; width:100%;" target="_blank"> <div style=" display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div></div></div><div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div> <div style="display:block; height:50px; margin:0 auto 12px; width:50px;"><svg width="50px" height="50px" viewBox="0 0 60 60" version="1.1" xmlns="https://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g stroke="none" stroke-width="1" fill="none" fill-rule="evenodd"><g transform="translate(-511.000000, -20.000000)" fill="#000000"><g><path d="M556.869,30.41 C554.814,30.41 553.148,32.076 553.148,34.131 C553.148,36.186 554.814,37.852 556.869,37.852 C558.924,37.852 560.59,36.186 560.59,34.131 C560.59,32.076 558.924,30.41 556.869,30.41 M541,60.657 C535.114,60.657 530.342,55.887 530.342,50 C530.342,44.114 535.114,39.342 541,39.342 C546.887,39.342 551.658,44.114 551.658,50 C551.658,55.887 546.887,60.657 541,60.657 M541,33.886 C532.1,33.886 524.886,41.1 524.886,50 C524.886,58.899 532.1,66.113 541,66.113 C549.9,66.113 557.115,58.899 557.115,50 C557.115,41.1 549.9,33.886 541,33.886 M565.378,62.101 C565.244,65.022 564.756,66.606 564.346,67.663 C563.803,69.06 563.154,70.057 562.106,71.106 C561.058,72.155 560.06,72.803 558.662,73.347 C557.607,73.757 556.021,74.244 553.102,74.378 C549.944,74.521 548.997,74.552 541,74.552 C533.003,74.552 532.056,74.521 528.898,74.378 C525.979,74.244 524.393,73.757 523.338,73.347 C521.94,72.803 520.942,72.155 519.894,71.106 C518.846,70.057 518.197,69.06 517.654,67.663 C517.244,66.606 516.755,65.022 516.623,62.101 C516.479,58.943 516.448,57.996 516.448,50 C516.448,42.003 516.479,41.056 516.623,37.899 C516.755,34.978 517.244,33.391 517.654,32.338 C518.197,30.938 518.846,29.942 519.894,28.894 C520.942,27.846 521.94,27.196 523.338,26.654 C524.393,26.244 525.979,25.756 528.898,25.623 C532.057,25.479 533.004,25.448 541,25.448 C548.997,25.448 549.943,25.479 553.102,25.623 C556.021,25.756 557.607,26.244 558.662,26.654 C560.06,27.196 561.058,27.846 562.106,28.894 C563.154,29.942 563.803,30.938 564.346,32.338 C564.756,33.391 565.244,34.978 565.378,37.899 C565.522,41.056 565.552,42.003 565.552,50 C565.552,57.996 565.522,58.943 565.378,62.101 M570.82,37.631 C570.674,34.438 570.167,32.258 569.425,30.349 C568.659,28.377 567.633,26.702 565.965,25.035 C564.297,23.368 562.623,22.342 560.652,21.575 C558.743,20.834 556.562,20.326 553.369,20.18 C550.169,20.033 549.148,20 541,20 C532.853,20 531.831,20.033 528.631,20.18 C525.438,20.326 523.257,20.834 521.349,21.575 C519.376,22.342 517.703,23.368 516.035,25.035 C514.368,26.702 513.342,28.377 512.574,30.349 C511.834,32.258 511.326,34.438 511.181,37.631 C511.035,40.831 511,41.851 511,50 C511,58.147 511.035,59.17 511.181,62.369 C511.326,65.562 511.834,67.743 512.574,69.651 C513.342,71.625 514.368,73.296 516.035,74.965 C517.703,76.634 519.376,77.658 521.349,78.425 C523.257,79.167 525.438,79.673 528.631,79.82 C531.831,79.965 532.853,80.001 541,80.001 C549.148,80.001 550.169,79.965 553.369,79.82 C556.562,79.673 558.743,79.167 560.652,78.425 C562.623,77.658 564.297,76.634 565.965,74.965 C567.633,73.296 568.659,71.625 569.425,69.651 C570.167,67.743 570.674,65.562 570.82,62.369 C570.966,59.17 571,58.147 571,50 C571,41.851 570.966,40.831 570.82,37.631"></path></g></g></g></svg></div><div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style=" color:#3897f0; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-stylermal; font-weight:550; line-height:18px;">View this post on Instagram</div></div><div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;"><div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"></div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"></div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"></div></div><div style="margin-left: 8px;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"></div> <div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg)"></div></div><div style="margin-left: auto;"> <div style=" width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"></div> <div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"></div></div></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"></div></div></a><p style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px; margin-bottom:0; margin-top:8px; overflow:hidden; padding:8px 0 7px; text-align:center; text-overflow:ellipsis; white-spacewrap;"><a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/Clp0NuXrskW/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-stylermal; font-weightrmal; line-height:17px; text-decorationne;" target="_blank">A post shared by Dutee chand (@duteechand)</a></p></div></blockquote> <script async src="//www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>

She is also the first Indian athlete to announce being in a same-sex relationship. Dutee Chand made headlines in May 2019 when she made public her relationship with Monalisa, a resident of her village in Odisha, for the first time.

Her family had objected to the relationship at that time after Dutee Chand said she wanted to settle down with Monalisa.

Dutee Chand has said being in a same-sex relationship has led to people looking at her "differently", but insisted it doesn't bother her one bit.

"One may fall in love anytime and with anyone. One does not decide that based on caste, religion, or gender," Dutee Chand said in July 2020.

NDTV

 

[captain.hansolo]

No issues.. but ideally should be done after UCC as currently marriage laws in India are ridiculous based on religion.

could you talk more about what UCC is? I am unfamiliar with this, and while i research it on my own, what is your take? i am curious to hear your opinion.

 

[hoshiarpurexpress]

A very fair and reasonable post and I think most Indian Hindus feel similarly. In simple terms the concept of eww is a good reflection of where a society stands on certain topics.

I'm glad the courts support the lifestyles you( collectively) want to pursue. That's what their job is.

Less 'eww' in the future for you and your family and more progressive homosexuality for your future generations.

Will you/your children benefit from this rule change? If so, my congratulations in advance.

Incestous relationships destroy civilisations. Good luck to you if you want your nation to follow that path.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Incestous relationships destroy civilisations. Good luck to you if you want your nation to follow that path.

I am on the same page with you regarding cousin marriages - especially when those offspring then marry their own cousins. So I have no idea why you are wishing me luck

I am also on the same page that if people like you want homosexual marriages normalised in your country then the courts should take your feelings into account.

But you have ignored my question regarding you/your children.

Will this ruling effect you directly, are you/your children LGBTQ+?

 

[Lonewarrior]

so when will india allow the incest taboo relationships ?

 

[ex-q-zit]

Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Reply On Transfer Of Pleas On Same-Sex Marriage

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought a response from the Centre to two pleas seeking transfer to the apex court the petitions pending in the Delhi High Court seeking directions to recognise same-sex marriages.

A bench comprising Chief Justice D Chandrachud and Justice P S Narasimha took note of the submissions of senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy that the pleas relate to the fundamental right to equality.

“Issue notice,” the bench said.

The bench was hearing separate transfer petitions filed by Kavita Arora and Nibedita Dutta.

The top court had on November 25 taken note of two pleas by two gay couples seeking enforcement of their right to marry and a direction to the authorities to register their marriage under the Special Marriage Act.

The court had also sought the assistance of Attorney General for India R Venkataramani in dealing with the two pleas.

The first plea was filed by gay couple Supriyo Chakraborty and Abhay Dang who live in Hyderabad.

The second petition has been filed by Parth Phiroze Mehrotra and Uday Raj.

These two earlier pleas seek a direction for extending the right to marry a person of one's choice to LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender and queer) people as part of their fundamental right In 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench, of which the present CJI was also a part, had delivered a path-breaking unanimous judgement holding that consensual sex among adult homosexuals or heterosexuals in private space is not a crime.

It had struck down a part of the British-era penal law which criminalised it on the ground that it violated the constitutional right to equality and dignity.

NDTV

 

[szrana007]

Yes, India should legalize the same sex marriage. Its about time.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Yes, India should legalize the same sex marriage. Its about time.

They will need to teach it as an equable lifestyle in their schools and temples as well if they really want to emulate the progressive west. I hope they are taking this seriously, and I hope Indian posters and progressive Pakistani posters will also contribute thoughts in this thread as to why they should. There really needs to be some conviction for anyone to take it seriously.

 

[JaDed]

could you talk more about what UCC is? I am unfamiliar with this, and while i research it on my own, what is your take? i am curious to hear your opinion.

India needs laws without being based on religion.
Esp on marriages, inheritance etc.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

India needs laws without being based on religion.
Esp on marriages, inheritance etc.

What about gay marriages? Don't you want laws in India to enshrine their rights? In this thread at least you should have a clear opinion considering India is a secular nation.

 

[szrana007]

They will need to teach it as an equable lifestyle in their schools and temples as well if they really want to emulate the progressive west. I hope they are taking this seriously, and I hope Indian posters and progressive Pakistani posters will also contribute thoughts in this thread as to why they should. There really needs to be some conviction for anyone to take it seriously.

Insha'Allah they will do all that Cap.

 

[ex-q-zit]

"Same-Sex Relationships Okay But Not Same-Sex Marriages": BJP's Sushil Modi

BJP's Sushil Modi, who spoke against same sex marriages in Parliament today, told NDTV that while same sex relationships are acceptable, allowing such marriages will give rise to problems on multiple levels, including "divorce and adoption". Speaking in Rajya Sabha earlier today, the MP had objected to it in the social and cultural context.

In an exclusive interview to NDTV, he reiterated that point too.

"Any law should also be attuned with traditions and cultures of the country," he said. "We should assess what is Indian society and whether the people are ready to accept it".

"Same-sex relationships have been decriminalised... But shadi (marriage)is a pavitra sanstha (sacred institution). Same-sex couples living together is one thing, but giving them legal status is a different thing," he added.

Mr Modi insisted that there are a "lot of issues" with same-sex marriage. "You have to change a lot of acts also. The divorce act, the maintenance act, the special marriage act. What about succession, what about adoption, what about divorce? There are a lot of issues," he said.

"Don't make India like a western country. Don't make India like America," he added.

Asked about the protests regarding the matter, Mr Modi said, "I can't debate with left and liberal people. This is my personal opinion".

The matter came up in parliament today after four gay couples asked the Supreme Court to find a way to give recognition to same-sex marriages -- a matter where parliament is unlikely to offer any recourse. Activists say that while 2018 ruling affirmed the constitutional rights of the LGBTQ people, they do not have legal backing for same-sex marriages, a basic right of heterosexual couples.

While gay activism dates back to the '90s, no government had struck down a colonial-era ban on gay sex. In 2018, the Supreme Court scrapped the law and decriminalised homosexuality.

The BJP-led government has refused to legalise same sex marriages since. Opposing same-sex marriages, the law ministry earlier said the courts should stay away from the law-making process, which is the provenance of parliament.

Mr Modi had echoed the view in parliament earlier today, saying a couple of judges "can't sit and decide" on such a socially significant subject.

"In India, same-sex marriage is neither recognised nor accepted in any uncodified personal law like the Muslim Personal Law or any codified statutory laws. Same sex marriages will cause complete havoc with the delicate balance of personal laws in the country," he said.

NDTV

 

[ex-q-zit]

Supreme Court To Hear Transfer Request On Same-Sex Marriage Pleas On Jan 6

The Supreme Court will hear on January 6 the pleas seeking transfer to the apex court of the petitions pending before high courts for recognition of same-sex marriages.

The petitions were mentioned on Tuesday for urgent listing before a bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice P S Narasimha.

"We will take it up on January 6," the bench told the lawyer who mentioned the matter.

On December 14 last year, the top court had sought a response from the Centre to two pleas seeking transfer to the apex court of the petitions pending in the Delhi High Court for directions to recognise same-sex marriages.

Prior to that, on November 25 last year, the apex court had sought the response of the central government to separate pleas by two gay couples seeking enforcement of their right to marry and a direction to the authorities to register their marriage under the Special Marriage Act.

A bench headed by CJI Chandrachud, who was also part of the Constitution bench which in 2018 decriminalised consensual gay sex, had in November last year issued notice to the Centre besides seeking the assistance of Attorney General for India R Venkataramani in dealing with the pleas.

The top court's five-judge Constitution bench, in a path-breaking unanimous judgement delivered on September 6, 2018, held consensual sex among adult homosexuals or heterosexuals in private space is not a crime while striking down a part of the British-era penal law which criminalised it on the ground that it violated the constitutional right to equality and dignity.

The pleas, on which the top court had issued notice in November last year, have sought a direction that the right to marry a person of one's choice be extended to LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer) people as part of their fundamental right. One of the petitions has sought interpretation of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 in a gender-neutral manner where a person is not discriminated due to their sexual orientation.

The top court had also taken note of the fact that various petitions on the same issue are pending before high courts.

The apex court had, in its 2018 judgement, held that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code that criminalised consensual gay sex was "irrational, indefensible and manifestly arbitrary".

It had said the 158-year old law has become an "odious weapon" to harass the LGBT community by subjecting them to discrimination and unequal treatment.

NDTV

 

[ex-q-zit]

Reply On Same-Sex Marriages By Feb 15, Hearing In March: Supreme Court To Centre

The Supreme Court today clubbed and transferred to itself all petitions pending before different high courts across the country on the issue of grant of legal recognition to same-sex marriages.

A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala asked the Centre to file its joint reply to all the petitions on the issue by February 15 and directed that all the petitions will be listed in March.

The bench said any petitioner, if not available to argue physically before the court, can avail the facility of virtual platform.

