Tag: samesex

Same-sex marriage dangerous for Indian culture, allegesVHP

[ad_1]
Varanasi: The Vishva Hindu Parishad on Saturday said the “haste” with which the Supreme Court is disposing of the petitions for legal recognition to same-sex marriages is not appropriate and it should have sought the opinion of religious leaders and experts from diverse fields.
VHP Joint General Secretary Surendra Jain expressed apprehension the top court’s actions could lead to “new disputes”.
A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud is hearing a batch of pleas seeking legal sanction for same-sex marriage. It began hearing the matter on Tuesday and the arguments remained inconclusive on the third consecutive day on Thursday. The arguments will resume on April 24.

On Thursday, the top court said it may be redefining the “evolving notion of marriage” as the next step after decriminalising consensual homosexual relationship, which implicitly recognised that same-sex people could live in a stable marriage-like relationship.
“The haste with which the honourable Supreme Court is disposing off the petitions for recognition of same-sex marriage is not appropriate in any way. This will give rise to new disputes and will also prove to be dangerous for the culture of India,” Jain said.
“Hence, before proceeding ahead on this subject, the honourable Supreme Court should have taken the opinion of the religious leaders, people from the field of medicine, social scientists and academicians by forming a committee,” he told reporters here.
Jain said the subject of marriage is governed by different civil codes.
“None of the civil codes prevailing in India gives permission for this (same-sex marriage). Does the Supreme Court want to make a change in these?” he said.

Ram Narayan Dwivedi of Kashi Vidvat Parishad, Govind Sharma of Ganga Mahasabha and Mahant Balak Das of Dharma Parishad also spoke at the press conference.
During Thursday’s hearing, the Supreme Court did not agree to the contention that unlike heterosexuals, same-sex couples cannot take proper care of their children.
Referring to its 2018 judgment that decriminalised consensual gay sex, the court said it led to a situation where two consenting homosexual adults can live in a marriage-like relationship and the next step could be to validate their relationship as marriage.
“Therefore, by decriminalising homosexuality we have not just recognised the relationship between consenting adults of the same gender, we have also recognised implicitly the fact that the people who are of same sex could be in a stable relationship,” it said.
[ad_2]
#Samesex #marriage #dangerous #Indian #culture #allegesVHP
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

April 22, 2023
SC urged to use plenary power, moral authority to ensure same-sex marriage acceptance

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The petitioners seeking legal validation of same-sex marriage on Wednesday urged the Supreme Court to use its plenary power, “prestige and moral authority” to push the society to acknowledge such a union which would ensure LGBTQIA persons lead a “dignified” life like heterosexuals.
A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud was told by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for one of the petitioners,that “the State should come forward and provide recognition to same-sex marriage.”
He referred to the law on widow re-marriage, and said the society did accept it then and the “law acted with alacrity” and social acceptance followed.

“Here, this court needs to push the society to acknowledge the same-sex marriage. This court, besides the power under Article 142 (which provides SC the plenary power to pass any order necessary for doing complete justice) of the Constitution, has moral authority and it enjoys public confidence. We rely on the prestige and moral authority of this court to ensure that we get our right,” Rohagti told the bench which also comprised Justices S K Kaul, S R Bhat, Hima Kohli and P S Narasimha.
He said, “the State should come forward and provide recognition to same-sex marriage… which will help us leading a dignified life like heterosexuals.”
At the outset of second day’s proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, filed a fresh plea urging the top court that all the states and UTs be also made parties to the proceedings on the pleas.
In a fresh affidavit filed in the apex court, the Centre said it has issued a letter on April 18 to all the states inviting comments and views on the “seminal issue” raised in the pleas.
“It is, therefore, humbly requested that all states and Union Territories be made a party to the present proceedings and their respective stance be taken on record and in the alternative, allow the Union of India, to finish the consultative process with the states, obtains their views/apprehensions, compile the same and place it on record before this court, and only thereafter adjudicate on the present issue,” the affidavit said.

