Latest same-sex marriage News | Top same-sex marriage News Headlines Today | Today India news | Breaking same-sex marriage News Today | English same-sex marriage News Headlines - TheDailyGuardian

Southern Baptists Declare War On Same-Sex Marriage Rights

June 12, 2025, 1:18 pm

The Southern Baptist Convention has taken a strong stance against same-sex marriage, representing more than 12 million believers in the U.S., by calling for the reversal of Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

Call for Reversal of Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

During the group’s annual meeting in Dallas, Texas, over 10,000 church delegates voted in favor of a resolution asking for the overturning of “laws and court rulings… that defy God’s design for marriage and family.” Although the word “ban” was not directly used, the resolution supports laws defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Andrew Walker, a seminary ethicist who authored the resolution, said, “What we’re trying to do is keep the conversation alive.”

The resolution holds no legal weight but reflects the beliefs of a powerful conservative Christian voting bloc. Political experts say the Southern Baptists’ position aligns more than ever with the Christian right, which has grown stronger under former President Donald Trump.

Evangelicals Eye Long-Term Strategy Like Roe v Wade

Trump-era court changes could open door for same-sex marriage rollback.

Although a reversal of Obergefell wouldn’t immediately outlaw same-sex marriage, since 36 states had already legalized it before the 2015 decision, LGBTQ+ advocates fear the resolution sends a troubling message. Roughly 70% of Americans still support same-sex marriage, according to recent polls.

Kristin Du Mez, a religion and politics expert at Calvin University, noted that evangelicals are using a familiar approach. “I know some of the leaders have pointed to Roe v Wade as a model of the need to play the long game,” she said.

She also pointed out a “transactional element” in evangelicals’ support for Trump, crediting his Supreme Court picks for helping overturn Roe v Wade in 2022. Trump’s second term has focused on dismantling diversity and LGBTQ protections, including banning transgender people from the military and revoking anti-discrimination policies.

Laurel Powell from the Human Rights Campaign responded, “This is a very visible example of how attacks on the LGBTQ+ community as a whole have intensified… We will never stop fighting to love who we love and be who we are.”

Thailand Legalise Same Sex Marriage Under New Marriage Equality Act: LGBTQ Couple Celebrates

January 23, 2025, 7:54 am

Thailand has officially legalized same-sex marriage, with hundreds of LGBTQ couples expected to formalize their unions on Thursday, marking a historic moment for the country and Southeast Asia. This landmark legislation, which takes effect today, grants LGBTQ couples the same legal, financial, and medical rights as heterosexual couples. Thailand becomes the first Southeast Asian nation and the third Asian country to legalize same-sex marriage, joining Taiwan and Nepal.

Celebration in Bangkok and Across the Country

To commemorate the law’s enactment, around 300 couples are expected to register their marriages at a special, daylong celebration at a shopping mall’s exhibition hall in central Bangkok. Throughout the country, many others will register their unions in district offices and various other settings. The Marriage Equality Act has been warmly received by many, providing the LGBTQ community with long-awaited legal recognition.

The bill passed through Thailand’s parliament without major opposition and amended the Civil and Commercial Code, replacing gendered terms like “men and women” and “husband and wife” with “individuals” and “marriage partners.” This change will ensure equal rights for same-sex couples, including joint assets, inheritance, survivor benefits, tax obligations, and more.

A Step Toward Inclusivity in a Conservative Society

Despite Thailand’s reputation for being relatively accepting of LGBTQ people, advocates for marriage equality have faced decades of challenges in a largely conservative society. Although attitudes have improved in recent years, discrimination remains, with many members of the LGBTQ community still experiencing prejudice in their daily lives. However, the passing of the Marriage Equality Act represents a significant achievement in a society where, for the first time, same-sex couples can now legally claim the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts.

Personal Stories of Joy and Relief

Couples interviewed about the new law expressed their gratitude and excitement, with some sharing their long-term relationship journeys. Kullayahnut Akkharasretthabudh, a 38-year-old real estate owner, shared how the law acknowledges everyone’s basic human rights. “This law is proof that regardless of our gender, we all share the same basic human rights,” she said, referring to herself and her partner Juthatip Suttiwong, 24, a chef. “It also paves the way for other countries in Asia to recognize human values and let everyone live freely.”

