LGBTQIA+ rights have once again picked up steam in India, thanks to the Supreme Court of India’s proceedings on marriage equality. For the first time ever, such a monumental court case on rainbow rights is being live-streamed for desi queers, allies and haters to watch in real-time.
While some are hopeful of a step in the right direction, there are a large number of detractors who look at marriage strictly as a union between a man and a woman. The world has moved on, but some bigots still refuse to accept alternate marriages and families of choice.
The Indian society is a strange example of this because ever since a child is born, they are told in many subtle and not-so-subtle ways that marriage at the “right age” is a must. But, when the child becomes an adult and expresses a desire to be with (perhaps marry) someone of their choice, the same society vehemently rejects them.
Given that marriages and weddings are such an essential, undeniable part of the Indian socio-cultural fabric, imagine what being excluded from such an all-pervasive institution and celebration leads to… Shouldn’t two consenting adults have the right to declare their love to the world if they so wish to?
Moving on, marriage is not just about basic human dignity and the right to live with a lover of one’s choice. As legal stalwart and queer rights champion, Dr Menaka Guruswamy, put it: ‘marriage is a bouquet of rights’.
Dr Guruswamy was referring to the fact there are day-to-day issues queer couples face like finding rental accommodation, nominating your spouse in an insurance policy, or opening a joint bank account etc.
To quote her further: “This is the reality of how rights are exercised. Rights are exercised when you’re able to protect your relationships. One facet of that right is the constitutional value of dignity, equality, fraternity. The other facet is the day-to-day business of life.”
The last time I wrote about love on YKA, I said:
“Simply decriminalising queer relationships is not enough. The right to love, marry, live with one’s partner or form families of choice, adopt and more OUGHT to be universal.”
I still stand by this. To the privileged queers saying they will live a cocooned existence and reject the notion of marriage entirely, I say kudos to you! If you don’t believe in marriage, don’t opt for it. But don’t vilify those who seek that for themselves.
Say what you may, marriage does lend credibility and legitimacy to a couple and their togetherness. Not only this, it leads to acceptance from your family and the larger society too. If you don’t seek any of these, congratulations because you are more evolved than most of us.
Moreover, I don’t believe that the burden to radicalise oppressive institutions should fall upon marginalised people. Surviving is hard enough as it is, why should LGBTQIA+ people be expected to denounce and/or change everything for the better?
Maybe we will change marriage for the better too, but we won’t fully know how unless we are able to access it in the first place. Why should queer Indians be deprived of basic rights that ought to be available to everyone? Enough said!
I won’t get into the particular arguments around social readiness or queer couples not being able to procreate etc. because these have been amply and ably argued against by the lawyers. Let me leave you with this: I may not be marriage material, but I still don’t want the law of the land to say that!