In a nation where an estimated 90% of marriages are arranged, it wasn’t surprising that the government chose to go against same-sex love . ...
In a nation where an estimated 90% of marriages are arranged, it wasn’t surprising that the government chose to go against same-sex love. After all same-sex love doesn’t fit in to the template, structures, laws and social norms that define a marriage. The fluidity that comes with choice, love and passion that drives such affection, the honesty that is attached to breaking the norm, are hard for a government to engage with.
If choice is offered (and therefore equality), what would happen to the whole system of arranged marriages fixed over the years on the basis of caste, class, colour, economics, regions, religion – much of what one sees in mainstream classified matrimonial ads?
A battle for civil rights
Last week, in response to a batch of petitions, the government stated in the Supreme Court that any change in the current laws that govern marriage would lead to “complete havoc with the delicate balance of personal laws”. Now, all that the petitioners had asked for was that the laws be interpreted to include same-sex marriage, indirectly seeking to expand the institution of marriage. Nothing more. They had merely sought a solemnisation of their love into marriage, not necessarily because they want the institution desperately, but simply for...
