Posted on 10/17/2023 5:30:35 AM PDT by Cronos
India’s Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a plea to legalize same-sex marriage, a stinging setback for gay people seeking equal rights in this socially conservative country of 1.4 billion people.
A five-member bench of judges ruled unanimously against the petitioners, with the chief justice saying it was up to Parliament to create any laws recognizing same-sex unions.
“The judgment is extremely disappointing,” said Anjali Gopalan, a petitioner in the case and the head of the Naz Foundation, a nonprofit group in New Delhi that works on sexual health issues.
Still, it offered a few glimmers of hope to same-sex marriage proponents, if largely rhetorical in some cases. The judges ruled that transgender people can marry other transgender people, and expanded the definition of discrimination. Among the four opinions they issued in the ruling, some were pointedly sympathetic to the petitioners.
...India’s conservative government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, had argued that it had a legitimate interest in preserving marriage as a union between a man and a woman, calling it part of the foundation of the state. It said those petitioning for the legalization of same-sex marriage were promoting “urban elitist views” unrepresentative of the broader public.
Justice Chandrachud said in his judgment that the federal government must ensure certain fundamental protections for gay citizens. For instance, they must be protected from discrimination in access to goods and services, and in general the public must be sensitized to gay rights. The judges unanimously agreed that trans people must be allowed to marry — so long as one member of the couple identifies as a man and the other as a woman.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Anyone trying to promote ‘sexual health’ would not be promoting sodomy.
This is the same sort of word play that those promoting abortion use when they talk about ‘reproductive rights’.
Murder of the unborn usurps that unborn child’s ‘reproductive rights’.
An aborted child will never have the opportunity to marry or reproduce.
“A five-member bench of judges ruled unanimously against the petitioners, with the chief justice saying it was up to Parliament to create any laws recognizing same-sex unions.”
Sounds like a bunch of extremist radicals on that court. Now the gays will have to convince the public that gay marriage is a good idea.
Murder requires an independently living human being to be killed by others. Do you know earliest any fetus has survived outside mother’s womb? That should be the time when abortion must be restricted. Before that it is part of woman’s body, same as her arms, legs, and other organs.
“ Before that it is part of woman’s body, same as her arms, legs, and other organs.”
Okay, let’s play your game. What would happen if a woman walked into a surgeon’s office and demanded he cut off a perfectly healthy arm because she doesn’t want it anymore? How about her spleen? It’s fine, she just doesn’t want it.
Your turn.
L
I’ve read a lot of dumb comments over the years, but I’m saving yours for the highlight reel.
Marriage is man and woman.
If the child was part of a woman’s body it would have the same DNA.
Please note that half the time the child is not even the same sex as the mother.
And if ability to live without support is your criteria, well, talk about open the floodgates. The demented, the frail elderly, kids under maybe age 12, the comatose and severely injured the very sick, the diabetic and dialysis patient, — none of them make your cut.
Good for them. Can anyone deny the cultural avalanche that has taken place since Kennedy gave the deciding vote in the US.
Independent in what sense?
People in nursing homes are dependent on the staff to survive. Is it permissible to end their lives?
Before that it is part of woman’s body, same as her arms, legs, and other organs.
A fetus is never part of a mother’s body. For the child to be part of a mother’s body it would have to have the same DNA. The fetus is attached to the mother’s body via the umbilical cord but is never ‘part’ of the mother’s body.
From the moment of conception a human being exist and has all the rights of their lives as do the mother.
It was a democrat that made same-sex marriage in the U.S. legal Anthony Kennedy on the supreme court made the deciding vote in 2015.
Anything to destroy morals is the main agenda for the party.
Yes, from the moment of conception. That’s exactly when God gives the baby a soul too. From the start.
Do you know earliest any fetus has survived outside mother’s womb?
_____________________________________________________
I don’t know of any post-natal infants that have survived outside of a mother’s womb without constant care. You might wanna rethink that.
Living independently outside of another human body.
The frail are not part of another human body.
She has that right. It is a part dependent entirely on her. It can not live separated from her body.
It is okay if they survive outside of mother’s body. Killing those is muder. We all survive with help from doctors, hospitals, gadgets. But we are not dependent on another human body. We are therefors independent human beings.
That is my main point. Any fetus capable of surviving outside mothers womb should never be killed by abortion.
No fetus has survived outside of mother’s womb I the first trimester regardless of hom many machines were used.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.