This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Recognition of same-sex unions in Andhra Pradesh page were merged into Recognition of same-sex unions in India on 18 September 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Sexuality is generally considered taboo in India, might it be better to state this, than to imply that homophobia is rampant, when more less it is sexphobia? 140.90.131.108 ( talk) 12:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
This page is uncited in the sources and directly copy+pasted of Status of same-sex marriage (or maybe vice versa). At any rate, the lead was synthesis as "In recent years, Hindu-based same-sex marriage ceremonies have become even more prevalent" needs more than 1 source talking about the issue, likewise widely conservative. As for the legal validity, who cites this? can we see a reading of the text? The taboo part might hold water but what is the quality of the source?
More importantly since there is no regonition for this in India it is a moot point till it happens. the onyl part that has happened is the Delhi HC saying it should, which can be merged into Homosexuality in India Lihaas ( talk) 21:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
How can support for same sex marriage hover higher than support for homosexuality? Various figures for support for homosexuality among youth is only at 24%. http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/young-indians-are-homophobic-misogynist-and-orthodox-says-csds-survey-60003 Hindianu ( talk) 18:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Given the discussion at Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Andhra Pradesh#Proposed merge of Recognition of same-sex unions in Andhra Pradesh with Recognition of same-sex unions in India, perhaps we could discuss here any objections to the similar merge of:
Klbrain ( talk) 12:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
1. Issues
1.1 Relevance (
WP:ROC)
1.2. Verifiability (
WP:VERIFY)
1.3. Neutral point of view (
WP:NPOV)
2. Explanations
2.1. Common-law Marriage
The 9th edition of the Black’s Law Dictionary defines
common-law marriage as a type of marriage that takes legal effect, without license or ceremony, when two people capable of marrying live together as husband and wife, intend to be married, and hold themselves out to others as a married couple.
[2] Similarly, the
Supreme Court of India, in the case of D.Velusamy vs D.Patchaiammal (2010), held that the common law marriages require that although not being formally married:
[3]
As of 1st October 2023, same-sex marriage is not recognized under any Indian marriage law. Therefore, same-sex couples are not "qualified to enter into a legal marriage" in India. Hence, the common-law marriage does not apply to same-sex couples in India.
2.2. Same-sex Wedding in 1987
In 1987, Lila Namdeo and Urmila Srivastava, two policewomen from the state of Madhya Pradesh got "married" through a Hindu wedding ceremony. Narendra Virmani, the Inspector General of Police, discharged them after learning about the marriage. The couple was kept in isolation and not provided food for 48 hours. They were subjected to a "medical examination" by Dr S.K. Mukherjee. They were coerced into signing papers without reading them. They were left in the railway station in the middle of the night and warned against returning to the barracks.
[4]
[5]
2.3. Queer Couples in Indian Courts
The Indian Courts have questioned
locus standi of the individual due to the non-recognition of their relationship and dismissed the
habeas corpus cases.
[6]
Dr Surabhi Shukla critically analysed live-in relationship cases between queer women before and after the Navtej judgment and found that lack of respect for the autonomy of women continues to characterise the disposal of these cases. She reports investigative illegalities and violations of the fundamental rights of privacy, dignity, and equality are visited upon these couples during the course of the case.
[7]
For instance, in the case of Shampa Singha v. The State of West Bengal, the alleged detainee expressed her desire to stay with the family and the case was dismissed. However, Dr Surabhi Shukla points out that the court failed to inquire about the reason the alleged detainee was sent to a de-addiction centre. Additionally, the court ordered a psychological test because her family alleged that she was suffering from trauma and depression in contravention of Section 105 of the
Mental Healthcare Act of 2017.
[7]
In the case of Monu Rajput v. The State of Haryana, on the first hearing, the alleged detainee was produced in the court but the court adjourned the hearing, the sent the alleged detainee back to the alleged detainer, and set the next hearing after a month. The court adjourned the hearing without justifications, sometimes, reasons in contravention of Supreme Court Precedent of
Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M (2018). On the eighth hearing, the alleged detainee said she did not want to return with the alleged detainer and the case was adjourned. In the ninth hearing, when the alleged detainee agreed to live with the alleged detainer, the court disposed of the case immediately. A little under two months after the disposal of this writ petition, the couple ran away together and got a protection order from the Delhi High Court.
