RSS jumps the gun as same-sex marriage awaits SC nod
What's the story
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale on Tuesday said that the organization supports the government's stance on same-sex marriage as marriage can only take place between persons of opposite genders.
His comments came after the Supreme Court (SC) on Monday listed the final arguments over the legal recognition of same-sex marriages in India on April 18.
Context
Why does this story matter?
On Monday, the SC referred petitions seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriages to a five-member Constitution bench.
A day earlier, the Centre opposed same-sex marriage in an affidavit to SC.
Per rough estimates, India has about seven crore LGBTQ+ individuals.
Nevertheless, the government has repeatedly opposed the registration of same-sex marriages, even though the SC's 2018 judgment decriminalized gay consensual sex.
Details
Marriage can only take place between opposite genders: RSS leader
"Marriage can only take place between persons of opposite genders. The Sangh agrees with the government's view on same-sex marriage," Hosabale said.
On Monday, the SC referred the petitions seeking legal validation of same-sex marriages to a five-judge Constitution bench for adjudication.
The court had observed that the matter was of "seminal importance" and that judgment on it would have bearing on society.
Supreme Court
Same-sex marriage petitions sent to Constitution bench for final verdictÂ
While referring petitions seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage to a Constitution bench, a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Monday said the judgment on the matter "will have a huge bearing on society."
"It would be appropriate if the issues are resolved by the five-judge bench with due regard to A 145(3) of the Constitution," the judges said.
Opposition
Centre opposed legal validation of same-sex marriages
On Sunday, the Centre, in its affidavit before the top court, contended that same-sex marriage registration would result in a violation of current personal and codified rules in the country.
It urged the court to dismiss challenges to the present legal framework, claiming that same-sex partnerships were not equivalent to the concept of the "Indian family unit."