Rewriting Supriyo

Beyond the bench: LGBTQ+ health equity after India’s “no same-sex marriage” verdict

Marriage is a successful institution and it makes sense to open it to as many people as possible. The issue of same-sex marriage sparked emotional and political clashes between supporters and opponents. Denial of marriage rights to same-sex people can be seen as a kind of discrimination. This paper explores legal recognition of same-sex marriages. It thereby focuses on the role of Constitutional (Supreme) Courts engaging with the legal arguments over same-sex relationship recognition and marriage. It highlights the effects of policy evolution towards same-sex marriage as well as society’s attitudes. The paper examines the role of referendum held in five European states (Croatia, Slovakia, Ireland, Slovenia and Romania) devoted to (in general) same-sex marriage. It discusses the results of referendums and voters’ choice.

Marriage is a successful institution and it makes sense to open it to as many people as possible. The issue of same-sex marriage sparked emotional and political clashes between supporters and opponents. Denial of marriage rights to same-sex people can be seen as a kind of discrimination. This paper explores legal recognition of same-sex marriages. It thereby focuses on the role of Constitutional (Supreme) Courts engaging with the legal arguments over same-sex relationship recognition and marriage. It highlights the effects of policy evolution towards same-sex marriage as well as society’s attitudes. The paper examines the role of referendum held in five European states (Croatia, Slovakia, Ireland, Slovenia and Romania) devoted to (in general) same-sex marriage. It discusses the results of referendums and voters’ choice.

This article argues in favour of same-sex marriage, but only under certain conditions. Same-sex marriage ought to be introduced in the Australian context in order to remedy the formal inequalities between lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) citizens and their heterosexual/cisgendered counterparts. One common method of justifying the introduction of formal same-sex relationship recognition has been via the promotion of LGBT "normalcy." This article explores such a trend by analysing popular media and advertising, since media representations and coverage have been shown to affect the way the general public "learns, understands, and thinks about an issue" (Li and Lui 73). This article finds that the promotion of normalcy can, in fact, perpetuate hetero-norms, and only offer LGBT people an imaginary social equality. Such normalisation, it is suggested, is detrimental to a wider goal of gaining respect for LGBT people regardless, not in spite of, their identity and relationships. Yet, this article maintains that such imaginary equality can be avoided, so long as a plurality of possibilities for one’s intimate and familial life are actively legitimated and promoted.

Legal recognition of same-sex marriage is a controversial social issue. Despite a positive shift in attitudes toward gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals, sexual prejudice still exists. Research suggests that religion and religiosity, contact, education, sex, gender ideologies, age, and marital and parental status contribute to biases against sexual minorities. Similar findings have been established for attitudes toward same-sex marriage; however, attitudes toward same-sex marriage have been found to be more complex and resistant to change, suggesting the influence of other factors. One potential influence that has not been investigated is the influence of attitudes toward same-sex parenting on attitudes toward same-sex marriage. Contemporary research indicates that people are still hesitant about same-sex couples raising children, which may influence their attitude about same-sex marriage. Further research to investigate the influence of attitudes toward same-sex parenting on attitudes toward same-sex marriage is warranted, and findings from those studies may be useful in educational settings or promotions for social change.

ABSTRACTThe decriminalization of homosexuality in India has been a long and complex legal battle, culminating in the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), which struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. This research paper critically examines the evolution of legal and judicial perspectives on homosexuality in India, tracing key cases from Naz Foundation v. Government of National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi (2009) to Supriyo v. Union of India (2023). The paper explores the socio-legal implications of decriminalization, including its impact on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBTQ+) rights, societal attitudes, and future legislative reforms. It also discusses the limitations of the ruling, particularly the absence of legal recognition of same-sex marriages and anti-discrimination protections. Drawing from legal precedents, human rights principles, and comparative law analysis, this study assesses whether the Indian legal system has adequately addressed the rights of the LGBTQ+ community. The findings suggest that while decriminalization was a crucial step toward equality, further reforms are necessary to ensure full legal and social inclusion. The paper concludes with recommendations for strengthening LGBTQ+ rights in India through policy changes, legal protections, and public awareness initiatives.

