Though CJ made only cursory comments on sidelines, his opinion must be read in the context he is dealing with. I don’t think anyone, least of all CJ would mean to overlook ‘feminineness’ of biological women which governs present privileges, protections and associated legal frameworks. Though one needs uncluttered mind free of political and moral prejudices to make meaningful inference.
Understanding that giving ‘marriage’ status to ‘same sex marriage’ would be challenging traditions, and will have serious ramifications impacting proven and accepted family and social norms, courts or lawmakers should consider to redefine same sex social unions as different legal entity and set up similar or new rules which govern these relations without calling it ‘marriage’.
Same sex relations had been known to exist since eternity but only had surfaced overground so popularly now due to changing ethical and also communication norms of the society.
If same sex persons intend to live together and want society or state to recognise their relation by giving it some legal recognition and binding making participating couples look forward to a legal fallback framework for protection, it is a fair expectation of consenting adults. State must accept it though can consider to give this relation a new legal name and a definition and avoid calling it ‘marriage’ which can be continued to be between opposite sex persons.
No comments:
Post a Comment