It asked the counsels from the Centre and petitioners to file a written note on the issue, laws and precedents, if any, and share it among themselves and the court.

The bench asked the counsel for the Centre to ensure that no petitioner is left out and details of all the petitions be incorporated in the compilations to be made.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the bench that there are two options available for the court as a petition is ripe for hearing before the Delhi High Court and the top court could await its verdict or it can transfer all the petitions to itself.

The counsels for multiple petitioners told the bench that they want the top court to transfer all the cases to itself for an authoritative pronouncement on the issue and Centre can file its response before the top court.

On January 3, the top court had said that it would hear on January 6 the pleas seeking transfer to the top court of the petitions pending before high courts for recognition of same-sex marriages.

On December 14 last year, the top court had sought a response from the Centre to two pleas seeking transfer to the top court of the petitions pending in the Delhi High Court for directions to recognise same-sex marriages.

Prior to that, on November 25 last year, the top court had sought the response of the central government to separate pleas by two gay couples seeking enforcement of their right to marry and a direction to the authorities to register their marriage under the Special Marriage Act.

NDTV

 

[MenInG]

The Indian government opposes recognising same-sex marriages, it said in a filing to the Supreme Court on Sunday, urging the court to reject challenges to the current legal framework lodged by LGBT couples.

The Ministry of Law believes that while there may be various forms of relationships in society, the legal recognition of marriage is for heterosexual relationships and the state has a legitimate interest in maintaining this, according to the filing seen by Reuters, which has not been made public.

"Living together as partners and having sexual relationship by same sex individuals ... is not comparable with the Indian family unit concept of a husband, a wife and children," the ministry argued.

The court cannot be asked "to change the entire legislative policy of the country deeply embedded in religious and societal norms", it said.

In a historic verdict in 2018, India's top court decriminalised homosexuality by scrapping a colonial-era ban on gay sex. The current case is being seen as a further important development on LGBT rights in the country.

At least 15 pleas, some by gay couples, have been filed in recent months asking the court to recognise same-sex marriages, setting the stage for this legal face-off with Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government.

"Sad that their concept of 'Indian' is so non-inclusive and static that it does not want to evolve according to wider notions of human rights," filmmaker and equal rights activist Onir wrote on Twitter.

Three lawyers and two petitioners that Reuters reached out to either refused to comment or chose not to respond.

CASE MARKS MILESTONE

Asia largely lags the West in accepting same-sex marriage.

Taiwan was the first in the region to recognise such unions, while same-sex acts are illegal in some countries, such as Malaysia. Singapore last year ended a ban on gay sex but took steps to bar same-sex marriages.

Japan is the only country among the Group of Seven nations that does not legally recognise same-sex unions, although the public broadly favours recognition.

In India, the issue of same-sex marriage is sensitive: speaking openly about homosexuality is taboo for many in the socially conservative country of 1.4 billion people.

The issue has stoked emotions in the media and in parliament, where a member of Modi's ruling Hindu nationalist party in December asked the government to strongly oppose the petitions filed in the top court.

LGBT activists say that while the 2018 ruling affirmed their constitutional rights, it is unjust that they still lack legal backing for their unions, a basic right enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.

"We can't do so many things in the process of living together and building a life together," one of the litigants in the current case, businessman Uday Raj Anand, told Reuters in December.

In Sunday's filing, the government argued the 2018 ruling cannot mean recognising a fundamental legal right to same-sex marriage under the laws of the country.

The intent behind the current legal system on marriage "was limited to the recognition of a legal relationship of marriage between a man and a woman, represented as a husband and wife."

The government has argued that any change to the legal structure should be the domain of the elected parliament, not the court.

The cases are set to be heard in the Supreme Court on Monday.

Reuters

 

[daytrader]

SC refers petitions on same-sex marriage to Constitution bench
A three-judge bench observed: “It’s a matter important enough for us to invoke our authority under Article 145(3) and refer it to a constitution bench...it’s a seminal matter.”

New Delhi The Supreme Court on Monday decided that a batch of petitions demanding legal validation for same-sex marriages will be decided by a Constitution bench even as the Union government, while opposing the plea, said that the apex court now carries the “grave responsibility” of determining how society will be shaped in future.

A three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, set down the matter for final arguments before a Constitution bench from April 18 after noting that the petitions involve the interplay between constitutional rights and specific legislative enactments, including the Special Marriage Act, 1954

“Having regard to the conspectus of the matter and the statutory regime in question, we are of the considered view that it would be appropriate if the issues raised here are resolved by the bench of five judges of this court with due regard to Article 145(3) of the Constitution. Thus, we direct that hearing of this case be posted before a Constitution bench,” stated the court in its order. Article 145(3) lays down that the cases that involve a substantial question of law in the matter relating to the interpretation of the Constitution should be heard by at least five judges.

The three-judge bench, which also included justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala, further observed: “It’s a matter important enough for us to invoke our authority under Article 145(3) and refer it to a constitution bench...it’s a seminal matter.”

...
https://www.hindustantimes.com/citi...ge-to-constitution-bench-101678732984111.html

 

[JattMaula]

Voted yes. I don't see any problem with same sex marriage.

I want UCC yesterday. You can practice all your religions as much as you want but all legal code including civil should be uniform. I believe India is ready for this step.

 

[Saj]

The ideological parent of India's ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has backed the government position against recognising same-sex marriage, months after raising hopes with supportive comments on gay rights.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi's BJP government has opposed recognising same-sex marriage and urged the Supreme Court to reject challenges to the current legal framework lodged by LGBT couples.

Final arguments in the case are due to be heard by a five-judge bench starting April 18.

"Marriage can only take place between persons of opposite genders, we agree with the government's stance on same-sex marriage," the Press Trust of India news agency quoted Dattatreya Hosabale, a top official of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), as saying.

Hosabale's office confirmed his comments to Reuters.

RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat had said in January that the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community "should have their own private and social space as they are humans and have the right to live as others".

Although Bhagwat had not referred specifically to same-sex marriage, his comments could force the government to reassess its opposition, a junior minister in the federal government and a senior BJP leader had said at the time.

The RSS, established in 1925, is a powerful Hindu group estimated to have millions of active members across India and overseas. The organisation played a major role in Modi's rise to power.

India decriminalised homosexuality when it scrapped a colonial-era ban on gay sex in 2018, but it remains a taboo topic in this socially conservative country of 1.4 billion.

The Modi government has argued that any change to the legal structure of marriage should be the domain of the elected parliament, not the court.

The Supreme Court started hearing petitions to recognise same-sex marriages after four gay couples stated that without legal recognition, they could not have access to rights such as those linked to medical consent, pensions, adoption or even club memberships.

 

[szrana007]

The ideological parent of India's ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has backed the government position against recognising same-sex marriage, months after raising hopes with supportive comments on gay rights.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi's BJP government has opposed recognising same-sex marriage and urged the Supreme Court to reject challenges to the current legal framework lodged by LGBT couples.

Final arguments in the case are due to be heard by a five-judge bench starting April 18.