“It is submitted that the Union of India, has issued a letter dated April 18, 2023 to all states inviting comments and views on the seminal issue raised in the present batch of petition,” it said.
Opposing the fresh plea of the government, Rohatgi said the pleas challenged the Central law, the Special Marriage Act, and just because the subject is there in the concurrent list of the Constitution, states and UTs need not be issued the notices.
“You do not have to labour on this point,” the CJI said.
Coming back to the submissions, Rohatgi referred to the judgements, including the decriminalisation of consensual gay sex, and said “The court was revisiting something which has already been decided”.
“I am equal to heterosexual groups and it cannot be so that their sexual orientation is correct and all others are incorrect. I am saying let there be a positive affirmation…We should not be treated as lesser mortals and there will be full enjoyment of the right to life,” he said.
The hearing is continuing.
The top court on Tuesday made it clear that it will not go into personal laws governing marriages while deciding the pleas seeking legal validation for same-sex marriages and said the very notion of a man and a woman, as referred to in the Special Marriage Act, is not “an absolute based on genitals”.
The outcome will have significant ramifications for the country where common people and political parties hold divergent views on the subject.
The apex court had on November 25 last year sought the Centre’s response to separate pleas moved by two gay couples seeking enforcement of their right to marry and a direction to the authorities concerned to register their marriages under the Special Marriage Act.
LGBTQIA stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex and asexual.
[ad_2]
#urged #plenary #power #moral #authority #ensure #samesex #marriage #acceptance
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

April 19, 2023
Same-sex marriage: Genitals don’t define absolute concept of man or woman, observes SC

[ad_1]
New Delhi: While hearing a batch of petitions seeking legal sanction to same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court on Tuesday orally observed that there is no absolute concept of a man or a woman and it cannot be only about the genitals, rather it is far more complex.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, submitted before a five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud that there is a legislative intent that a marriage can only happen between a biological man and a biological woman, including Special Marriage Act.
Chief Justice Chandrachud told Mehta, “Very important judgement you are making. That very notion of a biological man is absolute and the notion of biological woman is also absolute…” Mehta said a biological man is a biological man and it is not a notion.

The Chief Justice said, “There is no absolute concept of a man or a woman at all…it cannot be the definition of what your genitals are, it is far more complex. Even when the Special Marriage Act (SMA) says man and woman, the very notion of a man and notion of a woman is not an absolute, based on what genitals you have….”
During the hearing, Mehta stressed that his preliminary objections against the maintainability of the petitions seeking same-sex marriage should be decided first and added that all states should be issued notices before a decision is made by the top court.
Mehta submitted that the institution of marriage affects personal laws. The Hindu Marriage Act is a codified personal law and Islam has their own personal law, and part of them is not codified. The bench – comprising justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S. Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and P.S. Narasimha – replied that it is not getting into personal laws.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing one of the petitioners seeking recognition of same-sex marriage, submitted that his clients seek a declaration that “we have a right to get married.” The counsel said the state will recognise that right under the Special Marriage Act and the marriage will be recognised by the state after the declaration of this court.
Rohatgi contended that this is because even now we are stigmatised, and this is even after the Article 377 judgment, and that the Special Marriage Act should mention ‘spouse’ instead of man and women.

Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for one of the parties in the matter opposing same-sex marriages, argued that marriage between man and woman is not a gift of law, but existed since time immemorial and marriages are necessary to perpetuate the human race itself. Dwivedi contended that even SMA has provisions reflective of personal laws and talks about different marriageable age for a man and a woman. How would one reconcile with these (who is man and who is woman)?
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal submitted that he is all for such relationships but is concerned about the societal severe consequences, which may follow after declaration and questioned, what happens if they adopt a child and later want to separate? Who gets maintenance?
Sibal stressed that if piecemeal arrangement is done then it will create more complications, which will hurt the community and in other countries where same-sex marriages were recognised, they overhauled the entire legal framework.
The arguments in the matter will continue after 2 p.m. The Centre has told the Supreme Court that the demand for same-sex marriage is a “mere urban elitist views for the purpose of social acceptance,” and recognising the right of same-sex marriage would mean a virtual judicial rewriting of an entire branch of law.
The Centre’s response came on a batch of petitions challenging certain provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, Foreign Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act and other marriage laws as unconstitutional on the ground that they deny same-sex couples the right to marry or alternatively to read these provisions broadly so as to include same-sex marriage.
[ad_2]
#Samesex #marriage #Genitals #dont #define #absolute #concept #man #woman #observes
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

April 18, 2023
CJI-led five-judge bench to hear pleas for same-sex marriage on April 18

[ad_1]
New Delhi: A five-judge bench headed by CJI D Y Chandrachud, will hear a batch of petitions seeking recognition of same-sex marriage on April 18.
On March 13, while referring the matter to a constitution bench, the top court noted that it is a very seminal issue.
A bench headed by the CJI and comprising justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S. Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and P.S. Narasimha will hear the batch of petitions on April 18.

