LGBTQ+ Indians on Tuesday pledged to keep fighting for marriage equality after the Supreme Court declined to legalize same-sex weddings, but said they feared a long wait due to the government’s opposition to gay unions.
A five-judge bench left the contentious issue to parliament to decide, dashing the hopes of millions of LGBTQ+ people in the world’s most populous country, five years after the court finally scrapped a colonial-era ban on gay sex.
It also ruled that same-sex couples did not have the right to adopt children.
Illustration: Mountain People
“We may stumble on the march to equality, but we will continue to march forward,” said Saattvic, who goes by one name, a gay Indian man living with his partner in Vancouver, Canada.
Calling the court’s decision “disappointing,” Saattvic said it had vindicated his move from India to a country where same-sex marriage is allowed.
“I feel sad that my own country will not yet have me as I am, and will not treat me as an equal... I hope that changes soon,” said Saattvic, one of more than a dozen petitioners in the case.
The court accepted the government’s offer to set up a panel to consider granting certain non-marital rights to same-sex couples on access to services and facilities such as joint accounts in banks and pensions, from which they are currently barred.
However, Philip C. Philip, a Delhi-based LGBTQ+ rights activist, said that without clarity about who would sit on the panel — or a timeline for the parliament to frame a law — the offer was “completely hollow.”
There was no immediate response from the government to the court ruling, but Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party administration had opposed petitions to the court on the issue, saying same-sex marriage is not “comparable with the Indian family unit concept of a husband, a wife and children.”
Many LGBTQ+ Indians say that means parliament is unlikely to support equal marriage, at least in the short term, meaning they will remain at a disadvantage compared with straight couples.
“We go back to living complicated and difficult lives in the wake of a government that refuses to see us,” said Konika Roy, a Mumbai-based bisexual woman.
While LGBTQ+ Indians have made significant strides since the 2018 gay sex ruling — from their portrayal on television to more representation in politics and inclusive corporate policies — many still fear coming out.
They say discrimination and abuse are rife, preventing them from accessing jobs, healthcare, education and housing. Gay couples often struggle to rent homes or make medical decisions for each other in emergencies because they are not married.
Parul, a finance professional, and her partner have given each other power of attorney in the event of a health emergency, in case hospitals refuse to accept them as next-of-kin.
Like many gay couples, they hoped the Supreme Court might reach a decision that would sweep away such difficulties and let them marry in India.
“The expectation was quite low,” said Parul, who goes by one name and now intends to marry her partner in Denmark even though she is unsure over whether the marriage certificate will be accepted for joint bank accounts or insurance schemes in India. “It’s a fight every time,” she said.
However, despite the court’s decision on marriage, some campaigners said the judges had made positive observations in their decision, for example saying that transgender people in heterosexual relationships can marry under existing laws.
“Things are moving positively so let’s keep our spirits high,” said Padma Iyer, mother of Harish Iyer, an outspoken gay rights activist and one of the petitioners in the case.
Padma, the cofounder of Rainbow Parents, a collective of parents of children who identify as LGBTQ+, sparked nationwide debate about gay marriage eight years ago when she put an advert in a Mumbai newspaper seeking a groom for her son.
“We can’t rest. We know what the struggle is going to be for our children,” she said.
“I don’t know when we will get peace for this community,” she said.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS