Homosexuality is generally considered a taboo subject by both Indian civil society and the government.

Public discussion of homosexuality in India has been inhibited by the fact that sexuality in any form is rarely discussed openly. In recent years, however, attitudes towards homosexuality have shifted slightly. In particular, there have been more depictions and discussions of homosexuality in the Indian news media[1][2][3] and by Bollywood.[4] On 2 July 2009, the Delhi High Court decriminalised homosexual intercourse between consenting adults, throughout India,[5] where Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was adjudged to violate the fundamental right to life and liberty and the right to equality as guaranteed by the Constitution of India.[6] Several organisations like the Naz Foundation (India) Trust, the National AIDS Control Organisation,[7] Law Commission of India,[8] Union Health Ministry,[9] National Human Rights Commission[10] and The Planning Commission of India[11] have either implicitly, or expressly come out in support of decriminalising homosexuality in India, and pushed for tolerance and social equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered people. India is among countries with a social element of a third gender. Religion has played a role in shaping Indian customs and traditions. While homosexuality has not been explicitly mentioned in the religious texts central to Hinduism, the largest religion in India, Hinduism has taken various positions, ranging from positive to neutral or antagonistic. Rigveda, one of the four canonical sacred texts of Hinduism says Vikruti Evam Prakriti (what seems un-natural is also natural), which some scholars believe recognises the cyclical constancy of homosexual/transsexual dimensions of human life , like all forms of universal diversities.[12] Historical literary evidence indicates that homosexuality has been prevalent across the Indian subcontinent throughout history, and that homosexuals were not necessarily considered inferior in any way.[13]

Contents
[hide]

1 History and religion 2 LGBT culture in India o 2.1 Advocacy for legalising homosexuality 2.1.1 International pressure 3 Legal status 4 Recognition of same-sex couples 5 See also 6 Notes 7 References 8 Further reading 9 External links

History and religion

Main article: LGBT history in India

LGBT culture in India

Since the de-criminalistion of homosexuality in India there has been a vibrant gay nightlife in metro cities such as Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai and Bangalore. It is these metropolitan cities that have become the hub of the new Indian gay culture with its urban outlook and acceptance towards homosexuality. Although there are not many exclusive gay clubs and bars yet, most upscale straight bars and clubs in these cities have regular designated nights of the week tailored for gay clientele. The reports of harassment of homosexual individuals and gatherings by the police have seen a gradual decline since 2004. As the de-criminalisation of homosexuality in India is a very recent occurrence many people are still taking time getting used to idea of openly gay couples, which was never the norm, and there has been some opposition in that regard, but mostly by religious-fundamentalist leaders. However, many social and human rights activists have been working to promote an increased acceptance of homosexuality.[14][15] Time Out (Delhi) has a dedicated column covering gay events in Delhi every week. Now with the emergence of several LGBT support groups across the nation, the much hidden queer community has increased access to health services and social events[2] The Internet has created a prolific gay cyber culture for the South Asian community. Gay dating websites provide an alternative way for meeting people; online communities also offer a safe and convenient environment for meeting gays all around India.[16] The blogosphere has also not been immune to the modern emergence of a queer desi identity. Web logs highlight stories and issues specific to this marginalised community.[citation needed] With India becoming more open to homosexuality, several organisations in the country have recently started promoting the country as a destination for gay tourists from around the world.[17] Though Bollywood has gay and transsexual characters, they have been primarily ridiculed or abused. There are few positive portrayals of late like Onir's My Brother Nikhil, Reema Kagti's Honeymoon Travels Pvt. Ltd., and Parvati Balagopalan's Rules: Pyaar Ka Superhit Formula but they have been sporadic and not mainstream. There have also been a few independent films that deal with homosexuality like Sridhar Rangayan's Gulabi Aaina The Pink Mirror, Yours Emotionally, 68 Pages and Ashish Sawhney's Happy Hookers. The first Indian film to deal openly with homosexual relations was Fire by Indian-Canadian director Deepa Mehta. With its 1997 release in India it stirred up a heated controversy throughout the country. Recently Bollywood has appeared more tolerant toward homosexual relationships and has begun to portray them in a better light, such as in Dostana and Men Not Allowed. Actors of Indian descent have played homosexual roles in foreign movies. Lisa Ray and Sheetal Sheth played gay roles opposite each other in Shamim Sarif's I Can't Think Straight and The World Unseen. Jimi Mistry played a man trying to come out to his mother in Ian Iqbal Rashid's Touch of Pink. In 2010, a Tamil film Goa, dealt with gay couples, their love and romance. It was the first Tamil film to portray same-sex love.

