Global Discrimination Against Gay Families

Naik, Yeshwant

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-55435-8_7

Global Discrimination Against Gay Families

Yeshwant Naik²

Chapter
First Online: 08 April 2017

362 Accesses

Abstract

The predominant influence of the traditional nuclear family model on national and international laws is undeniable. But this model obviously fails to account for the differences encountered in gay families, who are unable to fulfil the “traditional” family ideal, thus marginalizing, excluding and discriminating against them. Yet it is also undeniable that the traditional nuclear family is gradually becoming outdated. As Hodson brings out in her important work “Different Families Same Rights: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Families under International Human Rights Law”: “Divorce is now common, leading to a rise in single-parent households and step families. Several couples are choosing single life, leading to greater number of children born out of the wedlock. Increasingly sophisticated reproductive technologies are becoming also available which challenge the traditional assumptions about parenthood and family.” All of these gradual changes combined—rising divorce rates, a preference for a single lifestyle and the increasing use of reproductive technologies—demonstrate the general evolution of family as a flexible unit among changing social circumstances. And in the succinct words of one Canadian Supreme Court Justice: “Family means different things to different people, and the failure to adopt the traditional family form of marriage may stem from a multiplicity of reasons – all of them equally valid and all of them worthy of concern, respect, consideration and protection under the law.”

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 99.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 129.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 129.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Hodson, L., “Different Families Same Rights: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Families under International Human Rights Law,” p. 9.
2.
L’Heureux Dubé, J. in Miron v Trudel [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418, para. 80
3.
Hodson, L., op. cit., p. 9.
4.
John, T., “Liberating Marriage,” in Arvind Narrian and Alok Gupta’s eds. Law Like Law, pp. 357, 370.
5.
Friedmann, W., Law in a Changing Society, pp. 172–173.
6.
Hodson, L., op. cit., p. 9.
7.
Ibid., p. 13.
8.
Kapoor, S.K., International Law and Human Rights, p. 830–831.
9.
Article 2§2 ICESCR.
10.
Agarwal, H.O., op. cit., pp. 404–405.
11.
Agarwal, H.O., op. cit., p. 429; see also Hodson L., op. cit., p. 16.
12.
Article 18 (1).
13.
Article 7 (1).
14.
Article 8 (1).
15.
Article 9 (1).
16.
Article 16 (1).
17.
Article 18 (1).
18.
Article 5.
19.
Article 18 (1).
20.
Agarwal, H.O., International Law and Human Rights, pp. 429–431.
21.
Hodson, L., op. cit., p. 17.
22.
Article 14.
23.
Article 1(1).
24.
The UK and Poland have obtained an opt out from the Charter and it will thus not be enforceable within these two countries, see Hodson, L., op. cit., p. 18.
25.
Article 7.
26.
Article 33 (1).
27.
Christine Goodwin v. The United Kingdom, Application No. 28957/95 (11 July, 2002).
28.
Hodson, L., op. cit., p. 17–18.
29.
United Nations Human Rights Committee, Report of the Human Rights Committee Communications No. 488/1992, U.N. Doc CCPR/C/50/D/488 (4 April 1994) (‘Toonen’).
30.
Toonen v Australia, HRC Communication no. 488/1992, 31 March 1994.
31.
General Comment No. 19: Protection of the family, the right to marriage and equality of the spouses (Art. 23), 27 February 1990, at para. 2.
32.
HRC Communication no. 902/1999, 17 July 2002.
33.
Ibid., at para 8.2.
34.
Hodson, L., op. cit.
35.
General Comment No. 19, op. cit., see U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/78/D/941/2000 (2003).
36.
13 June 1979, 2 EHRR 330.
37.
Application No. 6833/74, (1979) 2 EHRR 330, [1979] ECHR 2.
38.
Moustaquim v Belgium, 18 February1991, 13 EHRR 802; see also Boughanemi v France, 24 April 1996, 22 EHRR 228.
39.
Marckx case, 13 June 1979, 2 EHRR 330.
40.
Report adopted in Boyle v UK, no. 16580/90, 9 February 1993.
41.
Marckx case, 2 EHRR para 31.
42.
26 May 1994, 18 EHRR 342.
43.
1 June 2004, 40 EHRR 18, para. 36.
44.
Hodson, L., op. cit., p. 25.
45.
Ibid.
46.
Application No. 27110/95, Dec. 29 June 1999.
47.
Ibid., see also Hodson, L., op. cit.
48.
12 July 2001 [Grand Chamber judgment], 36 EHRR 18.
49.
Hodson, L., op. cit., p. 25.
50.
18 December 1986, 9 EHRR 203
51.
Hodson, L., op. cit., p. 25.
52.
Application No. 41488/98, Dec. 18 May 1999.
53.
22 April 1997, 24 EHRR 143, para. 36.
54.
Ibid., at para. 37.
55.
Hodson, L., op. cit., p. 26.
56.
Ibid.
57.
X & Y v U.K, application no. 9369/81, Cm Dec. 3 May 1983.
58.
W.J. & D.P. v UK, application no. 12513/86, Cm Dec. 13 July 1987; Z.B. v UK, application no. 16106/90, Cm Dec. 10 February 1990; see also Hodson, L., op. cit., p. 27.
59.
Application no. 11716/85, Cm Dec. 14 May 1986.
60.
Application no. 28318/95, Cm Dec. 15 May 1996.
61.
Hodson, L., op. cit., p. 27.
62.
Application no. 15666/89, Cm Dec. 19 May 1992.
63.
Hodson, L., op. cit., p. 27.
64.
Mata Estevez v Spain, application no. 56501/00, Dec. 10 May 2001; see Hodson, L., op. cit.
65.
Hodson, L., op. cit., p. 28.
66.
25 July 2000, 31 EHRR 24.
67.
21 December 1999, 31 EHRR 47.
68.
26 February 2002, 38 EHRR 21.
69.
Ibid.
70.
24 July 2003, 38 EHRR 24, para. 36.
71.
Ibid., para. 37.
72.
Ibid., para. 40.
73.
11 July 2002, 32 EHRR 18.
74.
Ibid., 32 EHRR 100.
75.
Hodson, L., op. cit., p. 31.
76.
Rees v. U.K. (1987) 9 EHRR 56.
77.
Cossey v. U.K. (1991) 13 EHRR 622.
78.
Sheffield and Horsham v. U.K. (1999) 27 EHRR 163.
79.
Application No. 21439/93, 24 February1998, (1998) 26 EHRR 241, Para 32.
80.
Application No. 44599/98, 6 February 2001, (2001) 33 EHRR 205, Para 59.
81.
Application No. 56501/00, 10 May 2001.
82.
Ibid.
83.
As per the Parliamentary Assembly Opinion No. 216 (2000); see also Parliamentary Recommendation 1474 (2000); see Hodson, L., op. cit., p. 30.
84.
Hodson, L., op. cit., p. 25.
85.
21 December 1999, 31 EHRR 47.
86.
Article 1 (1).
87.
As per the Parliamentary Assembly Opinion No. 216 (2000); see also Parliamentary Recommendation 1474 (2000) and Hodson, L., op. cit., p. 30.
88.
Diwan, P., Family Law, p. 2.
89.
Subha Rao, G.C.V., Hindu Law, p. 45.
90.
Ibid., 44.
91.
Ibid., 43.
92.
Ibid., 48.
93.
Ibid., 44.
94.
Diwan, P., Family Law, p. 3.
95.
Subha Rao, Hindu Law, pp. 56–57.
96.
Ibid., 57.
97.
Madhavi Ramesh Dudani v. Ramesh K., Dudani, AIR 2006 Bom 93.
98.
Diwan, P., op. cit., pp. 2–3.
99.
Subha Rao, op. cit., p. 147.
100.
Diwan, P., Family Law, p. 25.
101.
Ibid., p. 51.
102.
See Seema v. Ashwani Kumar, (2006) 2 SCC 578.
103.
The Child Marriage Restraint Acts, 1929–1978 apply to all the communities.
104.
Diwan, Family Law, p. 44.
105.
V. Mallikarjunaiah v. H.C. Gowramma AIR 1997 Kant. 77; Gajara Naran v. Kanbi Kunverbai, AIR 1997 Guj. 185; Harvinder Kaur v. Gursewak Singh, 1998 AIHC 1013 (P&H).
106.
Fyzee, A.A., Outlines of Muhammdan Law, 1964, p. 84; see also Diwan, P., Family Law, p. 26.
107.
As per Section 5 of the Christian Marriage Act, 1872.
108.
Any two persons belonging to any community, religion, nationality or domicile in India or abroad may opt to marry under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and if they do so, whichever community, religion or nationality anyone of them (or both of them) may belong to, or wherever they may be domiciled, they will be governed by the provisions of the Act and not by any other personal law, see Diwan, P., op. cit.
109.
Shastri, M.R., Family Laws, pp. 908–909.
110.
Vanita, R., Democratising Marriage: Consent, Custom and the law, p. 340.
111.
Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
112.
Photographs, witnesses and testimonies of priests officiating the marriage serve as evidence of marriage.
113.
Diwan, P., Family Law, (2013) Chapter I, p. 3.
114.
Vanita, R., Democratising Marriage: Consent, Custom and the Law, p. 341; see also Mitra, S.K., Hindu Law, p. 645.
115.
Jats of Punjab; see also, Diwan, P., Family Law, p. 51.
116.
Jats, lower castes of Punjab, Haryana and in some parts of Northern India. Same is also true among Buddhists; see Sohan Singh v. Kabla Singh, AIR 1928 Lah. 706; Charan Singh v. Gurdial Singh, AIR 1961 Punjab 301(FB); see Diwan, P., Family Law, p. 51.
117.
Vanita, R., Democratising Marriage: Consent, Custom and the Law, pp. 342–346.
118.
John, T., Liberating Marriage, pp. 368–369.
119.
This ancient marriage tradition from the Indian subcontinent was based on mutual attraction between a man and a woman, with no rituals, witnesses or family participation.
120.
Vanita, R., “Democratising Marriage: Consent, Custom and the law,” in eds. Narrain, A. and Gupta, A., Law like Love, pp. 338–339.
121.
AIR 1969 Mad 124.
122.
As per the 2011 report of India’s NDTV Channel, 80 % percent of homosexual men in India are heterosexually married, see http://www.ndtv.com/news/blogs/opinion/married_gay_men_and_their_social_implications.php (accessed on March 14, 2015).
123.
Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India, http://www.wcd.nic.in/adoption%20guidelines2015.pdf (accessed on December 12, 2015).
124.
Diwan, P., Family law, p. 7.
125.
Smt. Vijayashamma v. B.T. Shankar, AIR 2001 SC 1424.
126.
Anjali Gopalan, Director of the NAZ Foundation, talks in an interview about human rights and homosexuality in the context of Indian society and politics on Aug 12, 2009, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj57mNwcGPY (accessed on March 15, 2015).
127.
Friedmann, W., Law in a Changing Society, p. 172.
128.
Myneni, S.R., Sociology, pp. 240–244.
129.
Ibid., p. 247.
130.
Pernau, M., I. Ahmad, and H. Reifeld, Family and Gender: Changing values in India and Germany, 2003.
131.
Das, V., The Oxford India Companion to Sociology and Social Anthropology, 2003. See Uberoi, P., Family, Kinship and Marriage in India, 1998.
132.
Vanita, R. & Saleem, K. (Eds.), Same-sex love in India: Readings from literature and history, 2000; Vanita, R., Queering India: Same-Sex love and eroticism in Indian culture and Society, 2000; Vanita, R., Love’s Rite: Same-Sex Marriage in India and the West, 2005.
133.
Weston, K., Families We Choose, 1991.
134.
Weeks, J., Making Sexual History, pp. 212, 213, 219.
135.
Menon, N. (ed.), Sexualities, pp. 3–50.
136.
Khan, S., “Culture, sexualities, and identities: men who have sex with men in India,” pp. 99–115; see also Menon, N., op. cit.
137.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Couple-living-together-will-be-presumed-married-Supreme-Court-rules/articleshow/46901198.cms (accessed on July 17, 2016).
138.
Ibid., p. 3.
139.
See Weston, op. cit., p. 35.
140.
Ibid., p. 211.
141.
Weeks, J., Sexuality, p. 81–82.
142.