In our system of government, civil rights violations are remedied by courts, not because we issue “Holy Writ” or because we are “the only repository of wisdom” … It is because the courts “must ultimately define and defend individual rights against government in terms independent of consensus or majority will.” – Baker v. State of Vermont , opinion of Justice Denise Johnson God's Law, Not Man's Law. – Sign at Vermont public hearing on same-sex marriage, January 25, 2000 Previous chapters provided a close look at same-sex marriage from the perspective of ordinary same-sex couples, considering how these couples think about marriage as a legal and political issue and sometimes enact marriage through various cultural practices. This chapter widens our perspective to examine recent public debates over the policy question of legal recognition of same-sex marriage. How, if at all, should the state recognize intimate same-sex commitments? I scrutinize the public debates in two pivotal states: Hawaii and Vermont. These were the first states in the nation to wrestle with the policy question of same-sex marriage over an extended period of time. Hawaii was the first state to come close to granting legal recognition for same-sex marriage, and also the first (along with Alaska) to pass a state constitutional amendment to prevent such recognition. Vermont's experience closely parallels Hawaii's in some key respects but diverges from the Hawaii case in terms of how policymakers ultimately resolved the issue.

Love is ever-present in the debate for the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Its importance, however, is often underestimated. I will show in this article that much can be gained by viewing this issue through the analytical lens of romantic love. This analysis will show that romantic love is a contested idea. On the one hand it claims to embody a radical and permissive ideology that is capable of penetrating established social and cultural divides. On the other hand, however, love has been accused of replicating patriarchy, and of being ideologically heteronormative. As such, love is not necessarily the answer needed to win the legal argument for same-sex marriage – not unless we begin a process of redefining love for our times.They say that the world was built for twoOnly worth living if somebody is loving you1

The divergence of majority and minority opinion within the Supreme Court of India in the case of Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors poses interesting jurisprudential issues relating to balance of interests, the decision making process of judges in areas where no pre-ordained rules are present and the peculiar place of Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy), declared to be unenforceable by the Constitution of India, in the Hohfeldian right-duty paradigm. The object of this short paper is the identification and exposition of these jurisprudential issues posed by the Minerva Mills' case.