Advocacy for legalising homosexuality

The Naz Foundation (India), a New Delhi based NGO is at the forefront of the campaign to decriminalise homosexuality. The organisation aims to sensitise the community to the prevalence of HIV, as well as highlight issues related to sexuality and sexual health. The organisation has strong linkages with human rights groups and agencies such as Lawyers Collective, Human Right Law Network, Amnesty International, International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. Naz India has collaborated with these agencies to address cases of sexual rights abuse. Naz Indias efforts in sensitising the government to different issues related to the epidemic include the amendment of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code commonly known as the Anti-sodomy Law. This act criminalises same sex sexual behaviour irrespective of the age and consent of the people involved, posing one of the most significant challenges in effective HIV/AIDS interventions with sexual minorities.[18] International pressure The United Nations urged India to decriminalise homosexuality by saying it would help the fight against HIV/AIDS by allowing intervention programmes, much like the successful ones in China and Brazil. Jeffrey O'Malley, director of the United Nations Development Programme on HIV/AIDS, said "countries protecting homosexuals from discrimination had better records of protecting them from getting infected by the diseases. [But] unfortunately in India, the rates of new infections among men who have sex with men continue to go up. Until we acknowledge these behaviours and work with people involved with these behaviours, we are not going to halt and reverse the HIV epidemic. Countries which protect men who have sex with men... have double the rate of coverage of HIV prevention servicesas much as 60 percent."[19] In talking to The Hindu, he added that "The United Progressive Alliance government here is in a difficult position as far as amending Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned because of the coming elections as any changes could be misrepresented. We need to change the laws, sensitise the police and judiciary....But when discriminatory laws have been removed, marginalised people have got access to treatment and prevention facilities like condoms." Warning of the urgency he said, "India has achieved success in checking the spread of this dreaded disease through commercial sex workers but transmission through gay sex, and injectable-drug users is still an area of concern. Injectable-drug use can also be controlled through targeted interventions but is difficult to control or change peoples sexual orientation."[20]

Legal status
LGBT rights in India
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LGBT rights in India

Location of India (dark green) in Asia (dark grey) [Legend]

Same-sex sexual activity legal? Gender identity/expression Recognition of relationships Adoption Military service Discrimination protections

Legal since 2009; Age of consent higher for homosexuals

No recognition None N.A None (see below)

Contents
[hide]

1 Overview 2 Law regarding same-sex sexual activity 3 Recognition of same-sex relationships 4 Adoption and family planning 5 Military service

6 Discrimination protections 7 Living conditions 8 Summary 9 References

[edit] Overview
Homosexual intercourse was a criminal offence until 2009 under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This made it an offence for a person to voluntarily have "carnal intercourse against the order of nature." This law was struck down by the 2009 Supreme Court decision Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, which found Section 377 and other legal prohibitions against same-sex conduct to be in direct violation of fundamental rights provided by the Indian Constitution. Whilst convictions under Section 377 were rare,[citation needed] with no convictions at all for homosexual intercourse in the twenty years to 2009,[citation needed] Human Rights Watch have said that the law was used to harass HIV/AIDS prevention activists, as well as sex workers, men who have sex with men, and other LGBT groups.[1] The group documents arrests in Lucknow of four men in 2006 and another four[clarification needed] in 2001. The People's Union for Civil Liberties has published two reports of the rights violations faced by sexual minorities[2] and, in particular, transsexuals (hijras and kothis) in India.[3] Decisions of a High Court on the constitutionality of a law apply throughout India, and not just to the territory of the state over which the High Court in question has jurisdiction.[4] However, even after the pronouncement of verdict, there have been (rare) incidents of harassment of homosexual groups.[5]

[edit] Law regarding same-sex sexual activity

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was struck down in 2009 for consensual adults. The law continues to apply in the cases involving minors and coercive sex. The age of consent for both male and female homosexual sex is 18.

