Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in India

Article Tone

Sexuality is generally considered taboo in India, might it be better to state this, than to imply that homophobia is rampant, when more less it is sexphobia? 140.90.131.108 (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability

This page is uncited in the sources and directly copy+pasted of Status of same-sex marriage (or maybe vice versa). At any rate, the lead was synthesis as "In recent years, Hindu-based same-sex marriage ceremonies have become even more prevalent" needs more than 1 source talking about the issue, likewise widely conservative. As for the legal validity, who cites this? can we see a reading of the text? The taboo part might hold water but what is the quality of the source?

More importantly since there is no regonition for this in India it is a moot point till it happens. the onyl part that has happened is the Delhi HC saying it should, which can be merged into Homosexuality in IndiaLihaas (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The page is titled "Recognition of same-sex unions in India" but it is riddled with stories of random wedding ceremonies. It is like the page was written by fujoshi, or by a probably closeted and/or single person who has no sense of reality. If only the read the petition of ongoing case (Supriyo v. Union of India), they will know how much discrimination and difficulties these couples face after their wedding ceremony. Almost all of them shared difficulties in getting a proof of residence if they lived in their partner's property. Wiki6995 (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Public Opinion

How can support for same sex marriage hover higher than support for homosexuality? Various figures for support for homosexuality among youth is only at 24%. http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/young-indians-are-homophobic-misogynist-and-orthodox-says-csds-survey-60003 Hindianu (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

State level article merges

Given the discussion at Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Andhra Pradesh#Proposed merge of Recognition of same-sex unions in Andhra Pradesh with Recognition of same-sex unions in India, perhaps we could discuss here any objections to the similar merge of:

• Recognition of same-sex unions in Goa
• Recognition of same-sex unions in Karnataka
• Recognition of same-sex unions in Kerala
• Recognition of same-sex unions in Tamil Nadu

Klbrain (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Multiple issues

1. Issues
1.1 Relevance (WP:ROC)

1.1.1. Common-law Marriage does not apply to same-sex couples in India. (For explanation, see 2.1)

1.1.2. Different-gender couples face family opposition or harassment due to intra-gotra, inter-caste or inter-religious relationship as well as socio-economic status, but not due to their gender. Therefore, it cannot be compared with same-gender or queer relationships. (For explanation, see 2.4)

1.1.3 The discussion of case laws related to "live-in relationships," extensively discusses the cases related to different-sex relationships, which may not be applicable to same-sex couples. (For explanation, see 1.2.5, 2.1 & 2.5)

1.2. Verifiability (WP:VERIFY)

1.2.1. In the Lead Section, the claim "While India does not recognise same-sex relationships, the vast majority of heterosexual marriages are not registered with the government and common-law marriage based on traditional customs remains the dominant form of marriage in India," is not supported by the sources. (For explanation, see 2.1)

Homosexuality and the Indian: This source does not discuss the common-law marriage and only states, "In 1987, when two policewomen in the state of Madhya Pradesh in central India got married." (For an explanation, see 2.2)

Homosexuality in India: Past and Present: This source does not discuss the common-law marriage and briefly discusses the 1987 marriage between two policewomen. (For an explanation, see 2.2)

1.2.2. In "Background" section, the claim, "Indian courts have uniformly upheld their right, as adults, to live with whomever they wish." is not supported by sources (For explanation, see 2.3)

1.2.3. In "Background" section, the claim that same-sex marriage are legally valid akin to common law marriage is not supported by the citations. (For explanation, see 2.1)

Same-Sex Love in India by Ruth Vanita: This source does not discuss the legal validity of the marriage between same-sex couples. In the page 209, She writes, "In a couple of cases, women were reported to have followed up a Hindu religious ceremony by attempting to file an affidavit under the Hindu Marriage Act, whose ambiguous language (an Act to regulate the marriage of two Hindus) makes it difficult for the authorities to refuse permission." However, she provides no citations for the "reports."

Lesbians forced to live in anonymity in India: This source does not discuss same-sex marriage.