On March 13, a bench headed by CJI Chandrachud said, “It is a very seminal issue” while scheduling the matter for consideration before a five-judge bench. The proceedings will be live-streamed. The bench said that it will invoke Article 145 (3) of the Constitution and have this matter decided by a constitution bench, comprising five judges.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, had contended before the court that the right to love or right to express one’s love irrespective of the gender of the other person is completely different from what the court would find the mechanism to give recognition or to give a sanctity by way of an institution called marriage.
Mehta had stressed that freedom of choice has already been recognised by the apex court and no one was interfering with those rights, but conferring the right of marriage fell in the exclusive domain of the legislature.
Mehta had further contended that if marriage is recognised between the same sex, the question will be of adoption, as the child would see either two men or two women as parents, and not be reared by a father and a mother.
He added that the Parliament will then have to debate and take a call, in view of societal ethos and several other factors, on whether same-sex marriage needs to be recognised.

At this juncture, the Chief Justice had told Mehta, “The adopted child of a lesbian couple or a gay couple does not have to be necessarily a lesbian or a gay. It depends on the child, may or may not…”
The Centre, in an affidavit, contended that legal validation of same-sex marriage will cause “complete havoc” with the delicate balance of personal laws in the country and in accepted societal values.
The Centre stressed that legislative policy recognises marriage as a bond only between a biological man and a biological woman.
The Central government said that living together as partners and having a sexual relationship with same-sex individuals, which is decriminalised now, is not comparable to the Indian family unit – a husband, a wife, and children born out of the union – while opposing pleas seeking recognition of same-sex marriage.
It stressed that same-sex marriage is not in conformity with societal morality or Indian ethos.
In the affidavit, the Centre said the notion of marriage itself necessarily and inevitably presupposes a union between two persons of the opposite sex. This definition is socially, culturally, and legally ingrained into the very idea and concept of marriage and ought not to be disturbed or diluted by judicial interpretation, it said.
The Centre’s response came on a batch of petitions challenging certain provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, Foreign Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act and other marriage laws as unconstitutional on the ground that they deny same-sex couples the right to marry or alternatively to read these provisions broadly so as to include same-sex marriage.
[ad_2]
#CJIled #fivejudge #bench #hear #pleas #samesex #marriage #April
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

April 15, 2023
Same-sex marriages attack on family system, contravene all personal laws: Jamiat Ulama-i Hind

[ad_1]
New Delhi: Opposing petitions seeking validation of same-sex marriages, Muslim body Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind has moved the Supreme Court saying they are an attack on the family system and in complete contravention of all personal laws.
Seeking intervention in the batch of petitions pending before the top court, the organisation also cited the Hindu traditions, saying the aim of marriage among Hindus is not merely physical pleasure or procreation but spiritual advancement.
It is one of the sixteen ‘sanskars’ in Hindus, the Jamiat said. “This concept of same-sex marriage goes to attack the family system rather than making a family through this process,” Jamiat said.

The top court on March 13 had referred the pleas seeking legal validation of same-sex marriages to a five-judge Constitution bench for adjudication, saying it is a “very seminal issue”.
A bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud said the submissions on the issue involve an interplay between constitutional rights on the one hand and special legislative enactments, including the Special Marriage Act, on the other.
In its petition, Jamiat said, “The nature of prayers in the present petition is in complete contravention of the established understanding of the concept of marriage in all personal laws between a biological man and a biological woman and thus intends to rake up the very core, i.e., the structure of a family unit prevailing in the personal laws system.”
“The concept of marriage between two opposite sexes is like a basic feature of the concept of marriage itself which leads to the creation of a bundle of rights (maintenance, inheritance, guardianship, custody).
“By these petitions, petitioners are seeking to dilute the concept of marriage, a stable institution, by introducing a free-floating system by introducing the concept of same-sex marriage,” the plea said.

The Jamiat said that in Muslims, marriage is a socio-religious institution between a biological man and a biological woman and any different interpretation given to the marriage shall lead to the persons claiming to be married under this category as non-adherents.
In a historic judgement on September 6, 2018, the Supreme Court decriminalised consensual gay sex between adults after years of activism.
In an affidavit filed before the apex court, the government has opposed the petitions and submitted that despite the decriminalisation of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners cannot claim a fundamental right for same-sex marriage to be recognised under the laws of the country.
At the same time, it submitted that though the Centre limits its recognition to heterosexual relationships, there may be other forms of marriages or unions or personal understandings of relationships between individuals in a society and these “are not unlawful”.
It said western decisions sans any basis in Indian constitutional law jurisprudence cannot be imported in this context, while asserting that granting recognition to human relations is a legislative function and can never be a subject of judicial adjudication.
[ad_2]
#Samesex #marriages #attack #family #system #contravene #personal #laws #Jamiat #Ulamai #Hind
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

April 1, 2023
‘A right stand’: Activist Rahul Easwar on same-sex marriage

[ad_1]
Thiruvananthapuram: Terming the institution of marriage as a “Sacramental union” social activist Rahul Easwer on Sunday said that the union government has taken a right stand after it opposed the plea seeking legal recogniton of same-sex marriage.
“Everyone agrees there must be any kind of homophobia. At the same time marriage is a sacrosanct institution from many centuries. I appreciate the government for taking it very slowly and with caution,” Easwar said.
“We need much more deliberations. Everyone agrees there should not be any kind of discrimination. There should not be any kind of phobia at the same point of time even living together,” he added.
Centre, in its affidavit, has opposed the plea seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage, saying that living together as partners by same-sex individuals, which is decriminalised now, is not comparable with the Indian family unit and they are clearly distinct classes which cannot be treated identically.
The Centre has filed the affidavit countering the demand made by various petitioners seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage.
In the affidavit, Centre has opposed the plea and said that pleas seeking legal recognition of same-sex ought to be dismissed as there exists no merit in these petitions.
“I think the central Government has taken the right stand,” Rahul Easwer added. “There are still debates going on in scientific communities on this subject”.
Same-sex relationships and heterosexual relationships are clearly distinct classes which cannot be treated identically, the government said as its stand against the petition seeking legal recognition of LGBTQ marriage.

It is for the legislature to judge and enforce such societal morality and public acceptance based upon Indian ethos, the Centre said in its affidavit and added that western decisions sans any basis in Indian constitutional law jurisprudence, cannot be imported in this context.
In the affidavit, Centre apprised the Supreme Court that living together as partners by same sex individuals, which is decriminalised now, is not comparable with the Indian family unit concept of a husband, a wife and children.
Centre submitted that the principles of legitimate state interest as an exception to life and liberty under Article 21 would apply to the present case. Centre submitted that the statutory recognition of marriage as a union between a “man” and a “woman” is intrinsically linked to the recognition of the heterogeneous institution of marriage and the acceptance of the Indian society based upon its own cultural and societal values which are recognized by the competent legislature.
“There is an intelligible differentia (normative basis) which distinguishes those within the classification (heterosexual couples) from those left out (same-sex couples). This classification has a rational relation with the object sought to be achieved (ensuring social stability via recognition of marriages),” the government said.
[ad_2]
#stand #Activist #Rahul #Easwar #samesex #marriage
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

March 13, 2023
Centre opposes same-sex marriage, says, ‘Can’t be compared to Indian family concept..’

[ad_1]
The Central government on Sunday opposed pleas in the Supreme Court over the recognition of same-sex marriage.
In a counter affidavit over the pleas, the Centre stated that decriminalising Section 377 IPC “cannot give rise to a claim to seek recognition for same-sex marriage”.
One petition, among the batch seeking the right to marry a person of one’s choice to be extended to LGBTQIA+ citizens, was filed by two gay men living in Hyderabad Supriyo Chakraborty and Abhay Dang.
It countered that living together of persons in same-sex relationships “cannot be compared to the Indian family concept of a husband, a wife and children born out of the union.”
The Centre added that the statutory recognition of marriage is limited to heterosexual in nature and is the norm throughout history and is foundational to both the existence and continuance of the State.
Subscribe us on
[ad_2]
#Centre #opposes #samesex #marriage #compared #Indian #family #concept.

( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

March 12, 2023