[edit] Recognition of same-sex relationships

Same-sex marriages are not legal in India. But that did not stop a Gurgaon court from effectively recognising a marriage between two lesbians.[6] Since marrying, the couple started receiving threats from friends and relatives in their village. Their lawyer said the court had served notice on 14 of Veena's relatives and villagers who had threatened them with "dire consequences". Haryana has been the centre of widespread protests by villagers who believe their village councils, or khaps should be allowed to impose their own

punishments on those who disobey their rulings or break local traditions mainly honour killings of those who marry within their own gotra or sub-caste, regarded in the state as akin to incest. Deputy Commissioner of Police Dr. Abhe Singh told The Daily Telegraph: "The couple has been shifted to a safe house and we have provided adequate security to them on the court orders. The security is provided on the basis of threat perception and in this case the couple feared that their families might be against the relationship."
[7]

[edit] Adoption and family planning

No legal prohibitions or allowances for adoption or family planning by same-sex couples.

[edit] Military service

No known prohibition on military service by LGBT Indians.

[edit] Discrimination protections

No known anti-discrimination protections exist for sexual orientation or gender identity.

[edit] Living conditions [edit] Summary

Same-sex sexual activity legal Equal age of consent Anti-discrimination laws in employment Anti-discrimination laws in the provision of goods and services Anti-discrimination laws in all other areas (incl. indirect discrimination, hate speech) Same-sex marriage Recognition of same-sex couples Both joint and step adoption by same-sex couples Gays allowed to serve in the military (since 2011) (since 2011) ? ? (since 2009)

Right to change legal gender Access to IVF for lesbians MSMs allowed to donate blood

Recognition of same-sex unions in India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

India does not currently recognize same-sex unions of any type. No explicit prohibition against same-sex unions currently exists, but LGBT rights have been slow to develop in the country.

[edit] Overview
Since 1987, when the national press carried the story of two policewomen who married each other by Hindu rites in central India,[1] the press has reported many same-sex marriages, all over the country, mostly between lower middle class young women in small towns and rural areas, who have no contact with any gay movement. Family reactions range from support to disapproval to violent persecution. While police generally harass such couples, Indian courts have uniformly upheld their right, as adults, to live with whomever they wish. In recent years, some of these couples have appeared on television as well. There have also been numerous joint suicides by same-sex couples, mostly female (male-female couples also resort to suicide or to elopement and religious marriage when their families oppose their unions). In "Same-Sex Love in India : Readings from Literature and History", author Ruth Vanita analyses dozens of such marriages and suicides that have taken place over the last three decades, and explores their legal, religious, and historical aspects. She argues that many of the marriages can arguably be considered legally valid, as under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, any marriage between two Hindus performed according to the customs prevalent in the community of one of the two partners is legally valid. No license is required to marry, and most heterosexual Hindu marriages in India today are performed by religious rites alone, without a marriage license and are never registered with the state. State recognition is not sought by most couples because it confers few benefits. Most couples seek the validation of family and community, and several female couples in rural areas and small towns have received this validation.[2] There have also been a couple of high profile celebrity same-sex marriages, such as the civil union of designer Wendell Rodricks with his French partner Jerome Marrel, conducted under French law in Goa, India. LGBT rights organisations have demanded the right to same-sex marriage, and, inspired both by news from the West, have discussed the issue.[3]

Homosexuality In India
By Namit Arora

19 August, 2008 Countercurrents.org

"We don't have any," is the classic Indian response to homosexuality in India.
Curiously, Indians say this even when they know of and tolerate homosexual acts in their communities. What's behind this seemingly contradictory stance? For the answer, we need to examine the social construct of sexuality in India. As a boy in India, I often heard rumors of "buggering" being commonplace in elite boarding schools for boys. This was partly spoken of as a passing phase of rakishness and fun, the subtext being: they'll discover what real sex is when they grow up. In their lucid new book, The Indians, Sudhir and Katherina Kakar recount a story about Ashok Row Kavi, a well-known Indian gay activist. Apparently when Ashok was young and being pressured to marry by his family, especially by his aunt, he finally burst out that he liked to fuck men. "I don't care whether you fuck crocodiles or elephants," the aunt snapped back. "Why can't you marry?" As in many other societies, procreation also underpins the Indian sense of social (and familial) order. Any threat to this social order is instinctively resisted, though the resistance takes many forms. In the Christian West, homosexual acts were persecuted as a sin against God (and less often, seen as a disease). Indians, on the other hand, denied the idea of homosexuality, while tolerating homosexual actsa trick made possible by regarding these acts not as sex but as a kind of erotic fun, or masti. Sex is only what happens in the context of procreation, usually within marriage. Sex is what makes babies, and truly virile men, of course, produce male babies. It is no surprise then, that the notion of a homosexual liaison as an equal alternate to a heterosexual one doesn't exist outside a small set of urban Indians; that would threaten the social order. Instead, the Indian response is: As long as men fulfill their traditional obligations to family and progeny, their homosexual acts are (uneasily) tolerated. Notably, according to the Kakars, the vast majority of even those who continue having sex with other men do not see themselves as homosexual. "Even effeminate men who have a strong desire to receive penetrative sex are likely to consider their role as husbands and fathers to be more important in their self-identification than their homosexual behavior." Lesbian activity is invariably seen as a response to sexually frustrating marriages (as also in Fire, the 1998 movie by Deepa Mehta). While the Indian response reduces open conflict, the flip side is a muffled suffering: countless men and women lead double lives, hiding from their true natures and denying themselves the most precious of intimacies and self-knowledge. When I was young, one of my aunts filed for divorce just weeks into her marriage; an uncle told me in hushed tones that something was wrong with her husband's "manliness." My aunt was fortunate; far more often the marriage is for ever, and is even given full marks for a happy normalcy if a child is somehow produced.

Of course, every so often a homosexual couple openly flouts convention and declares their love for each other, as in the famous case of two policewomen in MP in the late 80s. Here a uniquely Indian solution has been to see it as "unfinished business" from a previous life, where the two were surely husband and wife, separated and united again by destiny. While this creative interpretation serves to fit "deviant behavior" in a traditional framework, it is not always invoked, resulting more often in disapproval and harassment. A bit more tolerance of publicly "deviant behavior" does extend to the Hijras, not the least because their cultural status as "the third sex" has made them non-threatening (most are homosexual men who dress as women; some are eunuchs or have ambiguous genitalia) and imbued them with a special power to bless newlyweds and newborn males. Hindu gods and mythic heroes aid their acceptance too: Shiva at times assumes the female form; the goddess Yellamma has the power to change one's sex; Arjuna disguised himself as a eunuch during the Pandava exile. In ancient India, according to the Kakars, homosexual activity "was ignored or stigmatized as inferior but never actively persecuted." While mild punishment is advocated by some books, "it was the homosexual and not homosexual activity that evoked society's scorn," with homosexuals seen as deficient and objects of "pity, dismay and revulsion" because of their inability to marry and father children, a sense that persists to this day. But the Kamasutra, which reflects elite attitudes of its day, even dwells on homosexual fellatio in sensual terms. Temples at Khajuraho and elsewhere openly depict homosexual acts. Even after the arrival of Islam (the Qu'ran is hostile to homosexuality), Sufi mystics used homoerotic metaphors to describe their love of God and celebrated homoeroticism in poetry and literature of a "Persianized" Islam. Upper class Muslims got away with pederasty as long as they fulfilledor pretended to fulfilltheir obligations in marriage. It then fell upon the British to make things decidedly worse in the 19th century. The Kakars write: It is the sodomy aspect of male homosexuality which the British colonial authorities, encased in a virulent, homophobic Victorian morality, latched on to in their draconian legislation of 1861. This law, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, states: "Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall be liable to a fine." The law, challenged in the courts by a gay organization and currently awaiting judgment in the Delhi high court, is still on the statute books. Although the law is rarely used to bring transgressors to court, it is regularly availed of by corrupt policemen to harass and blackmail homosexuals in public places. The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community in India has made notable strides in urban milieus. Hundreds marched in Pride parades this year. But

progress simply means progress has been made. Great disparities remain and attitudes in this deeply conservative country are slow to change.

Namit Arora is a travel photographer, prose writer, and Internet technologist. He has lived in four countries, visited dozens, and now divides his time between the San Francisco Bay Area and New Delhi. Over the years he has created what is perhaps the most extensive photojournal on India, focusing on portraits, wildlife, archeology, culture, and nature. His essays, fiction, and book reviews have appeared in several publications. He is currently at work on his first novel . www.shunya.net
Introduction The marriage of Wendell Rodericks, one of Indias prominent fashion designers and his French gay partner Jerome was solemnized at the French Consulate in Goa according to the Pact Civil de Solidarite (PACS). This is the French Law that gives legal recognition to homosexual unions and also bestows upon them the rights, duties and the status a heterosexual married couple get. The most obvious question now is, why did India have to wait so long to witness a gay union and that too one being solemnized under some other countrys law? Why is our country o critical of homosexuality that it dismisses even the slightest hint in this direction with an embarrassed yet stern approach? The possible answer to all such questions is, since homosexuality is still viewed as a heinous crime in this country, to accept the same and give two gay people the status of being married is perceived to be blasphemous. Nonetheless, the irony here is that homosexuality is not something the west taught us; the west taught us how to criminalize this very concept. A law of the colonial era, that has very successfully distorted the way Indians look at alternate sexuality, has been done away with in its country of origin but it still haunts the sexual minorities in India, why? Is it not time for our country to stop trying to control what two consenting adults may do behind closed doors? Is it not time for our country to come out of its cocoon of misconception and realize that as much as they hope for it, the gay and lesbian community in our country isnt going anywhere; they will remain here and keep demanding their rights until they get it. For our Country to accept certain norms and shun others is quite hypocritical. While the whole world has started recognizing and respecting homosexuals and granting them all legal rights due in todays era to any human being, our Country treats consensual adult love between people of the same sex as sodomy, and refuses to grant same sex relationships the sanctity that is due to them. According to Scholar Ejaz Ahmed the homosexual is a person erratically attracted to members of his or her own sex and with whom he usually (but not always) has perverted sexual contact. Homosexuality is sometimes known by other names including, sodomy, pederasty and crimes against nature.. the offence is termed lesbian love or lesbianism. It is generally practiced by women who suffer from mental degeneration and have antipathy towards the opposite sex..... It is because of the propagation of such views that the society has taken a stringent and rigid attitude against homosexuality. Since such views are prevalent against homosexuality itself, acceptance of the union of same sex couples will necessarily take a longer time. The first step towards understanding is to see homosexuality in an unbiased light and then to perceive interlinked arenas such as recognition of gay marriages or their rights to adopt and other connected rights. What is Homosexuality? Homosexuality is neither a mental illness nor is it any sort of moral depravity. It is just the way a few of us wish to express our love and sexuality. Homosexuality is not a matter of individual choice. It depends on ones sexual orientation. Various researchers have different views on the source of sexual orientation. Some say it is a genetic factor or an in born trait, others attribute it to experiences in childhood. Most scientists agree that homosexuality is not a conscious choice that can be

voluntarily changed and it is not advisable to try and convert someones sexual orientation since it would not only require changing ones sexual behaviour but also reconstructing ones emotional, romantic and mental state of mind. Further scientists have proved that there are certain neuroatomic differences between gay and heterosexual people. Thus people are born gay and they do not become so as a matter of choice. Sexual preference does not change with moral or social codes across the world, it remains constant across cultures irrespective of what that culture accepts or condemns. Homosexuality Throughout the Ages Even though history has threads leading us to believe of the existence of same sex relationships, for quite some time now it has been viewed as a deviant behaviour or an abnormal trait. The Indian Penal Code, drafted in 1860, was influenced by the Victorian ideas and prejudices; therefore sexuality was dealt with as being a pathological issue rather than an expression of natural desire. Hence, for Indians to imagine sexual intercourse between people of the same sex was unthinkable. The above view is incongruent with our past considering the fact that ancient Hindu scriptures, such as Rig Veda make clear mention to sexual acts between women. Further the carvings and depictions in the famous temples of Khajuraho, Konark, Puri are proof of the same. Stories of Muslim Nawabs and Hindu noblemen with habits such as maintaining a harem full of young boys also point towards the existence of the notion of same sex relationships. Not to overlook the fact that India is also the birthplace of the Vatsayans Kamasutra, which is hailed as the bible of intimate acts, that includes a complete chapter referring to homosexuality. With the coming of the Aryans in 1500 B.C., and assertion of the patriarchal system of society, homosexual tendencies were looked down upon and suppressed. Links to the same find a mention in the Manusmriti, which discusses punishment for homosexual behaviour and this directly indicates that the norm of compulsory heterosexuality was preached and prescribed by the Brahmins. With the advent of the British Raj came the Puritanical values, which regarded display of sexuality as evil or satanic. To the Puritans, sex existed for the sole reason of procreation, and thus homosexuality was considered to be contrary to Gods will. In the 20th Century, slowly but steadily, world over the concept of homosexuality became somewhat acceptable. The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorder in 1973 and the American Psychological Association followed suit in 1975. The World Health Organization also removed it from its list of mental illnesses in 1981. The turning point was when the Vatican published an article in 1975 called Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics. It said, For some individuals homosexuality is an innate instinct. This makes it reasonable for us to conclude, that even the Church had now accepted, the fact that for some people homosexuality is their natural preference and that is how God has created them. Even though the Church still discourages such acts they were forced to accept the existence of the same. Further, homosexuality was decriminalized in a select few countries and this triggered of a chain reaction where other states started enacting policies in the nature of anti-discriminatory or equal opportunity laws to safeguard the rights of homosexuals. The first country to safeguard gay rights was South Africa in 1994. In 1996, the United States Supreme Court observed that no law could be passed by any state, which would be discriminatory towards gay people. Countries like Canada, France, Netherlands, Spain, New Zealand and the Scandinavian countries followed the example of South Africa and enacted similar laws. Special mention has to be made of our former colonial masters (Great Britain), who in 1967 had already passed the Sexual Offences Act, which states that homosexual acts in private shall not be an offence provided the parties consent thereto and have attained the age of 21 years.

Despite all the conscious efforts worldwide to protect alternate sexuality, India has neglected to address this issue and others related issues. Therefore, homosexuals in our country continue to be victimized by the State and the society. Is Homosexuality a Crime? Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code reads: Of Unnatural Offences. Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation: penetration is sufficient to constitute carnal intercourse necessary of the offence prescribed in the section. The British left us redundant and ridiculous piece of legislation 145 years ago. Then it was perceived that a homosexual person had only anal intercourse and this propagated the narrow-minded view that sodomy and homosexuality was one and the same. In recent times however, Britain has done away with this legislation, though we in our Country continue to hold fast onto such obsolete and dangerous perceptions. The consequence being that homosexuality is criminalized solely due to the manner of the intercourse. This indicates that no thought has been given to the emotional attachment, affection and bond between two people though they might be of the same sex. The Section poses before us certain interesting questions like what is natural and what the order of nature is all about? Section 377 does not define either of the above terms and has left it to the discretion of the courts, leading to a lot of controversy. Further, this section does not differentiate between consensual and coercive sex. In the case of Fazal Rab Choudhary v. State of Bihar , two men were engaged in a consensual relationship. The Supreme Court observed that: The offence is one under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code which implies sexual perversity. No force appears to have been used neither omissions of permissive society nor the fact that in some countries homosexuality ceases to be an offence has influenced our thinking. The Supreme Court sentenced the men to six months rigorous imprisonment. What a comical tragedy, how a third party has locus standi to institute a suit against two consenting adults who voluntarily enter into sodomy. This clearly infringes on a persons right to life and liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Army Act, Air Force Act and the Navy Act have similar provisions, which say that if a person is found guilty of any unnatural act, he will be punished for the same. This seems to be a clear violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, since it discriminates people of the basis of their sexual orientation. Naz Foundation India Trust, a Non-Governmental Organization, working for the welfare of AIDS patients, filed a petition in the Delhi High Court in 2001 challenging the validity of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. They pleaded in their petition for a reading down of the section in order to decriminalize homosexuality but not to repeal the same completely, since Section 377 is the only law that protects the boy child from sexual abuse. The Government filed its response only after immense pressure from various quarters. It was said that they did not favour the petition filed by Naz Foundation and also that they felt that Section 377 could not be read down because: 1.Deletion of the section would open floodgates of delinquent behavior and misconstrued as providing unbridled license to the same. 2.Law does not run separately from society it only reflects perception of the society. Public tolerance of different activities changes and legal categories get influenced by those changes. The public notably in the United Kingdom and the Unites States of America have shown tolerance of new sexual behaviours and preferences but it is not the universally accepted behaviour. And 3.In fact, the purpose of Section 377 is to provide a healthy environment in the society by criminalizing unnatural sexual activities against the order of nature.

In the reply of the Government there was also a mention of the 42nd and 156th reports of the Indian Law Commission, which stated that the society does not approve of homosexuality and therefore this was used as a justification in retaining Section 377 in statute books. Surprisingly they managed to overlook the 172nd report of the Indian Law Commission which has recommended that Rape laws be changed to i. Make it gender neutral, ii. Make special provisions for child sexual abuse, and iii. Repeal Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The Delhi High Court seemed to concur with the view of the Government and dismissed the matter on technical grounds. Naz Foundation then approached the Supreme Court and the case has been reverted to the Delhi High Court for a fresh hearing. The Governments projects its own opinions as having roots in popular consensus. Years of campaigning and dynamic activism in this field by various organizations, trying to change the attitude and mindset of the society are all negated by declaration of such sorts. Marriage and homosexuality The Indian society is steeped in tradition and this reflects on the legal system as regards inter-personal relationships. Intimacy of any sort is not approved of unless it is legitimized in the form of marriage where socially approved sexual access takes place. The social order in our Country is religion based which views procreation as an obligation for the execution of various religious ceremonies. Additionally our society is very community oriented and individualism is not encouraged in the least, any expression of homosexuality is seen as an attempt to renounce tradition and promote individualism, thereby posing a threat to the order in Indian society. It is opined that if homosexual marriages are legalized it will destroy the concept of a traditional family and the sanctity of marriage will be lost. It must not be forgotten that the Indian society is patriarchal in nature and the fact that certain women and men have different choices, which is not sanctioned by the order, frightens them in a way. As Balasaheb Thackeray, Shiv Sena Chief, puts it is it fair to show such things which are not part of Indian culture? It can corrupt tender minds. It is a sort of social AIDS. Dr Manmohan Singh on being asked about homosexual unions not being legalized in India summarily dismissed the issue stating that the country was not yet ready to accept such notions. In spite of all these moral, social and legal restriction that our society tries to exert, from every corner of the country groups and associations of gay and lesbian people are trying to assert their rights. Instances of homosexual unions have been making headlines recently. -Lakshya a Vadodara based organization helped 15 gay couples tie the knot. -A lesbian couple in Amritsar was given sanction by the Magistrate to live like friends. -Two women were legally wed in Jodhpur and not only did they get the blessings of both the families but their marriage was also officially registered. It is high time that gay unions are recognized and a status of normalcy be granted to people of different sexual orientation. Marriage has various implications as far as rights and duties of an individual are in question. It not only gives to people the right to co-habit but also gives them rights as far as issues like property, inheritance, maintenance, adoption, pension, insurance, employee benefits etc., are concerned. number of countries have granted legal recognition to same sex unions. Denmark was the first country to enact The Registered Partnership Act in 1989, Norway and Sweden followed suit in 1993 and 1995 respectively. These partnership Acts apply to same sex couple only. They give rights in areas of property, inheritance, immigration, tax and social security. However, couples are not allowed to adopt children and one of the two must e a citizen of the above-mentioned countries. France on October 13th 1989 passed the Civil Solidarity Pact (PACS) which states that unwed couples and even same sex couples can register their union to enjoy tax, legal and social welfare benefits that straight couples receive with marriage. Netherlands followed suit by granting rights in the same arenas. Italy, Britain, Finland, Belgium, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, The Czech Republic and Brazil are also in the process of expanding rights to homosexuals.