1.2.4 In "Background" section, the claim that most couples seek the validation of family and community, and several female couples in rural areas and small towns have received this validation, is unsupported by the sources.

Lesbians forced to live in anonymity in India: This source provides anecdotal evidence, which cannot be used for generalisation.

Homosexuality in India: Past and Present: This source discusses the 1987 marriage between two policewomen, which cannot be considered as "validation," as it resulted in termination of employment, detention and starvation, and forced medical examination. (For an explanation, see 2.2)

1.2.5 In "Live-in relationships and other forms of partnership" section,

Live-In Relationship and Indian Judiciary: does not discuss the same-gender relationship, and explicitly discusses the opposite-gender couples in the introduction and throughout the article.

1.3. Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

1.3.1 In "Background" section, draws attention to the first reported same-gender wedding in India, but fails to provide the complete picture, which includes termination of employment, detention and starvation, and forced medical examination. (For an explanation, see 2.2)

1.3.2 In "State and territory laws" section extensively discusses every habeas corpus and protection order case contributing to depth of detail and the quantity of text leading to undue weight, suggesting a queer-friendly justice system. (For explanation, see 2.3, 2.6, 2.7 & 2.8)

1.3.3 The Article includes multiple same-gender wedding ceremonies, where the marriage was neither legally recognised nor did the couple challenge the non-recognition in the Courts, contributing to the depth of detail and the quantity of text leading to undue weight suggesting same-sex marriages are "more mainstream." (For explanation, see 2.6, 2.7 & 2.8)

1.3.4. The reasoning provided for the removal of the Template:Cleanup added in this version shows possible violation of WP:UNDUE. The reasoning is as follows: "shows that same-sex marriage has been a more mainstream and predominant topic. Although marriages indeed lack legal recognition, they play an important role in shaping public perception of same-sex marriage and as such I believe deserve to be noted here" (See Page Revision history)

2. Explanations
2.1. Common-law Marriage
The 9th edition of the Black’s Law Dictionary defines common-law marriage as a type of marriage that takes legal effect, without license or ceremony, when two people capable of marrying live together as husband and wife, intend to be married, and hold themselves out to others as a married couple. Similarly, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of D.Velusamy vs D.Patchaiammal (2010), held that the common law marriages require that although not being formally married:

(a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.

(b) They must be of legal age to marry.

(c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.

(d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.

