<p>Late February’s flurry of election news and of course the Test match at the new Narendra Modi Stadium at Motera, buried an important Delhi High Court case that impacts us as a civil society. A petition to recognise same-sex marriages is being opposed by the Centre: the official stance being that marriage is not a private or individual choice but an institution. The affidavit by the Centre further goes on to say, with neither supporting legal frameworks nor legal precedent, such matters cannot be decided by courts. Instead, decisions on same-sex marriage can only be taken through the legislature. In other words, how marriage is to be viewed and conducted is a state subject and unless the government decides to reformulate laws, same-sex couples have no right or recourse to formalise relations via marriage.</p>.<p>The affidavit further defines marriage as a formal solemn institution between “a biological man and a biological woman.” Well aware of what the prevailing legal stance on same-sex marriage is in progressive nations, the Centre further avers that Western legal precedence has no standing in Indian jurisprudence and cannot be “imported” into India. This is ironic given that all of our current legal system is directly imported from Britain of the 1800s; as was the cruel criminalisation of homosexuality in Article 377 imposed in 1861 though modelled on the Buggery Act, 1533.</p>.<p>As a landmark judgement in Navtej S Johar vs Union of India, the Supreme Court bench ruled in favour of decriminalising homosexuality in September 2018 recognising the rights of the Indian LGBTQI community. Amid wild celebrations, the much marginalised and beleaguered community had believed it was but a gateway to greater human rights for the differently oriented and to legal recognition for same-sex couples. In late February, the Centre argued that there is no “fundamental right to marriage” in same-sex unions. Furthermore, “considerations of social morality are relevant in considering the validity of legislation and it is for the legislature to judge and enforce such social morality and public acceptance based on Indian ethos.” This is a slippery slope. By not opting to marry within the narrow definition of biological man to biological woman, same-sex couples are somehow abdicating their right to marry. While “social morality” may be officially offered as a reason, it masks what is basically state intrusion into the private lives of citizens.</p>.<p>“Indian ethos” is a nebulous term used mainly for denying the Centre’s need to upgrade, to move with the times, to acknowledge science and the example of advanced liberal nations. It also is blanket terminology for almost all progressive evolution of the nation to bow down to the most unlettered and orthodox mindset.</p>.<p>Netizens who are LGBTQI, supporters or simply open-minded individuals have been vocal about this case. “Can’t believe India still believes that marriages between strangers is ok but marriage between two people of the same sex who love each other — is not,” Tushar @reputushion posted on Twitter.</p>.<p>Filmmaker Onir @IamOnir tweeted: “Here we go… Now they want to curb #LGBTQI rights. The Centre conveniently forgets that NO cultural definition can be bigger than Human Rights/ Equality/ Dignity. #loveislove #SameSexMarriage.” Another interesting trend on social media features pictures of women being married to trees or dogs as “tradition” to highlight how absurd tradition can get and how it is morally wrong to deny the right to marry to loving couples who happen to be same-sex.</p>.<p>Among recent offerings on Netflix is <span class="italic">The Big Day</span> featuring wildly extravagant weddings in India. In the episode featuring Tyrone Braganza and Daniel Bauer, a same-sex couple from Goa, the church wedding in Germany officiated by a woman priest showcases how civilised societies treat their fellow men. </p>.<p>Unfortunately, it also hides the grimy impossibility of such happiness in India and how only the affluent same-sex couple who can afford a wedding overseas may have some degree of relief.</p>.<p>The day after the Centre’s affidavit in court a small news snippet catches the eye. A 46-year-old man has bought a 12-year-old girl for Rs 10,000 to “marry” her. This is India and this is what happens between a biological man and a biological woman.</p>
<p>Late February’s flurry of election news and of course the Test match at the new Narendra Modi Stadium at Motera, buried an important Delhi High Court case that impacts us as a civil society. A petition to recognise same-sex marriages is being opposed by the Centre: the official stance being that marriage is not a private or individual choice but an institution. The affidavit by the Centre further goes on to say, with neither supporting legal frameworks nor legal precedent, such matters cannot be decided by courts. Instead, decisions on same-sex marriage can only be taken through the legislature. In other words, how marriage is to be viewed and conducted is a state subject and unless the government decides to reformulate laws, same-sex couples have no right or recourse to formalise relations via marriage.</p>.<p>The affidavit further defines marriage as a formal solemn institution between “a biological man and a biological woman.” Well aware of what the prevailing legal stance on same-sex marriage is in progressive nations, the Centre further avers that Western legal precedence has no standing in Indian jurisprudence and cannot be “imported” into India. This is ironic given that all of our current legal system is directly imported from Britain of the 1800s; as was the cruel criminalisation of homosexuality in Article 377 imposed in 1861 though modelled on the Buggery Act, 1533.</p>.<p>As a landmark judgement in Navtej S Johar vs Union of India, the Supreme Court bench ruled in favour of decriminalising homosexuality in September 2018 recognising the rights of the Indian LGBTQI community. Amid wild celebrations, the much marginalised and beleaguered community had believed it was but a gateway to greater human rights for the differently oriented and to legal recognition for same-sex couples. In late February, the Centre argued that there is no “fundamental right to marriage” in same-sex unions. Furthermore, “considerations of social morality are relevant in considering the validity of legislation and it is for the legislature to judge and enforce such social morality and public acceptance based on Indian ethos.” This is a slippery slope. By not opting to marry within the narrow definition of biological man to biological woman, same-sex couples are somehow abdicating their right to marry. While “social morality” may be officially offered as a reason, it masks what is basically state intrusion into the private lives of citizens.</p>.<p>“Indian ethos” is a nebulous term used mainly for denying the Centre’s need to upgrade, to move with the times, to acknowledge science and the example of advanced liberal nations. It also is blanket terminology for almost all progressive evolution of the nation to bow down to the most unlettered and orthodox mindset.</p>.<p>Netizens who are LGBTQI, supporters or simply open-minded individuals have been vocal about this case. “Can’t believe India still believes that marriages between strangers is ok but marriage between two people of the same sex who love each other — is not,” Tushar @reputushion posted on Twitter.</p>.<p>Filmmaker Onir @IamOnir tweeted: “Here we go… Now they want to curb #LGBTQI rights. The Centre conveniently forgets that NO cultural definition can be bigger than Human Rights/ Equality/ Dignity. #loveislove #SameSexMarriage.” Another interesting trend on social media features pictures of women being married to trees or dogs as “tradition” to highlight how absurd tradition can get and how it is morally wrong to deny the right to marry to loving couples who happen to be same-sex.</p>.<p>Among recent offerings on Netflix is <span class="italic">The Big Day</span> featuring wildly extravagant weddings in India. In the episode featuring Tyrone Braganza and Daniel Bauer, a same-sex couple from Goa, the church wedding in Germany officiated by a woman priest showcases how civilised societies treat their fellow men. </p>.<p>Unfortunately, it also hides the grimy impossibility of such happiness in India and how only the affluent same-sex couple who can afford a wedding overseas may have some degree of relief.</p>.<p>The day after the Centre’s affidavit in court a small news snippet catches the eye. A 46-year-old man has bought a 12-year-old girl for Rs 10,000 to “marry” her. This is India and this is what happens between a biological man and a biological woman.</p>