Supreme Court’s verdict on same-sex marriages | Explained

The story so far: The legal road to marriage rights — six months, five years and even longer in the making — has reached a divisive pit stop. However, the majority opinion said the government is not “obligated to recognise the bouquet of rights flowing from such a Union.” Justice Bhat added in his opinions that, “If we throw caution to the wind, we stand the risk of paving the way to untold consequences that we could not have contemplated.” Since Justice Bhat’s majority view rejects interpreting legal statutes to recognise civil unions, it is “unlikely that this version of statutory interpretation will find much purchase,” says Mr. Ramesh. The Bench, however, reiterated the need to strengthen sensitisation about queer relationships, noting that children of same-sex couples face stigma due to “the inherent biases that the society holds against queer communities.” Mr. Ramesh points out the Court did not base its opinions on heterosexual couples being better parents than homosexual parents. On sex, gender and discrimination “We don’t expect this to be a significant bouquet of rights, not even close to what was demanded in the petitions before the Court.”Anish Gawande The verdict observed that marriage is not a static institute and the “sole purpose of marriage is not to facilitate sexual relations or procreation, although that may be one of the main motivations for entering into a marriage.” The Union Government had reiterated in its submissions that same-sex marriage is incomparable to a man and woman living as a family because children are borne out of the union. Beyond recognising natal family violence, it “doesn’t provide any real immediately actionable right to queer couples.” The Court called on the Solicitor General’s submission that the government will constitute a committee, chaired by the Cabinet Secretary, to set out the benefits and entitlements for same-sex couples.