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.
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS