“There is no absolute concept of man or woman, it cannot be about genitals,” SC during same-sex marriage hearing
NEW DELHI, April 18 (IANS) While hearing a group of petitions seeking legal sanction for same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court on Tuesday orally noted that there is no absolute concept of man or woman and it can only relate to genitals but is much more complex.
Attorney General Tushar Mehta, who is representing the centre, has presented before a panel of five judges chaired by Chief Justice of India D. Y. Chandrachod that there is a legislative intent that marriage can only take place between a biological man and a biological woman, including the Special Marriage Act.
Chief Justice Chandrachod told Mehta, “You are making a very important judgment. The idea of a biological man is an absolute and the concept of a biological woman is also an absolute…” Mehta said that a biological man is a biological man and he is not an idea.
The Chief Justice said, “There is no absolute concept of man or woman whatsoever… It cannot be a definition of what your genitals are, it is much more complex. Even where the SMA provides for man and woman, the idea of man and woman is not absolute.” , based on your genitals…”.
During the hearing, Mehta stressed that his initial objections against the possibility of sustaining petitions seeking same-sex marriage should be decided first, and added that notifications should be issued to all states before a decision is made by the Supreme Court.
Mehta said that the institution of marriage influences personal laws, Hindu marriage law is a codified status law, and Islam has its own personal status law, part of which is not codified. The court – consisting of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S. Ravindra Bhatt, Hema Kohli, and P. s. Narasimha – that it does not fall into personal laws.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who represents one of the petitioners seeking recognition of same-sex marriage, said his clients are seeking a statement that “we have the right to marry.” One of the lawyers said that the state will recognize the right under the Special Marriage Law and the state will recognize the marriage after this court announces.
Rohatgi asserted that the reason for this is that we have so far been stigmatized, and this is even after the rule of Article 377, and that the Special Marriage Law should mention the word “husband” instead of man and woman.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing on behalf of a party to the matter opposing same-sex marriage, argued that marriage between a man and a woman is not a gift of the law, but has existed since time immemorial and marriage is necessary to perpetuate the human race itself. Dwivedi emphasized that even the SMA has provisions that reflect personal laws and talks about different marriage ages for men and women, and how can one come to terms with those (who is the man and who is the woman)?
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal said he supports such relationships but is concerned about the serious societal consequences that may follow after the announcement and the question, what happens if they adopt a child and want to separate later? Who gets maintenance?
Sibal stressed that if the partial arrangement takes place, it will lead to more complications, which will harm society and in other countries where same-sex marriage has been recognized, they have reformed the entire legal framework.
Arguments in the matter will continue after 2 p.m. The center has told the Supreme Court that the demand for same-sex marriage is merely “elite urban opinions for the purpose of social acceptance,” and recognizing the right to same-sex marriage would mean an effective judicial rewriting of an entire branch of law.
The center responded to a set of petitions challenging some provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Foreign Marriage Act, the Special Marriage Act and other marriage laws as unconstitutional on the grounds that they deny same-sex couples the right to marry or read instead. These provisions broadly extend to same-sex marriage.
– Jans
SS / United Kingdom /
