Same-sex marriage: What Government of India argued before Supreme Court bench

Over the course of numerous hearings before a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court on the issue of granting recognition to same-sex marriage.

The Government of India put forth several key arguments. The position articulated by the Centre reflects the complexity of the issue, even as the country awaits the verdict to be pronounced on Tuesday, October 17.

Below is a succinct 20-point summary of the Government of India’s key arguments:

The government stressed the importance of legal stability and continuity, arguing against any abrupt changes that may trigger societal instability.

It was argued that legal recognition of same-sex couples may influence children and adolescents’ understanding of relationship norms.

The government emphasised that marriage, as an institution, serves a social purpose of procreation, which wouldn’t be possible in same-sex marriages.

The state held that the law must respect the social, cultural and historical context of India.

The government further encouraged patience, suggesting that societal change and acceptance will follow naturally over time.

It was pointed out that only a minority of countries worldwide have legalised same-sex marriage.

The government expressed concern that redefining marriage could lead to a slippery slope effect, forcing the state to legally recognise other forms of relationships.

The state argued that it is the legislature and not the judiciary that should make such significant policy decisions.

The government highlighted that same-sex relationships are decriminalised and LGBTQ+ citizens have rights, but marriage legalisation is a separate issue with broader implications.

 The state emphasised the lack of overwhelming social consensus in favor of legalising same-sex marriage.

The government maintained its right to regulate the institution of marriage in accordance with the moral and social fabric of the country.

Public opinion, as surveyed by the government, is majorly against same-sex marriages, consequently making it difficult to change.

The government questioned the petitioners’ invocation of the right to equality to apply uniformly in all circumstances.

The state argued about the biological differences between same-sex and heterosexual couples, emphasising the natural design.