ThePrint

80
wpm
Same-sex marriages don't threaten
the family unit; they strengthen it
I n Supriyo v Union of India case regarding the plea for marriage equality,
the petitioners have argued that Section 4(c) of the Special Marriage Act
recognises marriage only between a ‘male’ and a ‘female’, and thus
discriminates against same-sex couples by denying them matrimonial
benefits including adoption, retirement benefits, surrogacy, etc. The
petitioners want Section 4(c) to be declared unconstitutional. A number of
other petitions that challenge other personal laws on similar lines have been
tagged to the present one. The petitioners in these pleas contend that the
denial of same-sex marriage infringes on their rights to dignity, equality, and
freedom of expression. They cited the NALSA v. Union of India (2014) and
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) cases, which were a judicial
recognition of non-binary gender identities and provided them with equal
rights.

The central government in its counter affidavit urged the Supreme Court to
defer the issue to the legislature while also contending that a legitimate
State interest exists in limiting the recognition of marriage to opposite sexes
only, that is, between a male and female. They argued that denying same-
sex couples the right to marry is not violative of Article 14. They also argued
that Navtej upheld the right to privacy of the LGBT community and it did not
include the “public right” to marriage. The second counter-affidavit filed by
the Centre argues that despite the fact that there are many different castes,
sub-castes, and religions in India, only heterosexual couples are permitted
to get married under various personal laws and customs. It also asserts that
the petitions merely reflect ‘urban elitist’ views.

Also Read: Neither ‘urban’ nor ‘elitist’ what data shows about Indians’ views
on same-sex relationships

Feminist perspective