"Marriage can only take place between persons of opposite genders, we agree with the government's stance on same-sex marriage," the Press Trust of India news agency quoted Dattatreya Hosabale, a top official of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), as saying.

Hosabale's office confirmed his comments to Reuters.

RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat had said in January that the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community "should have their own private and social space as they are humans and have the right to live as others".

Although Bhagwat had not referred specifically to same-sex marriage, his comments could force the government to reassess its opposition, a junior minister in the federal government and a senior BJP leader had said at the time.

The RSS, established in 1925, is a powerful Hindu group estimated to have millions of active members across India and overseas. The organisation played a major role in Modi's rise to power.

India decriminalised homosexuality when it scrapped a colonial-era ban on gay sex in 2018, but it remains a taboo topic in this socially conservative country of 1.4 billion.

The Modi government has argued that any change to the legal structure of marriage should be the domain of the elected parliament, not the court.

The Supreme Court started hearing petitions to recognise same-sex marriages after four gay couples stated that without legal recognition, they could not have access to rights such as those linked to medical consent, pensions, adoption or even club memberships.

Thats too bad, I thought India was going to go ahead with the same sex marriage bill.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

Gay sex is prone to produce a whole lot higher probability of sexually transmitted disease. Ask any medical doctor and he will tell you about it.

And I am OK with it. If they both sodomize each other as long as they are adults and have full consent — GOOD FOR THEM.

What I don’t feel right about is when these two gay men adopt a baby.
It just doesn’t feel right to me - but usually this is their first demand they made when same sex marriage law is passed.
I believe a baby naturally needs a mother, and two gay men can’t fill that void.

 

[JaDed]

.

I want UCC yesterday. You can practice all your religions as much as you want but all legal code including civil should be uniform. I believe India is ready for this step.

India was always ready for this step since 1955, blunder as usual done back then lead to Sikhs issue as well.

 

[JaDed]

Gay sex is prone to produce a whole lot higher probability of sexually transmitted disease. Ask any medical doctor and he will tell you about it.

And I am OK with it. If they both sodomize each other as long as they are adults and have full consent — GOOD FOR THEM.

What I don’t feel right about is when these two gay men adopt a baby.
It just doesn’t feel right to me - but usually this is their first demand they made when same sex marriage law is passed.
I believe a baby naturally needs a mother, and two gay men can’t fill that void.

Two lesbian women should be allowed though?

 

[JaDed]

What about gay marriages? Don't you want laws in India to enshrine their rights? In this thread at least you should have a clear opinion considering India is a secular nation.

Missed this post and I agree no issue with their marriages.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Missed this post and I agree no issue with their marriages.

The problem with marriages would be if such couples insist on being married in religious institutions like churches , temples etc. In some European countries, churches are forced to marry anyone and everyone at the behest of the state.

I don't think that's right . Religious institutions should have the right to restrict entry to whoever they want to.

Civil unions should be good enough for now. Unless said religious institutions are themselves willing to officiate.

 

[JattMaula]

The problem with marriages would be if such couples insist on being married in religious institutions like churches , temples etc. In some European countries, churches are forced to marry anyone and everyone at the behest of the state.

I don't think that's right . Religious institutions should have the right to restrict entry to whoever they want to.

Civil unions should be good enough for now. Unless said religious institutions are themselves willing to officiate.

Nobody is forcing anybody to perform religious ceremonies in India yet. Courts have so far in our history have forced religions to drop only some truly despicable practices. You can't compare out situation to Europe where gov overreach in private and religious matters is rampant.


Demand is for civil union which in my opinion should be granted. Religions will accept those marriages or not. At least these people will get some legal privileges.

And Hindus don't have central religious authority anyway. Some offshoots will take these people in. Book religions will obviously not.

 

[SportsWarrior]

i have no problem with this. But no one should be forcing their lifestyle on others. LGBT community should not force their lifestyle on others and should not expect the rules to be bent for them. If others don't want to participate, they are not bad people. It means they just don't want anything to do. Same with non-LGBT communities they should not imposing their views on LGBT community. No one should be forced to officiate any religious ceremonies if they don't want to. there will others who would have no problems officiating such ceremonies and they can go there.

Civil unions should be the umbrella under which all unions, including marriage should fall. That way traditional marriages will remain as it is and others can get into legal civil unions.

 

[SportsWarrior]

Nobody is forcing anybody to perform religious ceremonies in India yet. Courts have so far in our history have forced religions to drop only some truly despicable practices. You can't compare out situation to Europe where gov overreach in private and religious matters is rampant.


Demand is for civil union which in my opinion should be granted. Religions will accept those marriages or not. At least these people will get some legal privileges.

And Hindus don't have central religious authority anyway. Some offshoots will take these people in. Book religions will obviously not.

i know an acquaintance who is gay and wanted to marry his partner. He was Christian and in Kerala. Priest from his church refused to officiate as there was no official standing on this type of union from catholic church. My acquaintance way very ****** off and brought his gang to threaten the priest. That poor old guy went into hiding. Local elders had to step in to diffuse the situation. This was around 2018/19. He later travelled to USA with is boyfriend and wanted to marry there. Last i heard they separated and never got married. So, it happens. not as much as in US/Europe

 

[JattMaula]

i know an acquaintance who is gay and wanted to marry his partner. He was Christian and in Kerala. Priest from his church refused to officiate as there was no official standing on this type of union from catholic church. My acquaintance way very ****** off and brought his gang to threaten the priest. That poor old guy went into hiding. Local elders had to step in to diffuse the situation. This was around 2018/19. He later travelled to USA with is boyfriend and wanted to marry there. Last i heard they separated and never got married. So, it happens. not as much as in US/Europe

Your friend is a criminal and a thug. What he did is to priest is illegal. What was your point?

 

[RexRex]

i know an acquaintance who is gay and wanted to marry his partner. He was Christian and in Kerala. Priest from his church refused to officiate as there was no official standing on this type of union from catholic church. My acquaintance way very ****** off and brought his gang to threaten the priest. That poor old guy went into hiding. Local elders had to step in to diffuse the situation. This was around 2018/19. He later travelled to USA with is boyfriend and wanted to marry there. Last i heard they separated and never got married. So, it happens. not as much as in US/Europe

A Kerala Christian rounded up his gang to threaten a priest to conduct a gay wedding. Yeah I have a hard time beieving this funny story.

 

[SportsWarrior]

Your friend is a criminal and a thug. What he did is to priest is illegal. What was your point?

Yeah. That is why he just stayed as an acquaintance. The entitlement was way too much.

 

[SportsWarrior]

A Kerala Christian rounded up his gang to threaten a priest to conduct a gay wedding. Yeah I have a hard time beieving this funny story.

It is upto you to believe. I honestly don't care.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The problem with marriages would be if such couples insist on being married in religious institutions like churches , temples etc. In some European countries, churches are forced to marry anyone and everyone at the behest of the state.

