Editor's Pick: Centre opposes same-sex marriage in Supreme Court

Opposing same-sex marriages in the Supreme Court, the Centre in its 56-page affidavit on March 12 invoked the “accepted view” that a marriage between a biological man and woman is a “holy union, a sacrament and a sanskar” in India. “In our country, despite statutory recognition of the relationship of marriage between a biological man and a biological woman, marriage necessarily depends upon age-old customs, rituals, practices, cultural ethos and societal values,” the Central government said in its filing, adding that only the legislature and not the top court could bring about any “deviation” from this “statutorily, religiously and socially” accepted norm in “human relationship”. It stated that in the 2018 Navtej Singh Johar judgement, the Supreme Court had only decriminalised sexual intercourse between same-sex persons and not legitimised this “conduct”. The Centre went on to argue that a same-sex couple living together and having a sexual relationship could not be compared to the “Indian family unit concept of a husband, a wife and children”. Much like its earlier depositions in courts and outside, the Centre maintained that judicial interference to recognise same-sex marriage would cause “complete havoc with the delicate balance of personal laws in the country and in accepted societal values”. It said this time that statutory recognition of heterosexual marriage was the norm throughout history and is “foundational to both the existence and continuance of the state”, adding that there was a “compelling interest” for the society and the state to limit recognition to heterosexual marriages only. The government filed its affidavit in response to the Court’s decision to examine petitions to allow the solemnisation of same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act. Perhaps the concern that judicial interference with the personal laws of various religious communities would cause uproar is why the Supreme Court chose to entertain a batch of petitions seeking to recognise same-sex marriages under the Special Marriage Act and not personal laws. However, it is important to point out at this juncture that in a diverse country with varying customs and traditions, enforcing something like same-sex marriage would not be an easy task. As The Hindu pointed out in this editorial last year, social mindsets in the country are conservative and so well-entrenched that anyone who feels differently is stigmatised, humiliated and ostracised. So first, more needs to be done at the societal level with the help of the Court to chip away at conservative views on sex, gender, women and the LGBTQIA+ community. Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Head over to our newsletter subscription page to sign up for Editor’s Pick and more. Click here. The Hindu’s Editorials Safe harbour at risk: On the impact of the proposed Digital India Act, 2023 New reality: On Saudi Arabia-Iran reconciliation and China’s role The Hindu’s Daily News Quiz India aims to eliminate sickle cell anaemia (disorder affecting red blood cells) by which year? 2047 2028 2030 2035 To know the answer to the quiz, click here. [logo] Editor's Pick 13 March 2023 [The Hindu logo] In the Editor's Pick newsletter, The Hindu explains why a story was important enough to be carried on the front page of today's edition of our newspaper. [Arrow]( [Open in browser]( [Mail icon]( [More newsletters]( Centre opposes same-sex marriage in Supreme Court, says marriage regarded as ‘sanskar’ [Opposing same-sex marriages]( in the Supreme Court, the Centre in its 56-page affidavit on March 12 invoked the “accepted view” that a marriage between a biological man and woman is a “holy union, a sacrament and a sanskar” in India. “In our country, despite statutory recognition of the relationship of marriage between a biological man and a biological woman, marriage necessarily depends upon age-old customs, rituals, practices, cultural ethos and societal values,” the Central government said in its filing, adding that only the legislature and not the top court could bring about any “deviation” from this “statutorily, religiously and socially” accepted norm in “human relationship”. It stated that in the [2018 Navtej Singh Johar judgement]( the Supreme Court had only decriminalised sexual intercourse between same-sex persons and not legitimised this “conduct”. The Centre went on to argue that a same-sex couple living together and having a sexual relationship could not be compared to the “Indian family unit concept of a husband, a wife and children”. Much like its earlier depositions in courts and outside, the Centre maintained that judicial interference to recognise same-sex marriage would cause “complete havoc with the delicate balance of personal laws in the country and in accepted societal values”. It said this time that statutory recognition of heterosexual marriage was the norm throughout history and is “foundational to both the existence and continuance of the state”, adding that there was a “compelling interest” for the society and the state to limit recognition to heterosexual marriages only. The government filed its affidavit in response to [the Court’s decision to examine petitions to allow the solemnisation of same-sex marriage]( under the Special Marriage Act. Perhaps the concern that judicial interference with the personal laws of various religious communities would cause uproar is why the Supreme Court chose to entertain a batch of petitions seeking to recognise same-sex marriages under the Special Marriage Act and not personal laws. However, it is important to point out at this juncture that in a diverse country with varying customs and traditions, enforcing something like same-sex marriage would not be an easy task. As The Hindu pointed out in [this editorial]( last year, social mindsets in the country are conservative and so well-entrenched that anyone who feels differently is stigmatised, humiliated and ostracised. So first, more needs to be done at the societal level with the help of the Court to chip away at conservative views on sex, gender, women and the LGBTQIA+ community. Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Head over to our newsletter subscription page to sign up for Editor’s Pick and more. [Click here.]( The Hindu’s Editorials [Arrow][Safe harbour at risk: On the impact of the proposed Digital India Act, 2023]( [Arrow][New reality: On Saudi Arabia-Iran reconciliation and China’s role]( The Hindu’s Daily News Quiz India aims to eliminate sickle cell anaemia (disorder affecting red blood cells) by which year? - 2047 - 2028 - 2030 - 2035 To know the answer to the quiz, [click here.]( Are you a book lover looking for your next literary adventure? Look no further than “The Hindu On Books” weekly newsletter! We scour the shelves to bring you the best new releases and hidden gems in all genres. With in-depth book reviews and recommendations, you can trust that you will find your next literary love here. Sign up now and discover your next favorite book!" [Subscribe Now!]( Today's Best Reads [[Data | Small debris orbiting Earth pose threats to space assets] Data | Small debris orbiting Earth pose threats to space assets]( [[Oscars 2023: Complete list of winners at the 95th Academy Awards] Oscars 2023: Complete list of winners at the 95th Academy Awards]( [[India remains biggest arms importer between 2018-22 despite drop in overall imports] India remains biggest arms importer between 2018-22 despite drop in overall imports]( [[A Red Hat lesson for Elon Musk] A Red Hat lesson for Elon Musk]( Copyright @ 2023, THG PUBLISHING PVT LTD. If you are facing any trouble in viewing this newsletter, please [try here]( If you do not wish to receive such emails [go here](