Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, who is heading the bench, called it “a matter of seminal importance” and the deliberations were “livestreamed in public interest”.
The Indian constitution, the petitioners have repeatedly insisted in court, gives all citizens the right to marry a person of their choice and prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represented the government, urged the top court to reject the petitions, saying that a marriage could take place only between a man and a woman who were heterosexual.
In a rare show of unity, leaders from all of India’s main religions also opposed same-sex unions, with some insisting that marriage “is for procreation, not recreation”.
It’s hard to second-guess what the judges would say in court, but one thing that is widely expected is that they would grant same-sex couples certain social and legal rights, such as allowing them to open joint bank accounts, nominate each other in their insurance policies and co-own property.
With the government vehemently opposing the petitions, Mr Bajpai says “the judges have to walk a tightrope” in a country where “marriage and family are at the heart of any religion”.
The original article contains 1,019 words, the summary contains 195 words. Saved 81%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represented the government, urged the top court to reject the petitions, saying that a marriage could take place only between a man and a woman who were heterosexual.
well this is verifiably false. Clearly a gay man can marry a straight woman, etc.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, who is heading the bench, called it “a matter of seminal importance” and the deliberations were “livestreamed in public interest”.
The Indian constitution, the petitioners have repeatedly insisted in court, gives all citizens the right to marry a person of their choice and prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represented the government, urged the top court to reject the petitions, saying that a marriage could take place only between a man and a woman who were heterosexual.
In a rare show of unity, leaders from all of India’s main religions also opposed same-sex unions, with some insisting that marriage “is for procreation, not recreation”.
It’s hard to second-guess what the judges would say in court, but one thing that is widely expected is that they would grant same-sex couples certain social and legal rights, such as allowing them to open joint bank accounts, nominate each other in their insurance policies and co-own property.
With the government vehemently opposing the petitions, Mr Bajpai says “the judges have to walk a tightrope” in a country where “marriage and family are at the heart of any religion”.
The original article contains 1,019 words, the summary contains 195 words. Saved 81%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
well this is verifiably false. Clearly a gay man can marry a straight woman, etc.