Same Sex Marraiges

SIKH ISSUES

Introduction

In a landmark judgment, Delhi High Court on July 2, 2009, recognized the right of adults having consensual physical relationship with same sex. Article 377 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), a pre-colonial law, prohibiting what it terms as unnatural sex kept intact by the Indian state until the high court accepted that it is against the fundamental right of liberty and life

Article 377 of IPC

The Indian Penal Code (IPC), of which Section 377 forms a part, was drafted in 1860 by Lord Macaulay as a part of the colonial project of regulating and controlling the British- and Indian-origin subjects. It reads:

377. Unnatural offences: Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Interestingly, this act has been repealed in England quite long time back. In India, Article 377 is basically intended to punish sexual abuse of children and to complement lacunae in the rape laws. But mostly, this section has also been used to harass people. Police use this section to blackmail and extract bribe from various gay communities. As such, the Naz Foundation India Trust, an activist group, led a movement to repeal Section 377 and filed a public interest litigation in the Delhi High Court in 2001, seeking legalisation of homosexual intercourse between consenting adults. Women’s and human rights activists called ‘Voices Against 377’ supported the demand to ‘read down’ section 377 to exclude adult consensual sex from within its purview. On 12th June, 2009, India’s new law minister Veerappa Moily agreed that Section 377 might be outdated.
Eventually, in a historic judgement delivered on 2nd July, 2009, Delhi High Court overturned the 150 year old section, legalising consensual homosexual activities between adults. The essence of the section goes against the fundamental right of human citizens, stated the high court while striking it down. In a 105-page judgement, a bench of Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah and Justice S Muralidhar said that if not amended, section 377 of the IPC would violate Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which states that every citizen has equal opportunity of life and is equal before law.

A Line of Thought

Exceptions are a rule in Nature.

If Almighty has created eunuchs, then He can create homosexuals too. Thus, if individuals can differ from the majority population in physical forms, then there can also be individuals who differ in their physical needs from those of the majority population. If we can not change the former, then why are we all-out to regulate the latter?

Celibacy, too, is unnatural, but this, on the contrary, we force upon others/ourselves.

All are humans, irrespective of what one’s sexual preference may be. It is more essential to be a good member of society. Our social setup is corrupted by many other aberrations/abnormalities, like, child abuse, flesh trade, human trafficking, rape, and so on, which should rather find more reaction/rejection, if we consider ourselves a humane society.

There is, no doubt, a social/religious angle to this issue. The clerics of every religion are opposing the concept, which is understandable from their, as well as that of the societies’ point of view. But in countries that permit homosexual marriages, the laws apply to civil weddings only; the churches are not required to perform same-sex weddings.

In any given situation, a responsibility devolves on the ‘majority’ to see to the interests of the minority. As such, every minority, be it political, religious, racial, or so on, needs a sympathetic view of the majority. It must be possible to find/devise ways, whereby every section of society can coexist in harmony.

We introduced words like ‘computer’, ‘househusband’, ‘live-in’ relationship, etc., as and when the need arose. The term “homosexuality” appears to have been first used in 1869. In Biology, the word ‘andro’ denotes male and ‘gyny’ female. As such, he/they can be called ‘androus’; his/their marriage/union ‘andriage’; he/they is/are getting ‘andried’; and so on. Similarly, she/they can be called ‘gynous’; her/their marriage/union ‘gyniage’; she/they is/are getting ‘gynied’; and so on. Or any other new words can be coined. The word ‘marriage’ shall mean, as normally understood, a union sanctioned by religion, between a male and a female.

The andriage and gyniage ceremonies too could be different from the age-old ceremonies of marriage. The religions need not object if their customs are not interfered with. And the homosexuals should not object if religions refuse to sanctify their unions. They, anyway, seek and need legal sanction; they can devise ceremonies/beliefs of their own.

If a small fraction of the population is androus or gynous, then it can only help the issue of over-population at the global level.