This chapter raises the question of how Korean courts can learn from Europe, from Taiwan, and from the cases of IACtHR in legalizing same-sex marriage. However, unlike the non-criminalization of homosexual relations, the standard of protection is not sufficient in the European system. there are good lessons that Korea can learn from the first legal recognition of same-sex marriage in Taiwan. Particularly, unlike Europe, Taiwan shares many cultural and social similarities with Korea so that the Taiwanese decision will provide many progressive stimuli to the Korean court when deciding the case of same-sex marriage in the near future. This will provide progressive and inspiring sources to courts in other parts of the world including South Korea where sexual minorities are not sufficiently protected through the court decisions.This chapter will also introduce the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) related to same-sex marriage. As of 2020 (ILGA World: Lucas Ramon Mendos, Kellyn Botha, Rafael Carrano Lelis, Enrique López de la Peña, Ilia Savelev and Daron Tan, State-Sponsored Homophobia 2020: Global Legislation Overview Update (Geneva: ILGA), December 2020, 277.), 16 out of 48 European countries legalize same-sex marriage while Taiwan (Taiwan became the first Asian country to legalize same-sex marriage and as of January 22, 2021 approved an amendment paving the way for same-sex marriage between Taiwanese and foreign spouses, but not if the latter is a citizen of China (taken from Taiwan News, Taiwan to allow multinational same-sex marriages, but not with China, https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4109284. Accessed November 30, 2021). The Constitutional Court of Taiwan rules in May 2017 that same-sex couples have the right to marry under the Constitution and ordered the Legislative Yuan to amend the marriage laws within two years by May 2019. This Constitutional decision will be discussed in Sect. 8.3.) is the only Asian state that legalized same-sex marriage. On the other hand, Among the principles and relevant concepts introduced in the previous chapters, the principle of proportionality and positive state obligation will be mainly analyzed in the case law of the ECtHR in this chapter. This will be followed by a discussion of same-sex marriage in Korea even if same-sex marriage is not legally recognized in the current Korean legal system. Finally, the Constitutional Court of China (Taiwan) decision about same-sex marriage will be introduced. The Taiwanese case is particularly important to analyze because this decision made Taiwan the first Asian country to legalize same-sex marriage.KeywordsPositive state obligationsNegative state obligationsPrinciple of proportionalitySame-sex marriageConstitutional Court of China (Taiwan)Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Social workers have an ethical and professional responsibility to promote social justice and equality for oppressed groups, including sexual minorities. Advocating for the legal recognition of same-sex marriage is one way to enact this responsibility. The legal recognition of same-sex marriage is a significant accomplishment toward equality for gay and lesbian Canadians—one in which the social work profession played a role by presenting a legislative brief to policymakers. Although legislative advocacy is cited as a social policy change tool, the literature gives little attention to it, especially in regard to equality and social justice for LGBT people. This statement, subsequently adopted by the Canadian Association of Social Workers, is presented here to help social service workers better understand the significance of legal recognition of same-sex marriage, particularly as a minority rights issue. It is also presented as an example of a legislative advocacy tool. To inform policy change efforts elsewhere, we conclude by offering our reflections on the statement and lessons learned.

Sexual orientation and homeownership in Canada

Do people have a right to clean air, safe drinking water, and a healthy environment? Fifty years ago, the concept of a human right to a healthy environment was viewed as a novel, even radical, idea...

This paper examines the procedure and the constitutional challenges that the Indian judiciary has undergone in achieving rights for sexual minorities while implementing and expanding fundamental rights within the Constitution of India, in the interests of the LGBTQIA+ community. The fundamental rights categorically excluded the plight of sexual minorities. Without the enforceability of the DPSP (Directive Principles of State Policy)s, the grand scheme of rights actualisation was treated as a hollow promise, time and again interpreted regressively by the Legislature. The idea of transformative constitutionalism runs central to the reasoning of the judiciary, and it is through this idea that the progressive realization of fundamental guarantees for the minorities of India was accomplished. A diverse range of cases endeavouring to secure gender equality has utilised the vehicle of transformative constitutionalism by the Supreme Court of India: Shayara Bano v. Union of India which capitalised on the doctrine of manifest arbitrariness as an Article 14 scrutiny to Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan which ushered in an era of judicial supervision and guidelines jurisprudence. The liberalization of minorities’ rights has not merely been a peripheral transformation to the process of creating a constitutional culture but has also been central to the functioning of society and politics. Therefore, in this paper, the authors will delve into the mechanics of the transformative aspect of the Indian Constitution and its role in ushering a spirit of social revolution and cultural changes, benefitting the gendered and sexual minorities of the country.

Some states treat a same-sex marriage as legally equivalent to a marriage between a man and a woman. Other states constitutionally prohibit legal recognition of same-sex marriages. In all states that have constitutional restrictions against same-sex marriage, the restrictions were passed by a popular vote. A rationale for allowing citizens to vote on constitutional amendments is to produce constitutional outcomes that reflect variations in attitudes across states. We reexamine the amendment-attitude relationship and find it to be weaker than expected. We then develop an alternate explanation that focuses on procedural variations in how states amend their constitutions. Explicitly integrating key institutional variations into an empirical model with attitudinal data yields an improved explanation of why the constitutions of states with similar public attitudes treat same-sex marriages so differently. Our findings have important implications for people who wish to understand and/or change the future status ...