I don't think that's right . Religious institutions should have the right to restrict entry to whoever they want to.

Civil unions should be good enough for now. Unless said religious institutions are themselves willing to officiate.

I don't see how that would be a big issue as only the minority religions would have objections to officiating in official churches or mosques. Posters have regularly advised on here that Hinduism is NOT a religion but in fact an evolving culture, so just like in western countries, there should be no problem accommodating homosexual unions officially like they do in the rest of the modern world.

 

[YousafTheBeast]

With Bilawal being groomed by the state into becoming a future PM of Pakistan, it’ll be interesting to see whether he’ll being a same sex marriage referendum into Pakistan, especially since he’s a part of that community.

 

[daytrader]

Sacrament In Hindu Law. Even In Islam...": Centre Opposes Gay Marriages
The right to personal autonomy does not include a right for the recognition of same-sex marriage and that too by way of judicial adjudication, the Centre said.

New Delhi: Calling marriage an "exclusively heterogenous institution", the Centre today again opposed granting legal sanction to same-sex marriage, and said the question of considering it equal to the existing concept of marriage "seriously affects the interests of every citizen". A court order recognising same-sex marriages would mean a virtual judicial rewriting of an entire branch of law, the government argued, adding that the Court must refrain from passing such "omnibus orders".
It's not discrimination to grant recognition to the "heterogenous institution of marriage alone" to the exclusion of same-sex marriage, the government argued, saying that this is because conventional and universally accepted socio-legal relationships like marriages across all religions, are "deeply rooted in the Indian social context and indeed is considered a sacrament in all branches of Hindu law. Even in Islam, though it is a contract, it is a sacred contract and a valid marriage is only between a biological male and a biological woman".

Calling the petitions "mere urban elitist views for the purpose of social acceptance," the Centre in its submission to the top court said that the Parliament will have to take into account "broader views and voices of all rural, semi-rural and urban populations, views of religious denominations keeping in mind personal laws as well, and customs governing the field of marriage together with its inevitable cascading effects on several other statutes".

A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, and Justices SK Kaul, Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha, is set to hear a clutch of petitions seeking legal recognition for same-sex marriages on Tuesday.

...
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/urb...ex-marriage-3954318#pfrom=home-ndtv_topscroll

 

[MenInG]

The Indian Supreme Court is hearing final arguments on a number of petitions seeking to legalise same-sex marriage. The hearings are being "livestreamed in public interest".

With same sex couples and LGBTQ+ activists hoping for a judgement in their favour and the government and religious leaders strongly opposing same sex union, the debate is expected to be a lively one.

Among those keenly watching the proceedings are Dr Kavita Arora and Ankita Khanna, a same sex couple who've been waiting for years to tie the knot.

For Kavita and Ankita, it wasn't love at first sight. The women first became co-workers, then friends, and then came love.

Their families and friends readily accepted their relationship, but 17 years after they met and more than a decade after they started living together, the mental health professionals say they are unable to marry - "something most couples aspire to".

The two are among 18 couples who have petitioned the Supreme Court to allow same sex marriage in India. At least three of the petitions have been filed by couples who are raising children together.

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud called it a matter of "seminal importance" and set up a five-judge constitutional bench - which deals with important questions of law - to rule on it.

The debate is important in a country which is home to an estimated tens of millions of LGBTQ+ people. In 2012, the Indian government put their population at 2.5 million, but calculations using global estimates believe it to be at least 10% of the entire population - or more than 135 million.

Over the years, acceptance of homosexuality has also grown in India. A Pew survey in 2020 had 37% people saying it should be accepted - an increase of 22% from 15% in 2014, the first time the question was asked in the country.

But despite the change, attitudes to sex and sexuality remain largely conservative and activists say most LGBTQ+ people are afraid to come out, even to their friends and family, and attacks on same sex couples routinely make headlines.

So a lot of attention is focussed on what happens in the top court in the coming days - a favourable decision will make India the 35th country in the world to legalise same sex union and set off momentous changes in society. A lot of other laws, such as those governing adoption, divorce and inheritance, will also have to be rejigged.

Ankita and Kavita say they hope it will happen, because that will make it possible for them to marry.

Ankita, a therapist, and Kavita, a psychiatrist, together run a clinic that works with children and young adults with mental health issues and learning disabilities.

On 23 September 2020, they applied to get married.

"We were at that stage in our relationship where we were thinking about marriage. Also, we were tired of fighting the system each time we wanted something done - such as get a joint bank account or a health insurance policy, own a house together, or write a will."

One incident that proved "a catalyst" was when Ankita's mother needed an emergency surgery but Kavita, who had accompanied her to the hospital, says she couldn't sign the consent form "because I couldn't say I was her daughter, nor could I say I was her daughter-in-law".

But on 30 September, when they went to the magistrate's office in their area, seeking to solemnise their marriage, they were turned away.

The couple then petitioned the Delhi high court, seeking legalisation of same sex marriage - and a direction to the authorities to register their wedding.

After a number of similar petitions were filed by same-sex couples in the Supreme Court and across high courts in India, the top court in January bunched them together and said it will deliberate the "important" issue.

In their petition, filed through senior lawyers Menaka Guruswamy and Arundhati Katju, Ankita and Kavita say "what we seek is not the right to be left alone, but the right to be acknowledged as equals."

The Indian constitution, their petition adds, gives all citizens the right to marry a person of their choice and prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and their petition should be allowed since "constitutional morality is above social morality".

"I'm very optimistic and have great faith in the judiciary," Ms Guruswamy, whose team is representing six same-sex union cases in court, told the BBC.

Some of her optimism come from reading the December 2018 judgement that decriminalised gay sex - "the thing that struck me most was that the court emphasised the right to choice of partner and that makes me very optimistic", she said.

While striking down the colonial-era law, the judges also said that "history owed an apology to LGBT people and their families for the ignominy and ostracism they have faced".

But considering the opposition to same sex marriage from the government and religious leaders, Ms Guruswamy has a tough fight on her hands.

The Indian government has urged the top court to reject the petitions, saying that a marriage could take place only between a man and a woman who are heterosexual.

"Living together as partners and sexual relationships by same sex individuals ... are not comparable with the Indian family unit concept of a husband, a wife and children," the law ministry argued in a filing in the court.

It added that the court cannot be asked "to change the entire legislative policy of the country deeply embedded in religious and societal norms" and that matter should be left to be debated in the parliament.

On Sunday, the government submitted another 102-page document in court saying that the "petitions merely reflect urban elitist views" and that "any court decision to recognise same-sex marriage would mean a "virtual judicial rewriting of an entire branch of law".

In a rare show of unity, leaders from all of India's main religions - Hindu, Muslim, Jain, Sikh and Christian - also opposed same sex union, with several of them insisting that marriage "is for procreation, not recreation".

And last month, 21 retired high court judges also weighed in on the subject. Legalisation of same-sex marriage would have a "devastating impact on children, family and society", they wrote in an open letter.

The judges added that allowing same-sex marriage could increase incidence of HIV-Aids in India and expressed concern that it could "negatively affect the psychological and emotional development of children raised by same-sex couples".

But last weekend, the petitioners received a major boost when Indian Psychiatric Society (IPS) - the country's leading mental health group which represents more than 7,000 psychiatrists - issued a statement in their support.

"Homosexuality is not a disease," the IPS said in a statement, adding that discrimination against LGBTQ+ people could "lead to mental health issues in them".

LGBT India six months after gay sex ruling

The IPS statement carries some heft - in 2018, the organisation had released a similar statement supporting decriminalising gay sex and the Supreme Court had referred to it in their judgement.

I ask Ankita and Kavita what they think will happen in court?

"We know that the constitution was framed to allow for equality and diversity and our faith in judiciary and constitution is unwavering," says Ankita.

Adds Kavita: "We knew there would be opposition, we knew this wasn't going to be a cakewalk. But we chose to undertake this journey, this is what we started, let's see where it takes us."

BBC

 

[RexRex]

Livestream of the Supreme Court discussing Gay Marriage. This is the first time I've seen an indian court live, found the link after it was mentioned in MIG's article above.

 

[MenInG]

As the Supreme Court hears petitions seeking legal sanction for same sex marriages, the centre has written to the states, seeking their views on the matter.
The court had earlier urged the Supreme Court to make all states party to the proceedings on petitions seeking the right to marry for same sex couple.

After the court declined this request, the centre has said that it should be allowed to hold consultations with the states and present their views before the court. Till then, the centre has said, proceedings in the matter should be adjourned.

NDTV

 

[MenInG]

The notion of heterosexuality must be deconstructed, the Supreme Court was told today during a hearing on petitions seeking legal sanction to same sex marriages.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the petitioners, said that the fundamental rights guaranteed in Constitution were for all individuals, heterosexual or queer. So, there was no reason why they should be denied the right to marriage, he said.

"We will not be treated as lesser mortals and there will be full enjoyment of right to life," Mr Rohatgi argued, adding, "We must deconstruct the notion of heterosexuality."

"We want a declaration that we have a right to marry, that right will be recognised by the State and will be registered under Special Marriage Act. Once that happens, the society will accept us. The stigma will only go once the state recognises it. That will be full and final assimilation," he said.

Arguing on the matter yesterday, the petitioners said the Special Marriage Act should mention 'spouse' instead of man and woman.

The centre has said that those part of the proceedings don't represent the views of the nation and that these petitions reflect "urban elitist views". It has said that only the legislature can decide on the creation of a new social relationship and that the court must examine if it can hear this matter.

"In the question of personal laws, the Legislature is duty bound to act in accordance with the popular will. Where the social consensus favours a particular definition of Marriage, the Legislature in giving sanction to that form is only discharging its duty of adhering to the will of the people. This unequivocal democratic will should not be negated by a judicial order," it has said.

Responding to this, Mr Rohatgi said, "Society accepts what the Law is... sometimes law takes the lead. Push the society to acknowledge us as equals as the Constitution says so."

On the question of 'popular will', he said, "Majority is not the basis. It's my right. We are equal human begins entitled to rights guaranteed under Constitution." Nobody can deny a full and equal citizenship, he said.

NDTV

 

[Realromeo]

There is no such thing as "Hinduism" that is applicable to everyone in India. It just got clumped together. Regardless, I support same-sex marriage. I only support Gays because it takes competitions out lol.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Just one of those random coincidences, but I was just flicking through Prime Movies on Amazon and landed on a film called Wrong Turn, and it has an Indian born actor in it called Vardaan Arora. I was intrigued as you don't often see an Indian in a teen movie cast, and on watching it further he plays a gay character. It's progress in the US for Indian actors, maybe we will start seeing this reflected in Bollywood soon.

 

[MenInG]

Are two spouses who belong to a binary gender essential for marriage, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud asked on Thursday, as the Supreme Court heard arguments on legalising same-sex marriages.

"We see these [same-sex] relationships not just as physical relations but something more of a stable, emotional relationship," Justice Chandrachud said on the third day of the hearing by a five-judge bench that is being live-streamed on the court website and YouTube.

"[Legalising same-sex marriage] requires us to redefine the evolving notion of marriage. Because is the existence of two spouses who belong to a binary gender a necessary requirement for marriage?" he asked.

He noted that the law has evolved significantly in the last 69 years since the enactment of the Special Marriage Act in 1954, which provided a form of civil marriage for people who did not want to follow their personal laws.

"And by decriminalizing homosexuality, we have not just recognised treating relationships between consenting adults of the same gender, but we've also recognised that people who are of the same sex would even be in stable relationships," he said, referring to the landmark 2018 order.

As the hearing proceeded, he later said, "There are no absolutes, as I said, even at the risk of getting trolled. And what happens when there is a heterosexual couple and the child sees domestic violence? Will that child grow up in a normal atmosphere? Of a father becoming an alcoholic, coming home and thrashing the mother every night, and asking for money for alcohol."

Responding to arguments about the impact of same-sex marriages on children, he said, "Just in the case of heterosexual couples, now with the spread of education, the pressures of the modern age, increasingly, couples are either childless or single child couples... People are moving away from the notion that you must have a boy."

The telling comments by the Chief Justice come amid opposition by the government to the reform, which has called the appeals "urban elitist views" and said that parliament is the right platform to debate the matter.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government has challenged the appeals, including some by gay couples, on the grounds that same-sex marriages are not "comparable with the Indian family unit concept of a husband, a wife and children".

"The petitions, which merely reflect urban elitist views, cannot be compared with the appropriate legislature which reflects the views and voices of a far wider spectrum and expands across the country," the government said in a filing to the Supreme Court on Sunday.

At least 15 appeals have been filed with the court in recent months stating that without legal recognition, many same-sex couples could not exercise rights such as those linked to medical consent, pensions, adoption or even club memberships.

NDTV

 

[JaDed]

Seems like majority are against it, unfortunate.

 

[JaDed]

Just one of those random coincidences, but I was just flicking through Prime Movies on Amazon and landed on a film called Wrong Turn, and it has an Indian born actor in it called Vardaan Arora. I was intrigued as you don't often see an Indian in a teen movie cast, and on watching it further he plays a gay character. It's progress in the US for Indian actors, maybe we will start seeing this reflected in Bollywood soon.

? There are multiple bollywood movies with LGBTQ characters.

Kapoor and sons
Ek ladki ko dekha
Shubh mangal zyada savdhaan
Chabdigarh ka aashiq

I’m sure there are more esp in webseries etc.

Only Indian TV shows made for TV won’t have em.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

? There are multiple bollywood movies with LGBTQ characters.

Kapoor and sons
Ek ladki ko dekha
Shubh mangal zyada savdhaan
Chabdigarh ka aashiq

I’m sure there are more esp in webseries etc.

Only Indian TV shows made for TV won’t have em.

