NEW DELHI, India (LifeSiteNews) — The Catholic Syro-Malabar Church in India backed the Hindu government in its opposition to the legalization of same-sex “marriage” in the strongly religious country as the Indian Supreme Court this week reserved judgment after concluding hearings on the matter.
“The Syro-Malabar church supports the Government’s stand that based on Indian culture, marriage happens between two opposite genders and family means a biological man, woman and their children. The Syro-Malabar church that upholds the Holy Gospel, tradition and enlightenment follows the same moral view and opposes the attempt to legalise same-sex marriage,” the Public Affairs Commission of the Syro-Malabar Church said in a formal statement.
The Church warned that legalizing same-sex marriage would likely introduce further demands for legal recognition of even greater sexual deviancy. “Legalising same-sex marriage will lead to the demand for legalisation of ‘disruptional sexual demand’ like attraction towards children, attraction towards animals, attraction between blood relation. So it should not be allowed,” the Church declared.
While calling for empathy toward those who experience same-sex attraction, the Church insisted that it must nonetheless clearly teach the truth about the nature of marriage, stating, “the church also empathizes with people who have physical and mental challenges in their sexual condition. We oppose discrimination towards them. At the same time, the Syro-Malabar church clearly announce their stand that marriage is between a man and woman only.”
“Same-sex marriage is a negation of the natural order of relationships between a man and a woman. It is also an injustice to the family concept and civil society,” it unequivocally declared.
The Syro-Malabar Church officially submitted its position to the president of India in response to the opinion sought by the government from civil society on the question of same-sex marriage, the Public Affairs Commission said in its statement. The Church lauded the government for filing a counter-affidavit in the Supreme Court against its legalization.
READ: India Supreme Court to hear arguments in favor of same-sex ‘marriage’ against gov’t opposition
In the case taken up by India’s high court, the government’s Ministry of Law argued in a March filing against any redefinition of marriage on religious grounds and because it would affect the fundamental structure of the family and society. It argued that the family, which is the “building block of society,” necessarily arises from heterosexual marriage alone and therefore must be protected for the very preservation of society itself.
“Seeking declaration for solemnization/registration of marriage has more ramifications than simple legal recognition,” the government stated. “Family issues are far beyond mere recognition and registration of marriage between persons belonging to the same gender. Living together of persons in same-sex relationships ‘cannot be compared to the Indian family concept of a husband, a wife and children which necessarily presupposes a biological man as a ‘husband,’ a biological woman as a ‘wife’ and the children born out of the union between the two — who are reared by the biological man as father and the biological woman as mother.”
“Statutory recognition of marriage limited to marriage/union/relation as being heterosexual in nature, is the norm throughout history and [is] foundational to both the existence and continuance of the State. Hence, considering its social value the State has a compelling interest in granting recognition to Heterosexual Marriage only to the exclusion of other forms of marriage/unions.”
“On a normative level, the society consists of smaller units of family, which in turn are predominantly organised in a heterogenous fashion. This organisation of the building block of society is premised on further continuance of the building blocks i.e. the family unit. While other forms of unions may exist in the society which would not be unlawful, it is open for a society to give legal recognition of the form of union which a society considers to be [the] quintessential building block for its existence.”
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the matter belonged properly to the legislative branch of government, and that it did not have the power to positively legislate. “There’s a constitutional doctrine that we have remained constant to — we cannot direct legislation, we cannot direct framing of a policy, we cannot enter the realm of policy making,” Justice S R Bhat, who sat on the bench that heard the case, said.
The hearings come five years after India overturned an 1861 provision that effectively criminalized sexual acts among members of the same sex. In September 2018, LifeSiteNews reported that a five-judge court unanimously voted to repeal the rule, which prohibited “carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal.” Violators faced up to 10 years in prison.
On Thursday, May 11, the Supreme Court reserved its verdict on the petitions seeking the legalization of same-sex marriage after holding 10 days of hearings.
RELATED
Ugandan MP introduces bill to ban sodomy, same-sex ‘marriage’