As of 1st October 2023, same-sex marriage is not recognized under any Indian marriage law. Therefore, same-sex couples are not "qualified to enter into a legal marriage" in India. Hence, the common-law marriage does not apply to same-sex couples in India.
2.2. Same-sex Wedding in 1987
In 1987, Lila Namdeo and Urmila Srivastava, two policewomen from the state of Madhya Pradesh got "married" through a Hindu wedding ceremony. Narendra Virmani, the Inspector General of Police, discharged them after learning about the marriage. The couple was kept in isolation and not provided food for 48 hours. They were subjected to a "medical examination" by Dr S.K. Mukherjee. They were coerced into signing papers without reading them. They were left in the railway station in the middle of the night and warned against returning to the barracks.
2.3. Queer Couples in Indian Courts
The Indian Courts have questioned locus standi of the individual due to the non-recognition of their relationship and dismissed the habeas corpus cases.
Dr Surabhi Shukla critically analysed live-in relationship cases between queer women before and after the Navtej judgment and found that lack of respect for the autonomy of women continues to characterise the disposal of these cases. She reports investigative illegalities and violations of the fundamental rights of privacy, dignity, and equality are visited upon these couples during the course of the case.
For instance, in the case of Shampa Singha v. The State of West Bengal, the alleged detainee expressed her desire to stay with the family and the case was dismissed. However, Dr Surabhi Shukla points out that the court failed to inquire about the reason the alleged detainee was sent to a de-addiction centre. Additionally, the court ordered a psychological test because her family alleged that she was suffering from trauma and depression in contravention of Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act of 2017.
In the case of Monu Rajput v. The State of Haryana, on the first hearing, the alleged detainee was produced in the court but the court adjourned the hearing, the sent the alleged detainee back to the alleged detainer, and set the next hearing after a month. The court adjourned the hearing without justifications, sometimes, reasons in contravention of Supreme Court Precedent of Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M (2018). On the eighth hearing, the alleged detainee said she did not want to return with the alleged detainer and the case was adjourned. In the ninth hearing, when the alleged detainee agreed to live with the alleged detainer, the court disposed of the case immediately. A little under two months after the disposal of this writ petition, the couple ran away together and got a protection order from the Delhi High Court.
2.4. Opposition to different-gender relationships
The 19th and 21st Law Commission of India has reported that the opposition to different-gender relationships and marriages is due to the fact the couple belong to the same gotra, different caste or different religion. Meanwhile, the same-gender couples and queer couples face family opposition and harassment due to their queer identities.
2.5. Same-gender v. different-gender live-in relationships
The judgements in the cases pertaining to live-in relationships of different-gender couples rely on the gendered laws to recognize rights, obligations, protections and other related matters to couples in live-in relationships. Therefore, these case laws cannot be applied to same-gender couples. For instance, in the case of Indra Sarma Vs. VKV Sarma, while promulgating some factors to look into for testing under what circumstances a live-in relationship will fall within the expression “relationship in the nature of marriage” under Section 2(f) of the Domestic Violence Act of 2005, the Supreme Court explicitly excluded the same-gender relationships.
On the other hand, the cases related to the live-in relationship of same-gender couples have been narrow in their holdings. Some of these cases are Adhila Nasarin v. State Commissioner of Police, Rohit Sagar v. State of Uttarakhand, Poonam Rani v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Sultana Mirza v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Sreeja S v. Commissioner of Police. While there are notable cases as the following, they are either not applicable to same-gender couples or follow the narrow holding for live-in relationship rights.

• Chinmayee Jena v. State of Odisha, which extended the protection under Domestic Violence Act of 2005. However, it was extended for the cis-woman in a different-gender relationship with the trans-man. The ruling by Orissa High Court and in line with the binding precedent of the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sarma Vs VKV Sarma, which excluded same-sex couples from the protection under the Domestic Violence Act of 2005. Bombay High Court extended the protection to trans-woman but relied on gender-affirming surgery (referred to as sex reassignment surgery in the case) and in a different-gender relationship.
• S Sushma v. Commissioner of Police, which is a landmark case, but for different reasons. The case is still limited in scope when it comes to live-in relationships of the same-gender couple.

2.6. Society & Same-gender couples
International polling shows higher support for same-sex relationships because the sample consists of an English-speaking population. For instance, Ipsos acknowledges this issue: "The samples in... India... are more urban, more educated, and/or more affluent than the general population." Meanwhile, Indian polls show underwhelming support for same-sex relationships and/or marriage,

• 2019, Mood of the Nation Poll

Opposition for marriage: 62%

Support for marriage: 24%

Do not know: 14%

• 2018, Azim Premji University and CSDS-Lokniti survey

Opposition to same-sex relationships: 50%

Support for same-sex relationships: less than 10%

The Poll noted that the remainder of the respondents either do not hold an opinion or do not wish to state their opinion which is remarkably higher as compared to the responses for other attitudes.

2.7. Family & Same-gender couples
Furthermore, instances such as same-gender couples committing suicide together due to family opposition are expected to be under-reported as families tend to hide the suicide note, if any, left by the victims to protect "family honour." The family is reported as the primary source of psychological, physical and sexual violence against queer Indians that normalises such violence for queer Indians. Indian queer women have been reported to face endemic and pervasive nature of violence, such as psychological and verbal abuse, bodily harm, forced marriage, wrongful confinement, medical abuse and corrective rape.
2.8. Publication Bias
In addition to the undue weight caused by the quantity of text and depth of detail, the inclusion of almost every case on favourable ruling for queer and same-gender couples is problematic because cases with an unfavourable ruling for queer and same-gender couples are often unreported or under-reported by the news. For instance, cases such as Shampa Singha v. The State of West Bengal, Monu Rajput v. The State of Haryana, Madhu Bala v. State of Uttarakhand, were identified through scholarly publications (For case details, see 2.3). This is reflected in the Article as the Haryana section does not discuss Monu Rajput v. The State of Haryana, where the court continued to adjourn the hearing until the alleged detainee agreed to stay with her parents (alleged detainers).
3. References

Wiki6995 (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

To answer one of your points about the unregistered marriages; it's a widely understood point that I think most Indians would understand but would be hard to find a source less pulling up the statistics for every marriage office and comparing them to undocumented marriages etc...

