Arguments that mark the trial of same-sex marriage recognition in India

New Delhi, May 9. India’s Supreme Court will conclude the argument process to recognize same-sex marriage tomorrow, a debate that has raised questions between ideas and traditions in a country that legalized homosexuality five years ago.

Chief Justice of India TY Chandrachud said the arguments made during the development of the case stand for this nation’s rapid progress in addressing the issues being debated in other countries that are at the forefront of LGBTI protection. Rights and it took a long time to put them on the table.

Concept of male and female

During the hearing, Attorney General Tushar Mehta, representing the central government, pointed out during the hearing that the Special Marriage Act classified a relationship between a “biological male and a biological female” against the approval of the case.

Countering this argument, Chandrachud argued that under the laws of India, “there is no absolute concept of man or absolute concept of woman”.

“Though the Special Marriage Act says male and female, the concept of male and female is not absolute based on genitalia,” replied Chandrachud.

Concept of marriage

Linking to the previous point, the five-judge bench presiding over the case explained that the context of marriage has varied over the years and “the content is voluntarily determined by each party”.

“It is entirely their choice to have children. There can be marriages where the parties do not live together. There can be no matrimonial home. There can be no physical or sexual relations in marriages,” the judge said. S. Ravindra Bhat emphasized.

Chandrachud argued: “One, marriage presupposes the coexistence of two persons. Two, marriage comes with the existence of the family. Three, marriage has procreation as its most important object. However, we must know that the validity of marriage is not. It is conditioned”.

The gender binary

On the third day of hearings, the Chief Justice of India noted that legalizing same-sex marriage goes beyond physical relationships and redefines the “evolving concept of marriage”.

“Why is the existence of two partners of binary gender essential to marriage?” Chandrachud was surprised.

Impact on children

The head of India’s highest judicial institution observed the negative impact this could have on children raised by gay and lesbian couples.

“Even if a couple is in a homosexual or lesbian relationship, one of them can still adopt. So the argument that it will have a psychological effect on the child is false. Today, according to the law, it is open. They should be adopted,” Chandrachud asserted.

“The child loses the benefits of the father from both the parents,” the judge clarified.

Homosexuality, an “urban elitist” concept

Chandrachud responded that the central government had labeled the idea of ​​homosexuality and same-sex marriage as an “urban elite” concept, a claim that had no official data to prove its truth.

“Something in nature cannot be class biased. It can be urban in its manifestations because more people in urban areas come out of the toilet,” the judge ruled. EFE

mvg/pddp