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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS