Kochi: The Supreme Court verdict holding same-sex marriage as invalid was on Tuesday welcomed by the Kerala Catholic Bishops' Council (KCBC), the apex body of the Catholic Church in the state, while the ruling was termed as disappointing by members of the LGBTQIA++ community.
The KCBC's pro-life committee, in a statement, said that marriage was a ritual between a man and a woman and it was not acceptable to describe a same-sex relationship as a marriage.
"A same-sex relationship can be described as a same-sex cohabitation, but it is not correct to describe it as a same-sex marriage," it said.
The committee was of the view that it was dangerous for the human race to try to legalise same-sex marriage by whitewashing same-sex love by amending the law in Parliament.
The apex court on Tuesday, while refusing to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriages, said the Parliament has to decide whether there was need for a change in the regime of the Special Marriage Act.
The ruling was termed as disappointing by Padma Lakshmi, Kerala's first transgender advocate.
She told a TV channel that while the observations of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud were encouraging, the majority view of the five-judge bench was disappointing.
The apex court, while passing four separate verdicts, was unanimous in holding that there is "no unqualified right" to marriage, and same-sex couples can't claim it as a fundamental right under the Constitution.
CJI Chandrachud was critical of the Centre's stand that the pleas for legal validation of same-sex marriage was reflective of an urban elitist concept.
Justice Chandrachud said the ability to choose a life partner goes to the roots of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The right to enter into a union includes the right to choose a partner and its recognition, the CJI said, adding the failure to recognise such an association will be discriminatory.
Padma Lakshmi said she was hopeful that India would become the 35th nation to approve same-sex marriages, "but it appears we have not reached that stage".
She also said that she does not expect a positive response from the Central government on the issue.
The KCBC committee was of the view that though an individual has the right to choose his/her partner, binding the partner of such choice by marriage was not in accordance with human culture.
It also said that the Special Marriage Act describes a marriage as being between a man and a woman and the same cannot be equated with the same-sex cohabitation.
The committee also contended that while couples have the right to be parents, transferring that right to unmarried persons and same-sex couples would not be beneficial to the progress of the human race.
This was also an issue on which a difference of opinion was seen between the judges of the apex court bench.
The CJI said adoption regulations are held to be void as they are discriminatory towards queer people and denied them the right to adopt as a couple.
Differing with the CJI's opinion, Justice Bhat held that just because queer couples are not allowed to adopt a child does not mean that the regulations are void.
The LGBTQIA++ persons, who had won a major legal battle in 2018 in the Supreme Court which decriminalised consensual gay sex, had moved the apex court seeking validation of same-sex marriage and consequential reliefs such as rights to adoption, enrolment as parents in schools, opening of bank accounts and availing succession and insurance benefits.
However, the top court left all these for Parliament to decide.
LGBTQIA++ stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, pansexual, two-spirit, asexual and ally persons.
/newsdrum-in/media/agency_attachments/ipXwqL5g8EOqSkmkiZUK.png)
/newsdrum-in/media/member_avatars/9Rj3p38eDEeibqzKtTLR.jpg )
Follow Us/newsdrum-in/media/media_files/jVTUPbyxe5Y0cMdLjfde.jpg)