Central Government Opposes Same Sex Marriage; Centre Claims It Is Against Indian Familial Values

Coverage of this Article

KEY TAKEAWAYS

-The Central Government opposes marriage opportunities and equality for the LGBTQ+ community in the Delhi High Court.

INTRODUCTION

-The Central government on Thursday told the Delhi High Court that Indian culture and law “does not recognise the concept of same-sex marriages,” and "Living together as partners or in a relationship with a same-sex individual is not comparable with the Indian family unit concept of a husband, wife and children,"- the government claimed in a counter affidavit, that was filed on a petition which in turn was filed by same sex couples, seeking for their fundamental choice of partner. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that “As per law, a marriage is only between a husband and a wife.” In the reply affidavit filed by the Government, it was stated that "Family issues are far beyond mere recognition and registration of marriage between persons belonging to the same gender. 

FURTHER DETAILS

-A division bench of Justices Rajiv Sahai and Amit Bansal was hearing petitions, with regards to the recognition of same sex marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act and Special Marriage Act, and the fundamental right of choice of partner. 

WHAT'S HAPPENING NOW?

-While Menaka Guruswamy, the lawyer who represents the petitioners requested for a closer and sooner date for the next hearing, the lawyer representing the Government spoke by interrupting her, asking "is this matter urgent? There are more urgent and genuine cases.

CONCLUSION

-Homosexuality refers to a romantic affection or sexual attraction to anyone of the same gender or sex. Before gender identity, or sexual orientation, the person is human first. And every human has a set of fundamental rights.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The Central Government opposes marriage opportunities and equality for the LGBTQ+ community in the Delhi High Court.
• On Thursday, the centre finally replied to the plea that sought for legal recognition of same sex marriage.
• The institution of marriage has sanctity, and living together as partners or in a relationship with a sane sex individual is not what constitutes as a family unit in India, the government claimed.
• Twitter is enraged over this decision, trending the hashtag #samesexmarriage, as a retaliation against the Central Government.
• One of the couples was seeking for a declaration that the Special Marriage Act, 1956 (SMA) applies for all couples, regardless of their gender identity and sexual orientation.
• The matter will next be heard on April 20th.

INTRODUCTION

The Central government on Thursday told the Delhi High Court that Indian culture and law “does not recognise the concept of same-sex marriages,” and "Living together as partners or in a relationship with a same-sex individual is not comparable with the Indian family unit concept of a husband, wife and children,"- the government claimed in a counter affidavit, that was filed on a petition which in turn was filed by same sex couples, seeking for their fundamental choice of partner. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that “As per law, a marriage is only between a husband and a wife.” In the reply affidavit filed by the Government, it was stated that "Family issues are far beyond mere recognition and registration of marriage between persons belonging to the same gender. 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 which necessarily presuppose a biological man as a 'husband', a biological woman as a 'wife' and the children born out of the union between the two." The Central Government also added "that fundamental right under Article 21 is subject to the procedure established by law and the same cannot be expanded to extend to include the fundamental right for a same-sex marriage."

FURTHER DETAILS

A division bench of Justices Rajiv Sahai and Amit Bansal was hearing petitions, with regards to the recognition of same sex marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act and Special Marriage Act, and the fundamental right of choice of partner. The solicitor General Tushar Mehta had claimed that the respondents, or the Central Government would file a reply affidavit on Thursday 25th, which would act as a common answer to all petitions. One of the couples was seeking for a declaration that the Special Marriage Act, 1956 applies for all couples, regardless of their gender identity and sexual orientation, stating that denying their legal right to marry is against the Constitution of India. The Government observed that in putting down Section 377, it only decriminalized “a particular human behaviour” but “neither intended to, nor did in fact, legitimise the human conduct in question.” The Modi Government had failed to file a reply affidavit in favour of the same sex marriage equality, and the petitioners side must be heard, therefore the case will go on, on April 20th.

WHAT'S HAPPENING NOW?

While Menaka Guruswamy, the lawyer who represents the petitioners requested for a closer and sooner date for the next hearing, the lawyer representing the Government spoke by interrupting her, asking "is this matter urgent? There are more urgent and genuine cases." The Government stated that any interference from the judiciary will bring up "complete havoc with the delicate balance of personal laws." The people are raging over on Twitter over this decision by bringing up ancient mythology which mentions and actions of homosexuality, asking if the history of India contains various scenarios of homosexuality, why does the Central Government claim that the Indian laws are against the same sex marriage. The younger generation of the population have been tweeting about the decision, putting up pictures of ancient carvings, and temples with homosexual sculptures-

Despite the decriminalisation of same sex couples, the plea of the government stated that same sex marriage is not possible. The Centre has rejected claims of the petitioners that marriage is a concept within the private domains of individuals, and said that marriage also had a public aspect to it, as it had several statutory rights linked with it. "In India marriage is not just a matter of union of two individuals but a solemn institution between a biological man and a biological woman. Despite the decriminalisation of section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners cannot claim a fundamental right for same-sex marriage being recognised under the laws of the country," the government said. Same sex marriage is a violation of personal as well as codified laws, the government claimed, hoping for a dismissal of the petition.

CONCLUSION

Homosexuality refers to a romantic affection or sexual attraction to anyone of the same gender or sex. Before gender identity, or sexual orientation, the person is human first. And every human has a set of fundamental rights. The dismissal that the Government wishes for, of the petition of recognition of same sex marriage is a violation of their rights. After Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was taken down, it was a small ray of hope to the road of a free, and open minded society, with regards to the LGBTQ community. What use of being able to be in a relationship, if they can't join hands in marriage? Marriage is a sacred union between two humans, between two souls that share an affection of love for each other. Why must the societal concept of gender identity, or sexual orientation put a full stop to that? Sure, there are laws, both personal and codified- that regulate the sacred concept of marriage, but, as the tweets stated- when did marriage become exclusively just for a biological man and biological woman? These "age old customs, societal values" in the ancient mythology and sculptures and carvings- all did consist of homosexuality, so what is this Government relying on, by using that as an excuse, and being discriminatory?

This is not the end, the case is still ongoing. The Court has yet to listen to the petitioners, and pass it's judgement. This matter will next be heard on April 20th.