India also needs to come out and address the situation that is knocking at her door. They need to recognize homosexuality and in turn legalize gay unions. The various personal and civil laws enacted for the benefit of spouse or family are not accessible to the gay community since their union is not recognized by the State. Under all Labour and service laws, various benefits are available to heirs and legal representatives. Due to the scheme of these acts, a relationship, which is not based on blood or conjugal union, is not recognized for entitlement to these benefits. Acts like the Employee Provident Fund, Payment of Gratuity, Workmens Compensation, Employee State Insurance, Public Liability Insurance Act and Insurance laws all recognize only blood or marital relations. Therefore the major Central Civil Law problem being faced by the gay and lesbian people today us that they do not fall under the definition of family and thus arent considered as heirs. Conclusion The universal law of Human Rights states that social norms, tradition, custom or culture cannot be used to curb a person from asserting his fundamental and constitutional rights. If we were to accept the justification, given to us by cultural views, public policy and societal values, which are used to restrict a persons right then there would have been no progressive legislation enacted in our Country. Sati, dowry, child marriage and infanticides are practices derived from cultural belief, but the Government still took steps to prevent them. It is human tendency to highlight differences than realize similarities, which is why Gods diversity in creation instead of being glorified is shunned, feared and despised. Society has become nothing but a manifestation of our dislikes and disagreements and we claim that we dont judge or disagree with those differences but in actuality the society does and we follow its example. There is no cure to a darkness that refuses the light of the day. In a judgment that has aroused strong reactions from religious and political groups, the court declared that Section 377 IPC, where it ``criminalized consensual sexual acts of adults in private'', violated fundamental rights to personal liberty (Article 21 of the Constitution) and equality (Article 14) and prohibition of discrimination (Article 15). A bench comprising Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice S Muralidhar clarified that the provisions of Section 377, enacted in 1860 to deal with an unspecified range of ``unnatural offences'', would hereafter be restricted to nonconsensual penile ``non-vaginal sex'' (rape by a homosexual) and ``penile non-vaginal sex involving minors'' (pedophilia). In a courtroom tense with anticipation, the bench invoked Jawaharlal Nehru's stirring words to the Constituent Assembly, while linking the issue of homosexuality with the politically resonant theme of inclusiveness. ``If there is one constitutional tenet that can be said to be (the) underlying theme of the Indian Constitution, it is that of inclusiveness.'' As a corollary, it added that ``those perceived by the majority as `deviants' or `different' are not on that score excluded or ostracized.'' Upholding the petition filed by Naz Foundation, the court ruled: ``Indian constitutional law does not permit the statutory criminal law to be held captive by the popular misconceptions of who the LGBTs (lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders) are. It cannot be forgotten that discrimination is antithesis of equality and that it is the recognition of equality which will foster the dignity of every individual.'' ``There is almost unanimous medical and psychiatric opinion that homosexuality is not a disease or a disorder and is just another expression of human sexuality,'' the court observed.