JOIN USShattering stereotypes in unison
LGBTQ+ individuals have been a part of our world for just as long as anyone else. However, their cultural histories have mostly remained shrouded in mystery, silence, and disgust. The term ‘lavender marriage’ refers to mixed-orientation marriages between famous gay actors and straight women, and it was popularised in the early 20th century. The purpose of such marriages was for gay actors to “pass” as heterosexual, while others lived under the threat of exposure and consequent loss of livelihood. It is important to note that laws prohibiting homosexuality existed in the penal codes of numerous US states for more than 100 years.
During the 1950s, McCarthyism led to nationwide witch hunts of male homosexuals, in which the acts of oral and anal sex between consenting adult men were conflated with child molestation. It was only in 2003 that private, consensual, non-commercial same-sex conduct between adults was decriminalised nationwide by the US Supreme Court in the landmark case of Lawrence vs Texas, 539 US 558. This was followed by heated debates on same-sex marriage, with then-US President George W Bush endorsing a constitutional amendment a year later to ban same-sex marriage nationwide in the US.
During that era, most Hollywood actors whom we now recognise as gay or lesbian were either outed posthumously or, in the case of many, such as Sir John Gielgud and Rock Hudson, were outed by scandal and illness. Others, like Tab Hunter and Richard Chamberlain, came out only after their careers had faded. Same-sex marriage was eventually legalised nationwide by the US Supreme Court in its 2015 verdict, Obergefell vs Hodges, 576 US 644 after relentless efforts by LGBTQ+ activists.
Of convenience or contract marriages
Often conflated with lavender marriages, ‘marriages of convenience’ or ‘contract marriages’ in South Korea have been explored by John (Song Pae) Cho, a queer
anthropologist at the University of British Columbia’s Department of Community, Culture, and Global Studies. Cho highlights how contract marriages, or (kyeyak kyolhon) as they are called in South Korea, both subdue homosexual identities and erase them.
These marriages involve the union of a gay male and a lesbian female as a facade to fool family, friends, and acquaintances into believing that they are a heterosexual
married couple. Behind closed doors, these individuals live a double life in which they try to maintain their real same-sex relationships while pretending to be married to their opposite-sex partner. A research participant in Cho’s study acknowledged that such contract marriages involve deceiving anywhere from one to two hundred people, starting with one’s own parents. Similar studies have been conducted in China and Japan to show the prevalence of marriages of convenience in these countries as well. It should be noted that these arrangements are not exclusive to LGBTQ+ individuals.
Many heterosexual individuals in conservative societies also enter into marriages of convenience or are forced into arranged marriages for various reasons. In a comprehensive study conducted in 2014 on marriage trends in Asia, sociologists Gavin W Jones and Wei-Jun Jean Yeung highlighted the deeply ingrained ideology and practices of patriarchy in policies, religious teachings, and moral values such as Islam, Hinduism, Catholicism, Buddhism, and Confucianism. These influences continue to hold strong, affecting the age and partner selection in marriages. Moreover, Asian governments tend to prioritise heterosexual marriage and family formation as crucial components for national development and cohesion, which further impedes LGBTQ+ claims for marriage rights. Thus, it is unsurprising that as of 2023, Taiwan remains the only Asian jurisdiction to recognise same-sex marriage.
The plight of closeted LGBTQ+
individuals in India
The prevalence of lavender marriages and marriages of convenience is not uncommon in India, although there are no precise numbers on how many people are currently associated with such arrangements. The 2022 Bollywood film Badhaai Do shed some light on the existence of marriages of convenience, alluded to as lavender marriages by the director, Harshavardhan Kulkarni. The film depicts the struggle of a closeted gay cop, Shardul Thakur (played by Rajkumar Rao), who marries a closeted lesbian physical training teacher, Sumi Singh (played by Bhumi Pednekar), both of whom come from conservative middle-class families hostile or ignorant to the plight of the LGBTQ+ community. In entering into this arrangement, both characters struggle to maintain their double lives with their respective same-sex partners while trying to save face for the “larger good” of society. Despite being a box office failure, the film received positive reviews from critics and was nominated for several awards. The dearth of Bollywood films that explore the topic of lavender marriages/marriages of convenience makes Badhaai Do a unique cinematic exploration of this subject matter.
