India Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Legalize Same-Sex Marriage
Same-sex couples and the LGBTQ+ community in India will continue their fight for same-sex marriage after the Supreme Court refused to legalize same-sex unions on Tuesday.
The court was considering 21 petitions to allow same-sex couples to marry. Activists and petitioners argued that not allowing same-sex couples to marry violated their constitutional rights, making them feel like “second-class citizens.”
Petitioners wanted the high court to amend the Special Marriage Act – which allows marriage between people from different religions, castes, and countries. Their request was to replace “man” and “woman” with “spouse,” which would make it easier for same-sex couples to tie the knot.
Unfortunately, attitudes to sex and sexuality in India remain largely conservative and activists say the LGBTQ+ community continues to face stigma and discrimination. Government and religious leaders strongly opposed the petitions arguing that same-sex marriage would lead to “chaos” in society.
Despite the opposition, the LGBTQ+ community was hopeful that they would secure same-sex unions because the five-judge constitutional bench had previously stated that they would not interfere with religious personal laws but look at amending the Special Marriage Act to include LGBTQ+ people.
Two of the five judges were in favor of civil unions and granting same-sex couples the same benefits that heterosexual couples have. However, the panel of judges agreed that only parliament could make law and the panel of five judges could only interpret them. They also accepted a government proposal to set up a committee to consider “granting queer couples” rights and privileges available to straight couples.
The recent turn of events disappointed proponents of LGBTQ+ rights, including Gay Rights Activist Sharif Rangnekar, who said, “The decision to leave it 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.”