Similarly, Patherine Khunnares, 37, a web designer, and her partner, Vivian Chullamon, 36, a researcher, explained that while their social circle supports their relationship, legal recognition of their marriage would eliminate future anxieties. “We aren’t asking for anything special,” said Khunnares. “We just want a simple, happy family life.”

In preparation for the law’s enforcement, Bangkok’s city government has conducted workshops to ensure district office staff handle marriage registrations with sensitivity toward gender diversity. These sessions aim to teach officials how to communicate effectively with LGBTQ individuals and to foster an inclusive atmosphere. The Interior Ministry has also implemented similar initiatives.

Bangkok Deputy Governor Sanon Wangsrangboon described this step as the “missing piece of the jigsaw,” emphasizing the importance of societal understanding and the law’s readiness to integrate LGBTQ couples into Thai society. “Society is ready. The law is getting ready. But the last piece of the jigsaw is the understanding from officials,” he said.

This legal shift in Thailand stands as a beacon of hope for the LGBTQ community and advocates for equality across the region. It demonstrates the country’s evolving attitudes toward marriage and human rights, paving the way for broader acceptance and legal protection for same-sex couples.

Justice Chandrachud Retires After Landmark Verdicts on Electoral Bonds, Same-Sex Marriage, Article 370, Minority Rights for AMU

November 8, 2024, 6:00 pm

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud completed his last working day on Friday after a two-year tenure at the helm of the Indian judiciary. He will retire on Sunday and hand over the baton to Justice Sanjiv Khanna.

In a fitting end to his tenure, on his last working day, Justice Chandrachud headed a Constitution bench that delivered an important verdict on minority status for the Aligarh Muslim University. In a 4:3 verdict, the bench decided to overturn a 1967 judgment that stripped the university of minority status but said a three-judge bench would decide if it should be granted again.

Here’s a look at some of Justice Chandrachud’s key judgments as the Chief Justice:

Electoral Bonds Case

In February, ahead of this year’s Lok Sabha elections, a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Chandrachud struck down the Electoral Bonds scheme for political funding, which had been in place since 2018.

The scheme, Chief Justice Chandrachud said, was unconstitutional and arbitrary and could lead to a quid pro quo arrangement between political parties and donors.

The bench, also comprising Justices BR Gavai, Sanjiv Khanna, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to stop issuing electoral bonds immediately and ordered the Election Commission of India to publish details of the political parties which have received contributions through electoral bonds since April 2019 on its website.

Private Property Verdict

Earlier this month, a nine-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice Chandrachud, in an 8:1 majority judgment, said all privately owned properties did not qualify as community resources that the State could take over for the common good.

The case related to Article 31C of the Constitution, which protects laws made by the State to fulfill directive principles of state policy. Among them is Article 39B, which stipulates that the State shall direct its policy towards ensuring that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good.

“Does material resource of a community used in 39B include privately owned resources? Theoretically, the answer is yes, the phrase may include privately owned resources. However, this court is unable to subscribe itself to the minority view of Justice Iyer in Ranganath Reddy. We hold that not every resource owned by an individual can be considered a material resource of a community only because it meets the qualifier of material needs,” Chief Justice Chandrachud said.

Article 370

In December 2023, a five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud upheld the scrapping of Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir.

Chief Justice Chandrachud said Article 370 was a temporary provision to ease Jammu and Kashmir’s merger with India.

The court said that restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir, which was divided into two Union Territories, including Ladakh “shall take place at the earliest and as soon as possible”. It also asked for Assembly elections to be held in Jammu and Kashmir by September 30, 2024.

Same-Sex Marriage

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Chandrachud had, in October 2023, refused to accord legal recognition to same-sex marriage, saying there was “no unqualified right” to marriage with the exception of those that are recognized by law.

Leaving it to the legislature to take a call on enacting the marriage equality law, the judges also noted the center’s submission that a panel headed by the cabinet secretary will look into practical difficulties faced by same-sex couples. The bench agreed that difficulties faced by queer couples in accessing basic services are discriminatory and said the government panel must look into them.

Section 6A

In October, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of a key citizenship rule that recognized the Assam Accord, granting citizenship to Bangladeshi refugees who had arrived before 1971.

Section 6A of the Citizenship Act was introduced in 1985 to allow refugees from Bangladesh (then East Pakistan), who had entered India between 1966-1971, to register as Indian citizens.

The judgment was delivered by a five-judge Constitutional bench led by Chief Justice Chandrachud with a 4:1 majority.

Caste-Based Discrimination in Prisons

The same month, a bench led by Chief Justice Chandrachud banned caste-based discrimination like division of manual labor, segregation of barracks, and bias against prisoners of de-notified tribes and habitual offenders and held as “unconstitutional” the jail manual rules of 10 states for fostering such biases.

Observing that the “right to live with dignity extends even to the incarcerated,” the bench asked the Center and states to amend their prison manuals and laws within three months, and file compliance reports.

“Criminal laws of the colonial era continue to impact the postcolonial world,” the bench said.

UP Madrasa Law

Earlier this month, a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Chandrachud upheld the validity of a 2004 law that regulates the functioning of madrasas in Uttar Pradesh and set aside an Allahabad High Court judgment that had declared the law unconstitutional and violative of the principle of secularism.

The bench held that the high court had erred in holding that the statute must be struck down if it violates the secularism principle. “The state can regulate the standards of education (in madrasas)… regulations relating to the quality of education do not interfere with the administration of the madrasas,” the Chief Justice said.

NEET-UG Re-Exam

Amid the controversy over a string of paper leaks, the Supreme Court in July refused to cancel the 2024 NEET UG exam for entrance to medical colleges saying that the paper leak was not “systemic” or widespread enough that it affected the “integrity” of the exam.

The bench, headed by Chief Justice Chandrachud, said there wasn’t sufficient material available on the record to order a re-test but clarified that its judgment would not prevent authorities from taking action against candidates who had secured admission using malpractices.

Immunity For MPs And MLAs

In March, a Constitution bench led by Chief Justice Chandrachud ruled that an MP or MLA cannot claim immunity from prosecution if he or she is accused of taking a bribe for a vote or a speech in the legislature.

Noting that corruption and bribery by legislators can potentially destroy the functioning of Indian Parliamentary democracy, the court held that taking a bribe is an independent crime and has no link with what a lawmaker says or does inside the Parliament or legislative Assembly. Hence, the immunity from prosecution enjoyed by lawmakers will not shield them.

Child Marriage

A bench headed by Chief Justice Chandrachud, in October, issued several directions for the effective implementation of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and said that child marriage deprives children of their agency, autonomy and right to fully develop and enjoy their childhood.

Also read: Jharkhand Assembly Elections: Rahul Targets Billionaire Bias; Shah Slams Congress ‘Appeasement’

The bench ordered that state governments and Union Territories appoint officers solely responsible for discharging the functions of child marriage prohibition officers at the district level.

“Both sexes are adversely affected by forced and early marriage. Marrying in childhood has the effect of objectifying the child. The practice of child marriage imposes mature burdens on children who are not physically or mentally prepared to comprehend the significance of marriage,” the court said.

South Korea’s Supreme Court Delivers Landmark Victory For Same-Sex Couples

July 18, 2024, 1:22 pm

On Thursday, South Korea’s Supreme Court recognized new rights for same-sex couples, mandating that the state provide health insurance coverage for a gay man’s partner. This landmark decision sparked celebrations among activists, many of whom were moved to tears of joy.

The court ruled, “National Health Insurance should recognize spousal insurance coverage for same-sex couples,” prompting cheers from activists as the verdict was delivered. As the country’s highest court, this decision is final and unappealable. This ruling allows common-law same-sex spouses to register as dependents on their partners’ health insurance plans.

“It is discrimination based on sexual orientation to exclude the couple just because they are same-sex,” the court stated. “It is a discriminatory act that violates human dignity and values, the right to pursue happiness, freedom of privacy, and the right to be equal before the law. The degree of infringement is serious.”

The case was initiated by So Seong-wook and Kim Yong-min, a gay couple who have lived together since their wedding ceremony in 2019, which lacks legal recognition as South Korea does not acknowledge same-sex marriages. In 2021, So sued the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) after it terminated benefits for his partner upon discovering they were a gay couple.

In a groundbreaking decision last year, a Seoul High Court sided with the couple, ordering the NHIS to reinstate the dependent benefits. The NHIS, which provides spousal coverage to common-law partners, appealed the decision, escalating the case to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s ruling marks a pivotal moment for South Korea’s LGBTQI community. Many people, holding rainbow umbrellas, left the court in tears of joy. Despite the lack of legal recognition for same-sex marriages, gay relationships are not criminalized in South Korea, although LGBTQ individuals often live discreetly.

Activists have long called for legislation to protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation. A proposed anti-discrimination law has stalled in South Korea’s parliament for years due to a lack of consensus among lawmakers.

Outside the court, anti-LGBTQI Christian groups protested, holding banners that read, “Let us repent to the Lord.” When So Seong-wook and Kim Yong-min tried to hold a press conference after the verdict, they were interrupted by Christian activists shouting, “Homosexuality is a sin!”

Amnesty International hailed the ruling as “a historic victory for equality and human rights in South Korea.” The rights group stated, “The Court has taken a significant step towards dismantling systemic discrimination and ensuring inclusivity for all. While this decision is a major milestone, the case itself is a sobering reminder of the lengthy judicial processes that same-sex couples must endure to secure basic rights that should be universally guaranteed. It is disheartening that in 2024, same-sex couples still face such significant barriers to equality.”

This Supreme Court decision is a significant advancement for LGBTQI rights in South Korea, setting a precedent for future legal and social progress.

Same-Sex Marriage: SC Delays Review Plea After Justice Sanjiv Khanna Recuses From Hearing

July 10, 2024, 3:35 pm

The Supreme Court postponed a review petition challenging the October 2023 judgment that queer couples cannot enjoy the fundamental right to marriage, with Justice Sanjeev Khanna recusing from proceedings in the case due to personal reasons. The development effectively means that Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud will have to reconstitute the five-judge constitutional bench assigned to hear the petition.

The review petition is seeking that the judgment be set aside, which is hotly debated and criticized all over for allegedly depriving the LGBTQ+ couples of their rights in India. The judgment last October held that to recognize same-sex marriage as a fundamental right in Indian law would be an infringement upon the existing legal system.

Justice Khanna recused, and and so the chronological run of this highly contentious issue at the very core of LGBTQ+ rights and freedoms dragged on longer. Activists fighting for LGBTQ+ rights expressed disappointment over the delay but welcomed the possibility of a positive outcome in any future court proceedings.

CJI Chandrachud is shortly going to declare the new bench composition so that legal deliberations over this important issue can go on uninterrupted.

Supreme Court Refuses Open Court Review Of Same Sex Marriage Ruling

July 9, 2024, 4:17 pm

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court of India declined a request for an open court hearing on a review petition challenging its previous judgment that refused to legally recognize same-sex and queer marriages. The decision was made by a bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, who clarified that constitution bench reviews are conducted in chambers rather than in open court.

The review petition, highlighted by senior Advocate NK Kaul, sought an open hearing to challenge the October 17, 2023 judgment. This judgment had denied legal recognition of same-sex and queer marriages under various acts, including the Special Marriage Act (SMA) of 1954 and the Foreign Marriage Act (FMA) of 1969.

The Supreme Court will review the petition on July 10, with a five-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Chandrachud, and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Hima Kohli, BV Nagarathna, and PS Narasimha. Justices SK Kaul and S Ravindra Bhat, who participated in the original judgment, have since retired and will be replaced by Justices Khanna and Nagarathna.

SC says ‘no’ to open court hearing on review plea challenging same-sex marriage judgement

Read @ANI Story | https://t.co/i0fMVzfOhU #SupremeCourt #samesexmarriage pic.twitter.com/7HM068LxUE

— ANI Digital (@ani_digital) July 9, 2024

Multiple review petitions have been filed against the Supreme Court’s October 17 judgment, which declined marriage equality rights to queer couples. One notable petition, filed through advocates Karuna Nundy and Ruchira Goel, argues that the majority judgment contains significant legal errors and constitutes a grave miscarriage of justice.

The majority judgment, delivered by Justices SR Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha, stated that there is no fundamental right to marry. It acknowledged the right of transgender persons to heterosexual marriage under existing laws but held that legal recognition of same-sex unions requires legislative action, not judicial intervention. Additionally, the judgment denied adoption rights to queer couples, upholding Regulation 5(3) of the CARA Regulations.

The petitioners argue that the majority judgment misinterprets their request, which seeks to extend existing marriage laws to same-sex couples rather than create a new institution. They also contend that the judgment fails to protect children adopted by unmarried couples, contrary to established legal principles.

The petition highlights the significant consequences of the majority judgment on the lives and relationships of queer couples, including their children, who remain without legal protection. It calls for urgent scrutiny and reconsideration by the Supreme Court to rectify what it describes as a sweeping miscarriage of justice.

The petitioners seek to have the earlier order set aside and advocate for the application of Sections 15-18 of the Special Marriage Act to include non-heterosexual marriages. This approach, they argue, would recognize the constitutional rights of queer couples without requiring new legislative measures.

The outcome of the Supreme Court’s review on July 10 will be crucial in determining the future of marriage equality in India.

Same-sex marriage: Rajasthan opposes, 6 states seek more time to examine, says Centre to SC

May 10, 2023, 6:10 pm

The Centre informed the Supreme Court on Wednesday that it had received responses from seven states on the issue of same-sex marriage. While the Congress-led Rajasthan government is opposed to the idea.

Meanwhile Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Manipur, Assam, and Sikkim have stated that they will need more time to investigate it.

The top court bench is hearing a batch of petitions seeking legal recognition for same-sex marriage on the ninth day. On April 19, the Centre informed the court that it had written to the chief secretaries of states informing them that the Supreme Court was hearing the same-sex marriage case.

The move to notify the states comes despite the Supreme Court’s earlier declaration on April 18 that it would not enter the realm of personal religious laws. The court had decided to limit its inquiry to whether the scope of the Special Marriage Act could be expanded to include same-sex marriages.

The Supreme Court said on Tuesday that it must recognize that the concept of marriage has evolved and accept the basic proposition that marriage itself is entitled to constitutional protection because it is more than just statutory recognition.

Earlier on Wednesday, the Supreme Court stated that Indian laws allow an individual to adopt a child regardless of marital status, while also acknowledging that the law recognizes that there may be situations other than an “ideal family” having its own biological children.

The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) argued in its submission to the Supreme Court, which is hearing petitions seeking legal recognition for same-sex marriages, that the concept of gender may be “fluid,” but motherhood and motherhood are not.

Hearing on same-sex marriage postponed due to unavailability of two judges

April 23, 2023, 12:58 pm

Due to the indisposition of two of the five-judge Supreme Court Constitution Bench, the Supreme Court Constitution Bench will not hear several petitions seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage on Monday.
The Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, stated on Thursday that it will hear numerous petitions seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage from Monday to Friday. However, the Supreme Court has recently announced that due to the absence of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and S Ravindra Bhat, the court will be unable to convene on April 24. The Constitution Bench, which includes the Chief Justice, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli, and Justice PS Narasimha, is hearing a slew of petitions concerning “marriage equality rights for the LGBTQAI+ community.”
On April 18, the Constitution Bench began hearing the petitions.
The Supreme Court is hearing several petitions seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage. The petitions have been rejected by the Centre. One of the previous petitions mentioned the lack of a legal framework that permitted members of the LGBTQ+ community to marry whoever they wanted. According to the petition, the pair sought to enforce the fundamental rights of LGBTQ+ people to marry whoever they chose, claiming that “the exercise of which should be insulated from the disdain of legislative and popular majorities.”
The petitioners further asserted their fundamental right to marry each other and requested that this Court issue appropriate directives allowing and enabling them to do so.

Centre urges states’ participation in same-sex marriage plea before SC

April 19, 2023, 12:02 pm

The Supreme Court on Wednesday commenced its hearing on a bunch of at least 15 petitions regarding the legalisation of same-sex marriages.

The petitioners are requesting broader constitutional rights based on the right to life, the right to personal liberty, and other associated rights through their arguments. Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi is leading the petitioners, while SG Tushar Mehta is defending the central government. The government has repeatedly objected to the hearing on the grounds that recognition of marriages is a decision made by Parliament and has requested that the case not even be heard because only a biological man and a biological woman can enter into a valid wedlock.

The Centre has filed a new affidavit in several petitions seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage, urging the Supreme Court to include states and union territories as parties in the case. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta apprised the top court about the Centre’s fresh affidavit. A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud begins hearing a batch of petitions seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage.
CJI DY Chandrachud remarked that the Centre has now informed the state that the matter is going on. That’s excellent! So now it’s not that the states are unaware, the court said.
Centre apprised the SC that the Union of India, has issued a letter dated April 18 2023 to all States inviting comments and views on the seminal issue raised in the present batch of petitions.
Centre, in a fresh affidavit, submitted that the said issue goes to the root of the present matter and has far-reaching implications. The Centre requested that all States and Union Territories be made parties to the current proceedings and their respective stances be taken on record, or that the Union of India complete the consultative process with the States, obtain their views/apprehensions, compile the same, and place it on record before the Court, and only then adjudicate on the current issue. Despite this, the Centre stated in an affidavit that the States were not made a party to the current batch of petitions, unlike other occasions wherein for decisions on questions of seminal constitutional importance, particularly where legislative powers of the states are under the scrutiny of the Court. The Centre argued that any decision on the current issues without making States parties and specifically obtaining their opinion on the current issue would render the adversarial process incomplete and truncated.
In light of the foregoing, the Centre requested that this Court make all states parties to the current litigation and invite their respective positions on the aforementioned issue during the hearing on April 18.

LGBTQ members shouldn’t be stigmatised but be assimilated with society, petitioner argues before SC

April 18, 2023, 7:56 pm

On Tuesday, a petitioner argued before the Supreme Court that the LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning) community should not be stigmatized, but rather integrated into society through marriage equality.

The court stated during the hearing that the current matter would be limited to the Special Marriage Act and would not interfere with personal laws. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for one of the petitioners, stated that members of the LGBTQ+ community should not be stigmatized and should be integrated into society. According to the lawyer, assimilation of LGBTQ+ members will occur only after the state accepts same-sex marriage.

A five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and comprised of justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and P.S. Narasimha, was hearing a batch of petitions pertaining to’marriage equality rights for LGBTQAI+ community’.
Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General (SG), stated that Hindus and Muslims will be affected, and that states should be heard when deciding the issue.

According to SG Mehta, the legislative intent has always been that marriage is between a biological man and a biological woman.

Five-judge bench led by CJI to hear pleas seeking recognition of same-sex marriage

April 15, 2023, 8:55 pm

The Supreme Court has convened a five-judge Constitutional Court bench to hear a slew of petitions seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage beginning 18 April. The petitions will be heard by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha beginning 18 April.

Several petitioners have asked for recognition of the right of couples of the same gender to marry in this batch of petitions. One of the issues before the court is the right of transgender couples to marry as a natural consequence of their constitutional rights.

Earlier, Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind, an Islamic religious body, moved an intervening application in the Supreme Court in the matter pertaining to the legal recognition of same-sex marriage, saying that as per the legal regime in the country, marriage is only between a biological man and a biological woman. Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind has supported the submission of the Centre on this issue.

The Centre had previously filed an affidavit opposing the plea for legal recognition of same-sex marriage, claiming that living together as partners by same-sex individuals, which is now decriminalised, is not comparable with the Indian family unit, and they are clearly distinct classes that cannot be treated identically.

According to the centre’s affidavit, it is for the legislature to judge and enforce such societal morality and public acceptance based on Indian ethos, and Western decisions without any basis in Indian constitutional law jurisprudence cannot be imported in this context.

In the affidavit, the Centre apprised the apex court that living together as partners by same-sex individuals, now decriminalised, is not comparable with the Indian family unit concept of a husband, a wife, and children. Various petitions seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage under the Foreign Marriage Act, the Special Marriage Act, and other laws are currently before the Supreme Court.

Legalising same-sex marriage will have devastating impact on society, says Former judges

March 29, 2023, 6:19 pm

On Wednesday, a group of former high court judges issued an open letter warning that legalizing same-sex marriage in India would be disastrous for society as a whole.

In a statement they said “We are a group of former Judges, the conscientious and concerned citizens of India, having been exasperated and agonised over the continuous onslaught against the basic tenets of Bharatiya marriage traditions and family system by vested interest groups, write to you to draw your kind attention towards one such issue — legalization of same-sex marriage.”

According to the letter, the issue is being considered by the Supreme Court and has gained momentum in the country recently after being referred to a Constitution Bench.

They further added, “The people of the nation, hailing from various strata of society across regional and religious lines, are deeply shocked by this western-tinted outlook that is being superimposed on Bharatiya society and culture to weaken the family system.”

According to the group of former judges, marriage and the family system in India are unique. They believe that legalising same-sex marriage will strike at the heart of the family system, having a devastating impact on society as a whole.

Unfortunately, certain well-informed interest groups, unaware of the civilisational significance of marriage, have petitioned the court to legalise same-sex marriage. The letter stated that any attempt to weaken a great and time-tested institution should be met with vehement opposition from society.

Same-sex couple moves SC after being directed to attend counseling session

February 6, 2023, 4:45 pm

A same-sex couple has moved Supreme Court challenging the Kerala High Court order, directing one of them to attend counseling session with a psychiatrist regarding their sexual orientation. The plea was heard by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud who then asked the petitioner’s lawyer to keep the brief ready and said he will hear the matter at the end of the board. Petitioner’s counsel Advocate Sriram P mentioned the plea before the Supreme Court seeking an urgent hearing.

In the petition, the same-sex couple said that they are female as per their gender orientation and they both wish to get married and be together. But the parents of the detenu (person held in custody) have kept the detenu in illegal custody against her will so as to impede the marriage between the petitioner and the detenu. According to advocate Sriram the petitioner sought to invoke the basic principle of Habeas Corpus and sought the detenu to be produced before the court physically. As stated by the petitioner the High Court wrongly asked the detenu to be sent for counseling.

The counseling impugned herein is obviously counseling to change her sexual orientation. It is most respectfully submitted that this counseling is proscribed under law and the High Courts of Madras, Uttarakhand and Odisha have specifically and categorically followed the law laid down by this High Court prohibited it. The plea said the petitioner is in letter and spirit challenging the interim orders dated January 24, 2023 and February 2, 2023 all of which denied the petitioner her fundamental rights. These orders have denied the detenu safety and liberty for a long period from January 9, 2023 to the present day, the petitioner said. The present special leave petition carries a substantial question of law and raises several questions including, whether the High Court ought to have allowed the detenu right to be heard physically in the safety and security of the building of high court. Sexual orientation is something that one identifies with rather than being imposed on through counseling so should “gender orientation counseling” be legal or not.

Japan : Court orders same-sex marriage ban constitutional

November 30, 2022, 1:01 pm

A court ruled on Wednesday that Japan’s ban on same-sex marriage was constitutional, dealing the only G7 country—and a blow to LGBTQ rights—with the second such decision.

The Tokyo district court decision also stated that the inability of same-sex couples to establish families is a violation of their human rights, which the plaintiffs regarded as a sign of optimism.

Marriage in Japan is defined by the constitution as requiring “the mutual consent of both sexes,” and the government of Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has not yet announced any plans to look into the issue or put out legislation.

The court came to the identical judgement as a court in Osaka in June: that forbidding same-sex marriage was consistent with the constitution. Hopes were boosted when a judge in Sapporo, northern Japan, declared the restriction to be unconstitutional last year.

Four couples made up of eight individuals each claimed that the same-sex marriage prohibition violates their human rights. They had also asked for 1 million yen in damages from each other, which the court refused.

The decision was made a day after Singapore abolished its ban on gay sex but reduced the chances of same-sex marriage being legal in the United States and the Senate of Singapore enacted a law protecting same-sex marriage.

All Mexican states now permit same-sex marriage

October 27, 2022, 3:12 pm

Tamaulipas, a border state, became the 32nd of Mexico’s states to approve same-sex marriages after lawmakers there voted Wednesday night to do so.

With 23 votes in favour, 12 votes against, and 2 abstentions, the proposal to change the state’s Civil Code was approved, prompting chants of “Yes, we can!” from the change’s proponents.

Legislators eventually relocated to another chamber to wrap up their discussion and vote while those in favour and opposing the measure screamed and shouted from the balcony during the session.

The president of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, Arturo Zaldívar, welcomed the vote. “The whole country shines with a huge rainbow. Live the dignity and rights of all people. Love is love,” he said on Twitter.

Legislators in the southern Mexican state of Guerrero had adopted a measure permitting same-sex unions the day before.

Although the Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that state laws against same-sex marriage were unconstitutional, some states took a while to pass legislation to comply with the decision.