(LifeSiteNews) — Five years after decriminalizing sodomy, the justices on India’s Supreme Court unanimously declined to legalize same-sex marriage, leaving the issue for the nation’s Parliament to decide.
Tuesday’s ruling came after listening to arguments for and against same-sex “marriage” last spring. During those hearings, “the government argued that a marriage is only between a biological male and a biological woman, adding that same-sex marriages went against religious values and that the petitions reflected only ‘urban elitist views,’” according to an AP report. “Religious groups too had opposed same-sex unions, saying they went against Indian culture.”
Attorneys representing those in favor of same-sex “marriage” argued that marriage is between any two people, not just a man and woman.
If India were to embrace same-sex “marriage” as a matter of law, the progressive forces seeking to undo the definitions of marriage, man, woman, boy, and girl, and to forever undo the nuclear family would establish a huge foothold — a bastion — in Asia.
The nation’s Supreme Court justices accepted many of the premises presented by those who had petitioned for same-sex “marriage” earlier this year.
Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud asserted that queerness is a “natural phenomenon” and explained that there was a measure of “agreement and a degree of disagreement on how far we have to go” on same-sex “marriage,” among the court’s five justices.
Chandrachud and another judge suggested recognizing civil unions of same-sex couples while the other three judges disagreed.
Chandrachud & Justice SK Kaul held that “queer couples have a right to adopt.” In a strange pronouncement, the court also decided that transgender persons in heterosexual relationships have the right to marry under the existing laws or personal laws, according to coverage by LiveLawIndia.
No legal entitlement to same-sex ‘marriage’
“Marriage is a social institution. The marital status is not conferred by the state,” Justice S. Ravindra Bhat said. “The idea of marriage is not a fundamental right.”
“While homosexual partners are entitled to define their commitment to each other “in whichever way they wish within the social realm,” Bhat said, “this does not extend the right to claim any legal entitlement to any legal status for the same union or relationship.”
The New York Times declared the court’s unanimous decision to be a “stinging setback for gay people seeking equal rights in this socially conservative country of 1.4 billion people.”
Progressive business media outlet Quartz insisted that the judges’ decision was “insipid.”
“This ruling has come as a huge disappointment to many in the LGBTQ community in India and around the world, who were looking to the Indian Supreme Court to set the benchmark for equal rights and for the right to love and live without discrimination,” stated Human Rights Watch, which has argued globally against pro-family and pro-marriage policies.
“The government should act on the court’s recommendation to bring the legislative changes,” the organization added.
Same-sex marriage: A stark West-East divide
While same-sex “marriages” have been legally recognized in 34 countries, these are limited mostly to Europe and the Americas, according to the PEW Research Center.
For the most part, Asia and Africa have successfully resisted the western world’s ideological colonization of genderless, non-complementary, anti-conjugal marriage. On the African continent, only South Africa has accepted same-sex “marriage,” and in Asia, only Taiwan has succumbed.
There’s a stark West-East divide in the legalization of same-sex marriage, as the below map shows: https://t.co/8uJCioE3bf
— John Gramlich (@johngramlich) October 17, 2023
The tide could be turning in the world’s most populous nation. A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center earlier this year found that 53% of Indians favored legalizing same-sex “marriage,” up from 15% in 2014, a 350% increase in support in less than a decade.
A member of Mumbai Queer Pride said that while his group is “slightly disappointed” by the court’s decision, “It is a ray of hope.”
Peter Tatchell, a global LGBTI+ activist, said the ruling “was a positive affirmation of LGBT+ people but deferred.”