Butler, J., “Is Kinship Always Already Heterosexual,” p. 21.
143.
Conversation with interlocutor, March 14, 2014.
144.
It is one of the traditional rites of passage marking the acceptance of student by a guru (teacher) and an individual’s entrance into a school in Hinduism. The tradition is widely discussed in the ancient Sanskrit texts of India and varies regionally, see P.V. Kane on samskaras in History of Dharmasastras, pp. 268–287.
145.
It is a Hindu festival that celebrates the love and duty between brothers and sisters; the festival is also popularly used to celebrate any brother-sister like relationship between men and women who are relatives or biologically unrelated. The festival is also called Rakhi Purnima, or simply Rakhi, in many parts of India.
146.
Rakhi is a sacred thread which the sister ties on her brother’s wrist.
147.
Observation made at the SCHOD office during the month of February 2014.
148.
Observation made in Goa during the month starting from January, 2013 till February, 2013.
149.
See Daner, F.J., The American Children of Krishna: A Study of the Hare Krishna Movement, p. 11; Berger, B.M., The Survival of a Counterculture: Ideological Work and Everyday life among Rural Communards, p. 264; Weisner, T.S., “The American dependency conflict: continuities and discontinuities in behaviour and values of countercultural parents and their children,” pp. 271–295.
150.
Friedman, W., Law in Changing Society, p. 172.
151.
Bhat, P.I., “Directive Principles of State Policy and Social Change with Reference to Uniform Civil Code,” p. 75; see Bhat, P.I., Law and Social Transformation, p. 705.
152.
Myeni, S.R., Sociology, pp. 240–244.
153.
Bhushan, V. and Sachdeva, D.R., An Introduction to Sociology, p. 297.
154.
Ibid., p. 247.
155.
Burgess, E.W. and Locke, H.J., The Family, p. 175, see Bhushan, V. and Sachdeva, D.R., op. cit., p. 319.
156.
Bhushan, V. and Sachdeva, D.R., op. cit.
157.
American Psychological Association, Lesbian & Gay Parenting, Washington 2005, http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting-full.pdf (28.05.2016) and the amicus curiae-opinion of the American Psychological Association et al. in Perry et al. vs. Schwarzenegger, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 10-16696 (10/25/2010), http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/perry.pdf (28.05.2016). See also Ball, C.A., Same-Sex Marriage and Children. A Tale of History, Social Science, and Law, 2014.
158.
Cited in Halperin, D.M., Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography, p. 78.
159.
Cited in Gandhi, L., “A case of radical kinship: Edward Carpenter and the Politics of Anti-colonial Sexual Dissidence,” p. 104; see also Carpenter, E., Love’s Coming of Age, pp. 95, 122, 164, 174.
160.
Oakley, A., Sex, Gender and Society, pp. 206–207.
161.
Connell, R.L., Arms and the Man, p. 5; see also Ehrenreich, B. and English, D., For Her Own Good, pp. 18–19.
162.
Vanita, R. and Kidwai, S., Same-sex love in India: Readings from literature and history, 2000; Vanita, R., Queering India: Same-sex love and eroticism in Indian culture and Society, 2000; Vanita, R., Love’s Rite: Same-sex Marriage in India and the West, 2005.
163.
Pernau, M., Ahmad, I., and Reifeld, H., Family and Gender: Changing values in Germany and India, 2002.
164.
Nanda, S., Neither Man nor Woman: The Hijra of India, p. 186.
165.
Nanda S. 1996. Encyclopedia of World Cultures. The Gale Group, Inc. http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Hijra.aspx (accessed on July 9, 2016); Nanda, Serena (1990). Neither Man nor Woman: The Hijras of India. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishers; Bradford, N. J. (1983). “Transgenderism and the Cult of Yellamma: Heat, Sex, and Sickness in South Indian Ritual.” Journal of Anthropological Research Vol. 39:307–322.
166.
Ibid.
167.
Ibid.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Civil Law, Philosophy of Law and Medical Law, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany
Yeshwant Naik

Authors

Yeshwant Naik
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Naik, Y. (2017). Global Discrimination Against Gay Families. In: Homosexuality in the Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of India. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55435-8_7

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55435-8_7
Published: 08 April 2017
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-55434-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-55435-8
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics