A remarkable feature of the US Supreme Court ruling last week, which declared by a vote of 5-4 that couples of the same sex could marry each other, is that it has come from a court that is regarded as conservative. When such a court can see the logic and morality of the argument that all individuals are equal, and that laws must respect their dignity, then the issue should no longer be a matter of debate.

Biblical floods, pralaya-like hurricanes or cataclysmic earthquakes won’t follow. The judgment does not celebrate hedonism or promiscuity; it extends to gay and lesbian couples what heterosexual couples have taken for granted. Far from being radical, the judgment reaffirms traditions and orthodoxy. By considering the institution of marriage to be the building block of a family and the highest form of relationship between two consenting adults, the court reinforces societal norms.

Apocalyptic alarmists do believe that extending marital rights to gay and lesbian couples will undermine the traditional marriage. But if Thelma marries Louise or Jules marries Jim, it makes no difference to the relationship between Harry and Sally. Surely heterosexual couples aren’t so insecure that they fear that their relationship will be diminished and undermined because a gay or lesbian couple can also get married?

And marriage is not only about procreation. Such a view misses an essential aspect of human relationship: desire. People form relationships because they are attracted to each other, they like and love one another.

Besides, not all married heterosexual couples make great parents—if they did, there would have been no need for foster homes, and there would be no child abuse, to say nothing of infanticide or female foeticide. Court records of custodial battles show how some heterosexual parents treat their children. Besides, there are loving, caring heterosexual couples who are not able to have children: nobody calls them less equal, or considers them less likely to be doting parents. Like them, gay and lesbian couples are eminently capable of figuring out other ways to have children if they wish, thanks to modern science and technology and progressive adoption laws.

Clearly, the desire to have babies is not the sole driving force why people get intimate with one another.

Desire of another kind, which includes physical and emotional love, respect, and a yearning for companionship and togetherness, forms and maintains lasting relationships. By denying gay and lesbian couples a legal status, the orthodox have turned a right into their privilege, and are perpetuating the idea that they are superior.

The map of the world showing places where same-sex relationships are legal and where they are not, is revealing. Most of the western hemisphere now grants equal or similar status to same-sex relationships. The story changes with Africa, the Middle East, and much of Asia, in particular countries that were former British colonies. Many among them carry harsh penalties for homosexuality (with a handful even making it a capital offence); in some other countries, unrestrained vigilantes terrorize gays and lesbians.

India is a laggard.

In 2009, in the Naz Foundation case, the Delhi high court had, in effect, annulled Section 377 of the colonial-era Indian Penal Code, which makes “unnatural sex" a punishable offence. The government of the day, in fact, chose not to appeal the judgment. But a bunch of conservative busybodies got together and appealed, and in 2013, the Supreme Court reinstated the law, suggesting that significant societal changes could only come out of legislative processes. That sounds like something out of the American judge Antonin Scalia’s tantrum-filled dissent in the US case, where he said nine elite judges should not attempt to transform the society; let the society decide to change itself—such a view would have prolonged segregated schools, prevented women from buying contraceptives or having an abortion, or disallowed inter-racial marriages. And by that logic, India should not have passed laws banning the use of sex-selective technologies or dowry.

Sadananda Gowda, the Union law minister created a momentary glimmer of hope when he said on Tuesday that the “mood" appeared to be favouring “it", that is, scrapping Section 377. But within hours he chided The Economic Times (which had carried the story) and said he was misquoted, and that India needed wider discussions.

True, societal change becomes more meaningful if it emerges from the grassroots, and that takes time. But it is the role of reformers, politicians, and judges, to lead and enable change that extends rights, ensures equality, and respects dignity by removing barriers that dehumanize any group of people. Who says India isn’t ready for it? From films like Fire to Margarita with a Straw, advertisements of brands such as Amul, Allen Solly, Tanishq, Hidesign, and more recently Anouk, and the matrimonial ad in Mid-Day from a mother seeking a groom for her son, Indians have shown they are far ahead of their parliamentarians. It is way past time to scrap Section 377, and to extend all rights to all Indians, regardless who they wish to love.

Salil Tripathi is a writer based in London.

Your comments are welcome at salil@livemint.com. To read Salil Tripathi’s previous columns, go to www.livemint.com/saliltripathi

Follow Mint Opinion on Twitter at https://twitter.com/Mint_Opinion

Subscribe to Mint Newsletters * Enter a valid email * Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter.

Share Via