New Delhijust moments ago
- copy link
In the survey, 83 percent of the doctors have confirmed the spread of sexually transmitted diseases through homosexual relations.
70 percent of doctors and medical professionals believe that homosexuality is a disorder. If same sex marriage gets legal recognition then it will increase further in the society. Samvardhini Nyas, the women’s wing of the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS), has claimed this in its survey.
According to the survey, 83 percent of doctors have confirmed the spread of sexually transmitted diseases in same-sex relationships. At the same time, 67 percent of doctors believe that gay parents cannot raise their children properly.
A senior official of the trust said that 57% of the doctors who responded to the survey have opposed the hearing in the Supreme Court in this matter.
From April 18, the Supreme Court is hearing about Same Sex Marriage.
8 Different Ways Doctor Entered Response
A senior member of Rashtra Sevika Samiti said that responses of 318 people have been registered in this survey. The respondents include doctors from 8 different disciplines ranging from modern science to Ayurveda.
It has also been claimed in the survey that if same sex marriage gets legal recognition then homosexuality will be encouraged. Counseling is the better option to cure this kind of psychological disorder. The survey has also recommended public opinion to be taken before taking any decision on the demand for legalizing same sex marriage.
The Sanvardhini Nyas has conducted this survey in connection with the hearing regarding the demand for legal approval for sex marriage. A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud is hearing the matter.
Supreme Court hearing on same sex marriage
Hearing was held on the seventh day on Wednesday i.e. 3rd April on 20 petitions to give legal recognition to Same Sex Marriage in the Supreme Court. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had said that the Center is ready to form a committee to find a solution to the problems of same sex couples.
Mehta said that this committee will not enter into the issue of giving legal recognition to the marriage of these couples. The petitioners i.e. same sex couples can give their suggestions regarding the problems. Let them tell us what steps can be taken. The government is positive on this. Yes, it is definitely a matter that in this matter there is a need for coordination between not one, but many ministries.
In the hearing on the sixth day i.e. 27th April, the Supreme Court had said – Homosexuals cannot be excommunicated from the society. The government should explain what it intends to do in this regard and how it is working for the safety and welfare of such people.
What arguments and comments came in the last 6 days of hearing, read sequentially…
April 27, hearing on the sixth day: Supreme Court had asked – what is the intention of the government in this matter
The Supreme Court had asked the Central Government, ‘If the Judiciary enters into it, it will become a legal issue. The government should explain what it intends to do in this regard and how it is working for the safety and welfare of such people. Homosexuals cannot be ostracized from the society.
On behalf of the Central Government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had said, ‘The Special Marriage Act is only for people of the opposite gender. It was brought for those of different faiths. The government is not bound to recognize every private relationship. The petitioners want a new class to be created with a new purpose. This was never imagined.
April 26, fifth day of hearing: Center had said – new definition cannot be forced
On behalf of the Central Government, Tushar Mehta said – The court cannot take a different view for different categories of people under the same law. We cannot be forced to redefine. He said that what is meant by ‘plus’ in LGBTQIA+ has not been explained. He asked, there are at least 72 shades and categories of people in this plus. If this court gives recognition to undefined categories then the effect of the decision will be on 160 laws, how do we make it smooth?
Mehta further said that there are some people who refuse to be identified under any gender. How will the law identify them? As a man or a woman? One such category which says that gender depends on mood swings. No one knows what their gender would be in such a situation. Mehta said that the real question is who in this case will decide what is a valid marriage and between whom. Mehta argued whether the matter should not first go to the Parliament or the State Assemblies.
April 25, the fourth day of hearing: CJI said – Parliament has the right to intervene on the issues of the petitioners
On the fourth day of the hearing, CJI Chandrachud said, ‘There is no doubt that Parliament has the right to interfere in the issues raised in these petitions. Therefore, the question is how far the court can go in this matter.
On granting rights under the Special Marriage Act, the Supreme Court said, ‘If we look at it under the Special Marriage Act, we will have to reform many personal law boards as well.’
Justice Kaul and Justice Bhatt said that therefore it would be better to look into whether the right to same-sex marriage can be given or not. Going too deep into it will get complicated.
Advocate Maneka Guruswamy, appearing for the petitioners, said that Parliament cannot be given reason for depriving the right given in the Constitution. He said that when the rights of any community are violated, they have the right to approach the constitutional bench on the basis of Article 32 of the Constitution. He also told the court that the petitioners are not expecting any special treatment, rather they want practical interpretation of their relationship under the Special Marriage Act.
April 20, third day’s hearing; CJI asked- Is it necessary to have 2 different gender partners for marriage?
On the third day of the hearing, there was a debate in the court on the adoption of the child. Advocate Vishwanathan, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that LGBTQ parents are equally capable of raising children as parents of the opposite sex. The bench did not agree with the contention that unlike the opposite sex, same-sex couples cannot take proper care of their children. The bench said during the hearing that people are now moving away from the notion that there must be a boy. CJI said- Same-sex relationship is not just a physical relationship but is more than a stable, emotional relationship.
April 19, second day of hearing: Central government said- states should also be included in this debate
On the second day of the hearing, the Central Government appealed that all the States and Union Territories should be made parties in this case. Appearing for the petitioners, Abhishek Manu Singhvi submitted that marriage is required to avail benefits like adoption, surrogacy, inter-state succession, tax exemption, tax deduction, compassionate government appointments etc.
At the same time, the Supreme Court told the government that it cannot call it the idea of the urban elite class. Especially when the government has not given any data in favor of this claim. CJI Chandrachud said, ‘This may seem like an urban thinking because now people have started coming forward openly in urban areas.’
April 18, Day 1 of hearing: View of elite class people on same sex marriage petitions
On the first day of hearing, the Supreme Court said that it would examine whether rights can be given to same-sex couples through the Special Marriage Act of 1954, without going into the field of personal law. On behalf of the Central Government, the Solicitor General had said that these petitions reflect the views of the people of the elite class.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central Government, argued that legally, marriage is a relationship between a biological man and a biological woman. On this, the Supreme Court said that there is no concrete concept of discrimination between men and women.