Yes I get that, but the vast majority of Bollwyood movies show Indians as heterosexual hero types, as do most western film studios show whites. My point was that I was quite surprised to see an Indian actor in what was ostensibly a teen horror flick, but then not so surprised to see he was cast as part of a gay duo, his partner being a latino/Peruvian type. The other four hetero hero/heroines were white, and one black.

I guess this is just how Americans see Indians, they already don't have much of a presence on US shows other than nerds. Incidentally the film was crap anyway, I wouldn't recommend it, barely above B movie level.

 

[JaDed]

Yes I get that, but the vast majority of Bollwyood movies show Indians as heterosexual hero types, as do most western film studios show whites. My point was that I was quite surprised to see an Indian actor in what was ostensibly a teen horror flick, but then not so surprised to see he was cast as part of a gay duo, his partner being a latino/Peruvian type. The other four hetero hero/heroines were white, and one black.

I guess this is just how Americans see Indians, they already don't have much of a presence on US shows other than nerds. Incidentally the film was crap anyway, I wouldn't recommend it, barely above B movie level.

Not really from How I met your father to New girl , Parks and Rec , even the office the nerd image is not common anymore as it used to be.

 

[Champ_Pal]

This topic would not even be in discussion if it was a couple of millennia ago in subcontinent. Lesbians and Gays have been demonized enough over centuries now. All imported culture from the west. Now the same west is pushing the LGBTQ on the East. Its funny how things have changed.

 

[JaDed]

This topic would not even be in discussion if it was a couple of millennia ago in subcontinent. Lesbians and Gays have been demonized enough over centuries now. All imported culture from the west. Now the same west is pushing the LGBTQ on the East. Its funny how things have changed.

Same thing happened with weed. Republicans taketh and Democrats giveth.

 

[MenInG]

India’s inclusive culture accepting of same-sex love was stifled by the imposition of Victorian morality under British colonialism, according to the chief justice of the country’s Supreme Court.

The comments came as the court heard a series of pleas seeking legal recognition of gay marriages.

“It is the impact of British Victorian morality that we had to forsake much of our cultural ethos,” said chief justice DY Chandrachud, after solicitor general Tushar Mehta suggested the queer movement began in India around 2002.

“If you go to some of our finest temples, you will see sculptures and artworks that you will never say are lurid. Ours has been an educative culture, a profound one. From 1857 and the framing of the Indian Penal Code [the country’s criminal code], the code of Victorian morality was imposed on our inclusive, broad culture,” he was quoted as saying by The Hindu newspaper.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/worl...p&cvid=924439ce02e04d0fa20557ca009315f0&ei=75

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

This topic would not even be in discussion if it was a couple of millennia ago in subcontinent. Lesbians and Gays have been demonized enough over centuries now. All imported culture from the west. Now the same west is pushing the LGBTQ on the East. Its funny how things have changed.

How is the west pushing LGBTQ onto India? I don't even know why you would have a problem with it given you yourself have stated Hinduism encompasses all beliefs including atheism and one would presume sexual preferences.

 

[MenInG]

Responding to filmmaker Onir, who described as ‘betrayal,’ the Congress-led Rajasthan government's position on same-sex marriages, party leader Shashi Tharoor on Wednesday said many individuals do support Onir, but state governments are free to take their own positions.

Personally, many of us individuals support you @iamOnir. State governments take their own positions. As far as I am aware an official party stand on the issue has not yet been announced,” tweeted Tharoor.

Tweeting back to the Thiruvananthapuram MP, Onir, who is openly gay, expressed his disappointment that the country's principal opposition party had ‘failed to stand’ by the queer community on the issue of same-sex marriage.
“Does our vote mean nothing since the party does not care about us being treated as equal,” he asked.

The 54-year-old, real name Anirban Dhar, further said some members of the RSS and BJP, too, support rights of the LGBTQI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex) community.

For the record, the Union government, which is led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), has submitted in the Supreme Court its opposition to same-sex unions, and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the BJP's ideological mentor, has backed the government's stance.


https://www.hindustantimes.com/indi...han-supreme-court-lgbtqi-101683731848068.html

 

[happydavy]

Same sex marriage, absolutely yes. Not sure about them adopting kids though, that in my opinion shouldn't be allowed.

 

[Cricket Warrior]

India Supreme Court declines to legalise same-sex marriage

India's Supreme Court has declined to legalise same-sex unions, dashing the hopes of millions of LGBTQ+ people seeking marriage equality.

The court instead accepted the government's offer to set up a panel to consider granting more legal rights and benefits to same-sex couples.

Activists and same-sex couples said they were disappointed by the judgement and would continue their campaign.

The court was considering 21 petitions by same-sex couples and activists.

The five-judge bench had held extensive hearings in April and May and the deliberations were "livestreamed in public interest".

The petitioners had argued that not being able to marry violated their constitutional rights and made them "second-class citizens".

They had suggested that the court could just replace "man" and "woman" with "spouse" in the Special Marriage Act - which allows marriage between people from different religions, castes and countries - to include same-sex unions.

The government and religious leaders had strongly opposed the petitions. The government had insisted that only parliament could discuss the socio-legal issue of marriage and argued that allowing same-sex marriage would lead to "chaos" in society.

On Tuesday, the judges agreed with the government, saying that only parliament could make law and the judges could only interpret them.

They accepted Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's proposal on behalf of the government to set up a committee, headed by the country's top bureaucrat, to consider "granting queer couples" rights and privileges available to heterosexual couples.

Two of the judges, including Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, favoured civil union and granting the same "benefits that married people enjoy" to same-sex couples.

The chief justice also read out a long list of directions to the government, asking them to ensure the end of all discrimination against the "queer community" and to protect them from harassment and violence. Justice Chandrachud also said that "queer and unmarried couples" could jointly adopt a child.

But after all the judges had spoken, and the majority of three judges on the bench did not back his list, it became clear that Justice Chandrachud's directions will remain just that - directions.

The five-judge constitutional bench had said they would not interfere with religious personal laws but look at amending the Special Marriage Act to include LGBTQ+ people.

But as the hearings progressed, it became clear just how complex the matter was, with the bench conceding that issues of divorce, adoption, succession, maintenance and other related issues are governed by dozens of laws - and that many of them do spill over into religious personal laws.

Tuesday's judgement has left activists and same-sex couples "disappointed".

"I went to the courtroom this morning with a lot of hope, but as I heard the judges read out their orders, I felt huge disappointment. My hopes were dashed," gay rights activist Sharif Rangnekar told the BBC.

"The decision to leave it all to a government committee with no timeline for when it is to be set up or when it would provide us with rights leaves us in the hands of lots of bureaucratic uncertainty. It is very worrying."

Pia Chanda, who's been in a same-sex relationship for 34 years, told the BBC the "Supreme Court is playing passing the parcel".

"This judgement is a predictable farce and will keep the discrimination in place," she added.

The judgement has also been welcomed by many.

Adish Aggarwala, president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, told reporters that he was happy that the court had accepted the government's argument that it did not have the power to legalise same-sex union.