[7]
2.4. Opposition to different-gender relationships
The 19th and 21st
Law Commission of India has reported that the opposition to different-gender relationships and marriages is due to the fact the couple belong to the same
gotra, different
caste or different
religion.
[8]
[9] Meanwhile, the same-gender couples and queer couples face family opposition and harassment due to their queer identities.
[10]
[11]
2.5. Same-gender v. different-gender live-in relationships
The judgements in the cases pertaining to live-in relationships of different-gender couples rely on the gendered laws to recognize rights, obligations, protections and other related matters to couples in live-in relationships. Therefore, these case laws cannot be applied to same-gender couples. For instance, in the case of Indra Sarma Vs. VKV Sarma, while promulgating some factors to look into for testing under what circumstances a live-in relationship will fall within the expression “relationship in the nature of marriage” under Section 2(f) of the
Domestic Violence Act of 2005, the Supreme Court explicitly excluded the same-gender relationships.
[12]
On the other hand, the cases related to the live-in relationship of same-gender couples have been narrow in their holdings. Some of these cases are
Adhila Nasarin v. State Commissioner of Police,
Rohit Sagar v. State of Uttarakhand,
Poonam Rani v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
Sultana Mirza v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Sreeja S v. Commissioner of Police. While there are notable cases as the following, they are either not applicable to same-gender couples or follow the narrow holding for live-in relationship rights.
2.6. Society & Same-gender couples
International polling shows higher support for same-sex relationships because the sample consists of an English-speaking population. For instance, Ipsos acknowledges this issue: "The samples in... India... are more urban, more educated, and/or more affluent than the general population."
[14] Meanwhile, Indian polls show underwhelming support for same-sex relationships and/or marriage,
2.7. Family & Same-gender couples
Furthermore, instances such as same-gender couples committing suicide together due to family opposition are expected to be under-reported as families tend to hide the suicide note, if any, left by the victims to protect "family honour."
[17]
[18]
[19]
The family is reported as the primary source of psychological, physical and sexual violence against queer Indians that normalises such violence for queer Indians.
[10] Indian queer women have been reported to face endemic and pervasive nature of violence, such as psychological and verbal abuse, bodily harm, forced marriage, wrongful confinement, medical abuse and corrective rape.
[11]
2.8. Publication Bias
In addition to the
undue weight caused by the quantity of text and depth of detail, the inclusion of almost every case on favourable ruling for queer and same-gender couples is problematic because cases with an unfavourable ruling for queer and same-gender couples are often unreported or under-reported by the news. For instance, cases such as Shampa Singha v. The State of West Bengal, Monu Rajput v. The State of Haryana, Madhu Bala v. State of Uttarakhand, were identified through scholarly publications (For case details, see 2.3). This is reflected in the Article as the Haryana section does not discuss Monu Rajput v. The State of Haryana, where the court continued to adjourn the hearing until the alleged detainee agreed to stay with her parents (alleged detainers).
3. References
Wiki6995 ( talk) 22:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Is the page significantly problematic, as indicated by the various concerns raised in the talk section regarding its neutrality, factual accuracy, and relevance of content? If so, kindly propose suitable measures to rectify these issues. Wiki6995 ( talk) 10:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
This article is facing huge issues with gatekeeping from one or two editors. I'm going to be bold and just say that this article looks like it's written by an Indian American looking to get a top grade on his essay who doesn't actually understand anything about India or homosexuality.
Issues include:
The way that the article is structured is also very annoying and prevents meaningful literature on the topic. It's listing the situation from a law perspective when the majority of marriages in India are conducted without reference to the law (something like 70 to 80% of marriages are done through unwritten common law). The fact is that if most Hindus don't use legal marriage then it's entirely possible that most gay Hindus won't use legal marriage too because that's how Indians do it.
Arind7 ( talk) 14:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
However, I agree the article can be restructured.
Panda2024 ( talk) 15:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Recognition of same-sex unions in Andhra Pradesh page were merged into Recognition of same-sex unions in India on 18 September 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Sexuality is generally considered taboo in India, might it be better to state this, than to imply that homophobia is rampant, when more less it is sexphobia? 140.90.131.108 ( talk) 12:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
This page is uncited in the sources and directly copy+pasted of Status of same-sex marriage (or maybe vice versa). At any rate, the lead was synthesis as "In recent years, Hindu-based same-sex marriage ceremonies have become even more prevalent" needs more than 1 source talking about the issue, likewise widely conservative. As for the legal validity, who cites this? can we see a reading of the text? The taboo part might hold water but what is the quality of the source?
More importantly since there is no regonition for this in India it is a moot point till it happens. the onyl part that has happened is the Delhi HC saying it should, which can be merged into Homosexuality in India Lihaas ( talk) 21:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
How can support for same sex marriage hover higher than support for homosexuality? Various figures for support for homosexuality among youth is only at 24%. http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/young-indians-are-homophobic-misogynist-and-orthodox-says-csds-survey-60003 Hindianu ( talk) 18:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Given the discussion at Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Andhra Pradesh#Proposed merge of Recognition of same-sex unions in Andhra Pradesh with Recognition of same-sex unions in India, perhaps we could discuss here any objections to the similar merge of:
Klbrain ( talk) 12:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
1. Issues
1.1 Relevance (
WP:ROC)
1.2. Verifiability (
WP:VERIFY)
1.3. Neutral point of view (
WP:NPOV)
2. Explanations
2.1. Common-law Marriage
The 9th edition of the Black’s Law Dictionary defines
common-law marriage as a type of marriage that takes legal effect, without license or ceremony, when two people capable of marrying live together as husband and wife, intend to be married, and hold themselves out to others as a married couple.
[2] Similarly, the
Supreme Court of India, in the case of D.Velusamy vs D.Patchaiammal (2010), held that the common law marriages require that although not being formally married:
[3]
As of 1st October 2023, same-sex marriage is not recognized under any Indian marriage law. Therefore, same-sex couples are not "qualified to enter into a legal marriage" in India. Hence, the common-law marriage does not apply to same-sex couples in India.
2.2. Same-sex Wedding in 1987
In 1987, Lila Namdeo and Urmila Srivastava, two policewomen from the state of Madhya Pradesh got "married" through a Hindu wedding ceremony. Narendra Virmani, the Inspector General of Police, discharged them after learning about the marriage. The couple was kept in isolation and not provided food for 48 hours. They were subjected to a "medical examination" by Dr S.K. Mukherjee. They were coerced into signing papers without reading them. They were left in the railway station in the middle of the night and warned against returning to the barracks.
[4]
[5]
2.3. Queer Couples in Indian Courts
The Indian Courts have questioned
locus standi of the individual due to the non-recognition of their relationship and dismissed the
habeas corpus cases.
[6]
Dr Surabhi Shukla critically analysed live-in relationship cases between queer women before and after the Navtej judgment and found that lack of respect for the autonomy of women continues to characterise the disposal of these cases. She reports investigative illegalities and violations of the fundamental rights of privacy, dignity, and equality are visited upon these couples during the course of the case.
[7]
For instance, in the case of Shampa Singha v. The State of West Bengal, the alleged detainee expressed her desire to stay with the family and the case was dismissed. However, Dr Surabhi Shukla points out that the court failed to inquire about the reason the alleged detainee was sent to a de-addiction centre. Additionally, the court ordered a psychological test because her family alleged that she was suffering from trauma and depression in contravention of Section 105 of the
Mental Healthcare Act of 2017.
[7]
In the case of Monu Rajput v. The State of Haryana, on the first hearing, the alleged detainee was produced in the court but the court adjourned the hearing, the sent the alleged detainee back to the alleged detainer, and set the next hearing after a month. The court adjourned the hearing without justifications, sometimes, reasons in contravention of Supreme Court Precedent of
Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M (2018). On the eighth hearing, the alleged detainee said she did not want to return with the alleged detainer and the case was adjourned. In the ninth hearing, when the alleged detainee agreed to live with the alleged detainer, the court disposed of the case immediately. A little under two months after the disposal of this writ petition, the couple ran away together and got a protection order from the Delhi High Court.
[7]
2.4. Opposition to different-gender relationships
The 19th and 21st
Law Commission of India has reported that the opposition to different-gender relationships and marriages is due to the fact the couple belong to the same
gotra, different
caste or different
religion.
[8]
[9] Meanwhile, the same-gender couples and queer couples face family opposition and harassment due to their queer identities.
[10]
[11]
2.5. Same-gender v. different-gender live-in relationships
The judgements in the cases pertaining to live-in relationships of different-gender couples rely on the gendered laws to recognize rights, obligations, protections and other related matters to couples in live-in relationships. Therefore, these case laws cannot be applied to same-gender couples. For instance, in the case of Indra Sarma Vs. VKV Sarma, while promulgating some factors to look into for testing under what circumstances a live-in relationship will fall within the expression “relationship in the nature of marriage” under Section 2(f) of the
Domestic Violence Act of 2005, the Supreme Court explicitly excluded the same-gender relationships.
[12]
On the other hand, the cases related to the live-in relationship of same-gender couples have been narrow in their holdings. Some of these cases are
Adhila Nasarin v. State Commissioner of Police,
Rohit Sagar v. State of Uttarakhand,
Poonam Rani v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
Sultana Mirza v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Sreeja S v. Commissioner of Police. While there are notable cases as the following, they are either not applicable to same-gender couples or follow the narrow holding for live-in relationship rights.
2.6. Society & Same-gender couples
International polling shows higher support for same-sex relationships because the sample consists of an English-speaking population. For instance, Ipsos acknowledges this issue: "The samples in... India... are more urban, more educated, and/or more affluent than the general population."
[14] Meanwhile, Indian polls show underwhelming support for same-sex relationships and/or marriage,
2.7. Family & Same-gender couples
Furthermore, instances such as same-gender couples committing suicide together due to family opposition are expected to be under-reported as families tend to hide the suicide note, if any, left by the victims to protect "family honour."
[17]
[18]
[19]
The family is reported as the primary source of psychological, physical and sexual violence against queer Indians that normalises such violence for queer Indians.
[10] Indian queer women have been reported to face endemic and pervasive nature of violence, such as psychological and verbal abuse, bodily harm, forced marriage, wrongful confinement, medical abuse and corrective rape.
[11]
2.8. Publication Bias
In addition to the
undue weight caused by the quantity of text and depth of detail, the inclusion of almost every case on favourable ruling for queer and same-gender couples is problematic because cases with an unfavourable ruling for queer and same-gender couples are often unreported or under-reported by the news. For instance, cases such as Shampa Singha v. The State of West Bengal, Monu Rajput v. The State of Haryana, Madhu Bala v. State of Uttarakhand, were identified through scholarly publications (For case details, see 2.3). This is reflected in the Article as the Haryana section does not discuss Monu Rajput v. The State of Haryana, where the court continued to adjourn the hearing until the alleged detainee agreed to stay with her parents (alleged detainers).
3. References
Wiki6995 ( talk) 22:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Is the page significantly problematic, as indicated by the various concerns raised in the talk section regarding its neutrality, factual accuracy, and relevance of content? If so, kindly propose suitable measures to rectify these issues. Wiki6995 ( talk) 10:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
This article is facing huge issues with gatekeeping from one or two editors. I'm going to be bold and just say that this article looks like it's written by an Indian American looking to get a top grade on his essay who doesn't actually understand anything about India or homosexuality.
Issues include:
The way that the article is structured is also very annoying and prevents meaningful literature on the topic. It's listing the situation from a law perspective when the majority of marriages in India are conducted without reference to the law (something like 70 to 80% of marriages are done through unwritten common law). The fact is that if most Hindus don't use legal marriage then it's entirely possible that most gay Hindus won't use legal marriage too because that's how Indians do it.
Arind7 ( talk) 14:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
However, I agree the article can be restructured.
Panda2024 ( talk) 15:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)