Tragically, the struggles faced by Rao and Bhumi’s characters in the film mirror the experiences of countless closeted LGBTQ+ individuals in India. In her groundbreaking 2005 book on same-sex marriage, Love’s Rite: Same-Sex Marriage in India and the West, scholar Ruth Vanita analysed people in 20 issues of Trikone, the magazine for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender South Asians, published in San Francisco. The issues ran from 1998 to 2003. She found that 11.5 percent of all were advertisements placed by gay people looking for gay people of the opposite sex to enter into a marriage of convenience. Another two percent were placed by “traditionally” married bisexual or gay people, looking for same-sex relationships on the side. This highlights the harsh reality that many LGBTQ+ individuals in India face, where societal and familial pressures force them to lead double lives or enter into marriages of convenience, denying them the opportunity to live authentically and openly.
Opposition to same-sex marriage in India
The Supreme Court of India is set to decide on the issue of same-sex marriage, however, the socially conservative BJP, the ruling government in India, has opposed it, citing various reasons. They argue that legalising same-sex marriage would cause “irreconcilable violence to the language” of various Indian statutes that are currently gendered. Moreover, given that the historical understanding of marriage in legislative, social, cultural, and religious contexts has been a legally binding union between one biological man and one biological woman, the government argues that it has a legitimate state interest in limiting the legal recognition of marriage to its current definition while leaving room for debate in the legislature. However, given the BJP’s clear ideological position on the issue and its majority in Parliament, it is unlikely that any bill seeking to recognise same-sex marriage would receive the government’s approval. To make the situation even more perilous, 21 former High Court judges recently issued a statement against the legalisation of same-sex marriage, claiming that it would “strike at the very root of the family system and thus will have a devastating impact on the society at large”. However, they failed to provide any evidence for how same-sex marriages would cause a “societal disaster”.
Challenging misconceptions
Legalising same-sex marriage could actually strengthen the Indian family unit by allowing gay and lesbian people the opportunity to marry someone of the same sex rather than endanger both their lives and the lives of others’ families by entering into clandestine marital arrangements such as marriages of convenience or lavender marriages. One could argue that wider acceptance of alternative sexualities and unions between such people could also sensitise parents about the large-scale discrimination LGBTQ+ people face and ensure that LGBTQ+ people find loving homes — both within their families and outside of it.
Increased visibility of same-sex couples could also show hesitant parents that a forced heterosexual union is not the right place for closeted gay and lesbian people. Moreover, those willing to enter into same-sex marriages would not be taking anything away from heterosexual people or couples. Rather, they would ensure that fewer families are at risk of arranging marriages to a prospective bride or groom who is a closeted homosexual. The inspiring stories of Indians currently living openly and courageously in same-sex relationships, such as Mayank Kalra and Sougata Basu, a Bengaluru-based gay couple, Aditya Advani and Michael Tarr, a Delhi-based gay couple, and Abhishek Ray and Cheitan Sharma, a Kolkata-based gay couple, challenge the incorrect notion that such relationships destabilise the family unit. If anything, they strengthen it and make it a more inclusive institution relevant to the 21st century.
Love & equality
Legalising same-sex marriage and recognising it as a legitimate union could greatly alleviate the sense of isolation that closeted gay and lesbian individuals experience, enabling them to pursue authentic relationships without having to pretend or conform to discriminatory societal norms. Lavender marriages and marriages of convenience are built on deceit, social pressure, and an unwillingness to engage sensitively with the plight of gay and lesbian people’s struggles. Same-sex marriages have the potential to create a more inclusive and empathetic India where everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation, can enjoy equal rights and lead fulfilling lives.
(The author is a Communications Manager at Nyaaya, the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy and can be reached at sahgalkanav@gmail.com)