My Odia Advocate friend Shri Purshottam Misra has requested the Supreme Court Collegium to recommend the name of a gay advocate Saurabh Kripal for the appointment as the judge in the SC itself instead of recommending his (for want of any better pronoun I have to use) name for the appointment as the judge of the Delhi High Court. This will send a strong message across the world that Indian Supreme Court is a great respecter of human beings irrespective of their sexual orientations. It must be mentioned here that Saurabh is a self-proclaimed same-sex married person to a Swiss gay, where same-sex marriages are valid. The aims of marriage in our culture are Dharma (Duty), Santanotpatti (Procreation), and Rati (Pleasure). All are intertwined, but in same-sex marriages, only the pleasure is the summum bonum. Among the Hindus, marriage is regarded as a socio-cultural duty. Marriage is solemnised not so much for sex or progeny as for obtaining a partner for the fulfilment of one’s religious duties.
The votaries and the supporters of same-sex marriage (gay and lesbian marriages) say that what is more important than Santontpatti and Rati is economic security, exclusive rights, benefits, protections, and responsibilities. Marriage is a stabilising source in society. It is very difficult for those believing in men-women traditional marriages to even think of any stability in same-sex marriages. For traditional marriages, same-sex marriages are anathema, which are perversions of the minds of two adults.
Same-sex marriages may be legalised by the Parliament and Judiciary but there is hardly any doubt that society is still not ready to make it a legit marriage. Marriage put the burden on men and women with responsibilities to the family and society which are totally new and unexpected in same-sex marriage. It is alright to lead a same-sex marital life but after a certain age, both will have the tinge and desire for the family, for which they have to recourse of adoption because they can never be biological father or mother of the child unless, of course, some scientific miracles happen. There is a difference between sex and carnality and that has been the reason that carnality has been made a criminal offence in India, which has now been decriminalised by the court.
Although some same-sex marriages have been regularised in some countries still they are vehemently opposed by religious and moral groups. All religions- Christians, Muslims, Buddhists or Hindus – disallow such marriages. Whatever one may say but there are no doubts that same-sex marriages are against nature and therefore they must be discouraged and deprecated. It is very difficult to imagine the mindset of those, who have entered into same-sex marriages. Lampooning, ridiculing and criticising apart, the momentum for same-sex marriage has been gaining ground at breakneck speed. The day is not far away when the supporters of heterosexual marriages will become the butt of jokes as opposed to gay and lesbian marriages.
If self-proclaimed gays and lesbians adorn the seats in the constitutional courts, nobody knows how much havoc they will cause in society. Therefore, it will be in the fitness of the occasion, that same-sex marriages should not be legitimised. Emotions and so-called progressiveness should not dim nature’s brilliance for heterosexual marriages that have stood the test for millions of years.
Petitions have been filed in many High Courts like; Delhi, Kerala, and Gujrat to bring same-sex marriages under the special marriage act. Now the Supreme Court has decided to transfer all petitions to itself and hear them to give finality. The court has appointed two advocates as nodal counsel. One of them Arundhati Katju claims to be a lesbian and is married to a senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, who is also one of the arguing counsel for the petitioners. Their contention is that the non-recognition of same-sex marriage is discriminatory. These petitions are a sequel to the judgment in the Navtej Jauhar case, which decriminalised homosexuality.
The main demand of the petitioners is to make the Special Marriage Act gender-neutral and such marriages should get the same protection as are available to inter-caste and interfaith marriages. Let the people wait with bated breath whether the Supreme Court will issue a mandamus to the government to expand the ambit of the Special Marriage Act or would prefer to make a law under article 142 of the Constitution of India. Once it is legitimised then those who have been ridiculing and looking down on same-sex affairs will be silenced for always, regardless of its immorality and social disapproval.03:5
