Finally one celeb with a spine - Page 6

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Dude, the current government of India is literally the respondent in Supriyo v. Union of India. The Ministry of Law petitioned the Supreme Court to reject the petition. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights is literally making homophobic statements in court as a respondent. In which Lala Land is the current government supportive of not opposed to same-sex marriage?

Originally posted by: trouble_006

Nah, since the SMA has no impact on personal laws, the religious boards are free to not recognise it. CJI said it in the very first hearing.

This is where the main issue arises, aise sidhe jake court can't make an ammendment in the SMA as all this will in turn impact arount 100+ more laws/acts (I don't know the exact term).

Abhi kisi (say person A) ne SMA ke under same-sex marriage kar lia and then personal laws ke under hetero-marriage kar lia toh will it be considered bigamy?

Coz personal law ke under toh 1st marriage valid hi nahi hogi. Will the 2nd wife get alimony or not?

Who'll get Person A's property in case he/she dies?

Or who'll get the custody in divorce cases (usually mothers are considered primary custodian).

We have a lot of laws for protection of women in matrimonial cases. All of these will need ammendments.

CJI is jumping the gun here. This act needs to come from the legislature (which unfortunately I don't have high hopes from) instead of judiciary so that all these hiccups can be handled.

PS - I support same-sex marriage but I believe this should be handled by the legislature to prevent further mess. Otherwise there are more chances of backlash against the LGBTQ+ community.

@bold — that would be the solution but CJI is in race to have his name is the history by jumping the gun.

You are right about the issues it could create with SMA and individual religious laws.

Originally posted by: NimbuMirchi

I didn’t say anything. I asked coz I genuinely didn’t know.

But today is a “get personally attacked” day for me.

Chalo.: thanks for sharing. Will read on Supriyo vs Union of India. Thanks again.

Friend, this is what you posted quoting kyahikahoon's response to my post.

"Some people posing as LGBTQIA activists don’t even have proper information but opinion toh dena banta hai. "

That ticked me off and resulted in a snarky response. I should have assumed positive intent instead of jumping to conclusions. But for someone who genuinely didn't know about the current case before the supreme court, it is pretty presumptuous to laugh at LGBTQIA activists for not having "proper information". Please don't play the victim here. We're all guilty of giving snark. We all will also receive snark.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Friend, this is what you posted quoting kyahikahoon's response to my post.

"Some people posing as LGBTQIA activists don’t even have proper information but opinion toh dena banta hai. "

That ticked me off and resulted in a snarky response. I should have assumed positive intent instead of jumping to conclusions. But for someone who genuinely didn't know about the current case before the supreme court, it is pretty presumptuous to laugh at LGBTQIA activists for not having "proper information". Please don't play the victim here. We're all guilty of giving snark. We all will also receive snark.

No issues with you.

I had snarky remarks about your posts many times in the past.

All good.

Originally posted by: trouble_006

Abhi kisi (say person A) ne SMA ke under same-sex marriage kar lia and then personal laws ke under hetero-marriage kar lia toh will it be considered bigamy?

The special marriage act has been around since 1954. What is to prevent someone from marrying one person under the special marriage act and another person under their religious marriage act?

Btw, barring Islamic jurisprudence all religious marriage acts in India have this condition.

"neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage"

Originally posted by: trouble_006

Coz personal law ke under toh 1st marriage valid hi nahi hogi. Will the 2nd wife get alimony or not?

Since most marriage acts prohibit having a living spouse, this case is unlikely. And in the unlikely case, it will be for Islamic jurisprudence to figure out.

Originally posted by: trouble_006

Who'll get Person A's property in case he/she dies?

Since most marriage acts prohibit having a living spouse this case is unlikely. But in the unlikely scenario, this will be interesting. I presume legally the SMA spouse will get the inheritance by claiming the second spouse willingly got into marriage with an already married person. It could cause Islamic jurisprudence to rethink.

Originally posted by: trouble_006

Or who'll get the custody in divorce cases (usually mothers are considered primary custodian).

Perhaps this will finally force divorce cases to be more gender equitable and grant custody to the person who is actually proven to be more capable and committed to caring for the child. There are plenty of precedents globally.

Originally posted by: trouble_006

We have a lot of laws for protection of women in matrimonial cases. All of these will need ammendments.

I think it would be beneficial to move toward gender equitable domestic violence laws.

Originally posted by: trouble_006

CJI is jumping the gun here. This act needs to come from the legislature (which unfortunately I don't have high hopes from) instead of judiciary so that all these hiccups can be handled.

PS - I support same-sex marriage but I believe this should be handled by the legislature to prevent further mess. Otherwise there are more chances of backlash against the LGBTQ+ community.

IMO, not necessarily. The judicial and legislative branches are there to perform checks and balances on each other. Now that the legislation has dragged its feet, citizens had no choice but to petition the judiciary. And even the legislature when passing a new law will overlook a lot of loopholes and conflicts that the judiciary will have to eventually resolve. It is just the way it is.

Originally posted by: trouble_006

PS - I support same-sex marriage but I believe this should be handled by the legislature to prevent further mess. Otherwise there are more chances of backlash against the LGBTQ+ community.

Indian Constitution also has State, Union and Concurrent lists. And marriage and divorce features in concurrent list (laws and legislation that both the centre and states could pass, ammend and dilute). So technically Lgbtq+ marriage rights do fall with the legislature, rather the judiciary. This was also pointed out during the hearing. But at the same time not granting marriage rights, and what comes with marriage rights like property, spousal pension etc is infringing on fundamental rights as well, so judiciary has ground to pass lgbtq+ rights as well. In this sense both legislature and judiciary have rights to pass this law. This problem is arising because Indian Constitution is so intricately crafted and has so many provisions to accommodate every group of people along with accomodating the religious laws. That's why so many legislators time and again push for uniform civil code. As of now, same sex couples can't adopt kids, but Marriage act would grant them that provision which the centre is against. So a lot of inter linkage going on which cannot be explained away in a court room.

The problem here is the centre is not ready to consider the topic at hand, they are pushing it away saying it's incest, untraditional, goes again Indian culture, marriage's core is reproduction then how will lgbtq folks reproduce (wouldn't the marriage then be annulled? But then there are many hetero couples who choose to/unable to have kids. Would there marriage be annulled by same logic?). If the centre were ready to consider that certain sectio of people have rights just as others, deliberations on the matter of ammending wouldn't be so challenging. If the court were to say that legislature has the sole authority to ammend and pass these laws, centre would bury these rights deep into the ground and never speak of it again.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

good to have1those expectations. But could you tell us what roads has SRK built for you?😆 We'll move to other projects after that.😉

Originally posted by: NimbuMirchi

@bold - that’s what I am asking about. I haven’t come across any such opposing material from current regime. Could you share if you have some information on the same? Thanks.

Infact Gautam Gambhir has been a vocal supporter of LGBTQ community..and if u count Vivek agnihotri as pro govt then he too..and considering prominent people from the community got Padma awards under this govt..we can say it's supportive.

The case here is about mrg..and like mentioned in another post it involves lot of legal aspects

https://m.timesofindia.com/videos/toi-original/mohan-bhagwat-speaks-in-support-of-lgbtq-says-this-is-biological/amp_videoshow/96904505.cms

Originally posted by: Kyahikahoon

https://m.timesofindia.com/videos/toi-original/mohan-bhagwat-speaks-in-support-of-lgbtq-says-this-is-biological/amp_videoshow/96904505.cms

That’s a surprise. 😆