"That right only rests with the Indian parliament and we are glad that the court agrees with us," he added.

Before the verdict, Mr Aggarwala had told reporters that allowing same-sex marriages would not be a good idea as it is "not in accordance with the system prevalent in India".

The debate was being keenly watched in a country which is home to an estimated tens of millions of LGBTQ+ people. In 2012, the Indian government put their population at 2.5 million, but calculations using global estimates suggest it's at least 10% of the entire population - or more than 135 million.

Same-sex couples had been pinning their hopes on this key judgement - many had earlier told the BBC they would marry if the petitions went through.

India Supreme Court declines to legalise same-sex marriage

The Supreme Court's refusal to legalise same-sex marriage has dashed the hopes of India's LGBTQ+ people.

www.bbc.com

 

[Justcrazy]

Or maybe its due to Modi being PM?

Homosexuals existed in all areas from early history. The topic here is marriage.

Is Marriage a Hindu concept and if so what is marriage defined in Hinduism?

According to Wiki

"The Brahmanas state that man is only said to be "complete" after marrying a woman, and acquiring progeny."

It is right . If you put hundred men with hundred men or hundred women with hundred women in an island , after 100 years , NO HUMANS left.

If you put 100 Men and 100 Women in another Island with same conditions after 100 years a vibrant society will be there.

 

[Suleiman]

Finally a decision we can agree with.

There’s still hope for India

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Can't comment too much as an outsider both to the LGBT community and India.

Would be interested to here an insiders perspective - @Bhaijaan @cricketjoshila what is the impact of this decision for you guys?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Can't comment too much as an outsider both to the LGBT community and India.

Would be interested to here an insiders perspective - @Bhaijaan @cricketjoshila what is the impact of this decision for you guys?

While its no one's business to know what happens between two consenting adults inside their bedrooms, it becomes everyone's business when it becomes part of a social institution like marriage.

So while LGBT community are free to live together, what they cannot demand is that laws be changed and bent for them.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Can't comment too much as an outsider both to the LGBT community and India.

Would be interested to here an insiders perspective - @Bhaijaan @cricketjoshila what is the impact of this decision for you guys?

Marriage is between a man and a woman. I do not support same-sex marriages. The sanctity of marriage must be preserved.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Thanks for the answer guys.

I think we should reclaim the alphabet and start a new LGBT movement - Lets Grow Bharat Together

 

[Cricket Warrior]

80% of fashion industry’s people are ‘LGBTQ’, says Maria B

Fashion designer Maria B has claimed that 80% of people in the fashion industry were LGBTQ, an initialism for the homosexual movement in the West.

She spoke about the fashion industry and other matters in a podcast.

When asked about speaking against transgender people, Maria B said that her tolerance had run out, so she started speaking on this issue.

Maria B said that she started talking about LGBTQ or transgender people when such individuals started saying on social media that “all sexual orientations are permissible in Islam.”

She alleged that she had never spoken about LGBTQ or transgender people before, because such individuals were earlier confined to their own identity or homes.

The fashion designer claimed that 80% of the men in the fashion industry are LGBTQ.



AAJ TV

 

[PakLFC]

Same sex marriages are an abomination. They are totally against the natural law of nature. As much as I hate it in India it may be acceptable which is fine by me. In Pak I will never accept it.

 

[BouncerGuy]

When you go against nature, you are waiting for a disaster to happen. Same S marriages are another route towards a disaster that will bring lots and lots of problems in society moving forward.

 

[Muhammad Saad]

I don't know what is happening in India but almost every 2nd OTT webseries has same sex elements and vulgar same sex scenes in to it. May be they are funded to do this? Any Indian here who can put light on to this?

 

[Muhammad Saad]

When you go against nature, you are waiting for a disaster to happen. Same S marriages are another route towards a disaster that will bring lots and lots of problems in society moving forward.

There will be AIDS like outbreak bound to happen after all this stuff.

God doesn't like it when Human intervene with his creation and trying to disturb the equilibrium of nature , there are countless examples and incident happened in the past when any body tries to disturb the nature.

 

[ExpressPacer]

Marriages are a religious / holy construct. Therefore, I don’t understand why LGBTQ need to be “married”.

However, as far as 2 people living together is concerned, I don’t really care or for that matter mind. So, I’m quite open minded in that sense.

But whether they should be allowed to raise children in a gay/lesbian family - in Pakistan - is another question.

 

[Red-Indian]

When you go against nature, you are waiting for a disaster to happen. Same S marriages are another route towards a disaster that will bring lots and lots of problems in society moving forward.

We went against nature when we climbed down out of the trees and started living in houses. Everything after that has been unnatural for us humans. All this unnatural stuff like schools, hospitals, cars, trains, airplanes, computers etc. have caused lots of issues but we seem to be managing okay so why not live with one more unnatural thing?

 

[BouncerGuy]

We went against nature when we climbed down out of the trees and started living in houses. Everything after that has been unnatural for us humans. All this unnatural stuff like schools, hospitals, cars, trains, airplanes, computers etc. have caused lots of issues but we seem to be managing okay so why not live with one more unnatural thing?

That was innovation and evolution. You think these are same?

 

[Red-Indian]

Marriages are a religious / holy construct. Therefore, I don’t understand why LGBTQ need to be “married”.

However, as far as 2 people living together is concerned, I don’t really care or for that matter mind. So, I’m quite open minded in that sense.

But whether they should be allowed to raise children in a gay/lesbian family - in Pakistan - is another question.

Broadly you're probably right. I think if the law allows a specific form of civil union with the legal rights that marriage allows - divorce & alimony, joint tax filing, legal protection, protection against being forced to testify and incriminate etc., it should satisfy everyone except the most rabid LGBT rights campaigners. Some extremists will of course continue to agitate but most reasonable folks will accept that "marriage" is a religious construct and what is needed for equality is the legal fiction not the construct.

 

[Red-Indian]

That was innovation and evolution. You think these are same?

Who knows? I'm noone to judge which is innovation and which is not. I hate Tiktok and think it's the opposite of innovation & evolution but I'm not sitting here asking for it to be banned.

 

[gani999]

There will be AIDS like outbreak bound to happen after all this stuff.

God doesn't like it when Human intervene with his creation and trying to disturb the equilibrium of nature , there are countless examples and incident happened in the past when any body tries to disturb the nature.

When all the free heterosexual sex and drug addicts sharing needles haven't led to an AIDS outbreak, a few gays banging each other is hardly going to make any difference.
Besides, there is increasing evidence now that anti-retroviral treatment can cure AIDS completely.

 

[Muhammad Saad]

When all the free heterosexual sex and drug addicts sharing needles haven't led to an AIDS outbreak, a few gays banging each other is hardly going to make any difference.
Besides, there is increasing evidence now that anti-retroviral treatment can cure AIDS completely.

Then there can be a new disease and outbreak , it's always happened in the past when humankind disturb the nature.