For example I could find two sources which stated that most marriages are unregistered.

https://lawrato.com/family-legal-advice/validity-of-marriage-done-as-per-hindu-ceremonies-but-not-registered-82498

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4539877/ Arind7 (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Unregistered marriages are valid as long as they can be registered. For instance, a heterosexual couple who never registered their marriage can get passport and other official documents with their partner as spouse. However, a same sex couple cannot do that.

This was an issue that drove petitioners to file the case Supriyo v. Union of India. The Supreme Court delivered the verdict as well. It is quite clear from the petitions filed by the petitioners in the case and the ruling of the Supreme Court that "unregistered same-sex marriage are valid" is a wrong take. Wiki6995 (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment on neutral point of view, factual accuracy and relevance of content

Is the page significantly problematic, as indicated by the various concerns raised in the talk section regarding its neutrality, factual accuracy, and relevance of content? If so, kindly propose suitable measures to rectify these issues.Wiki6995 (talk) 10:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the article has issues. I'm not sure that this RfC is needed as I don't see any disputes here. Alaexis_¿question? 13:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Any attempts to fix these issues through editing ends in Disruptive editing or Edit warring. Wiki6995 (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki6995, while you are correct that this page has serious issues, and that fixing them can lead to disputes, that is unfortunately part for the course on South Asian politics. This RfC won't fix anything, because the disagreement is about how to modify the content. RfC's are best used for specific proposed changes on which there is disagreement; for anything else, they tend to be a waste of time. I have removed the RfC template here, because I really don't think it's a productive use of editor time. If you want more eyes on the general dispute, the relevant wikiprojects would be good places to ask. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your thorough work above!

Yes, I think there are significant problems. No useful advice comes to mind on how to fix them, but I'll let you know if I think of anything. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Numerous problems with this article.

This article is facing huge issues with gatekeeping from one or two editors. I'm going to be bold and just say that this article looks like it's written by an Indian American looking to get a top grade on his essay who doesn't actually understand anything about India or homosexuality.

Issues include:

• Overemphasis on marriage as the only form of same-sex relationship recognition, when there are numerous other forms of recognition (live-in relationships, common law marriage, civil unions...), and not forgetting the guardianship system and partnership certificates in East Asia.
• Overemphasis on secular marriage as the solution. Cohabitation is the primary path forward in Europe, religious marriages are the primary path forward in Asia. Focusing on secular marriage as the solution does not make any sense.
• No history about the development of marriage in Hinduism, the meaning of marriage in Hinduism, and how it relates to the meaning of marriage for homosexuals. (For a made up example, if Indian marriage was only intended for couples who had a baby, then for most homosexual couples it would be useless to get married).
• No history about the development of marriage in India, the meaning of marriage in India, and how it relates to the meaning of marriage for homosexuals.
• No information about how marriage has been discussed in Hindu and Indian communities worldwide, and about situations similar to India but are non-Western in origin (non-western and in particular non-American viewpoints about LGBTQ topics are very important in the context of India).

The way that the article is structured is also very annoying and prevents meaningful literature on the topic. It's listing the situation from a law perspective when the majority of marriages in India are conducted without reference to the law (something like 70 to 80% of marriages are done through unwritten common law). The fact is that if most Hindus don't use legal marriage then it's entirely possible that most gay Hindus won't use legal marriage too because that's how Indians do it.

Arind7 (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem adding information on what you have listed. However, claiming that live-in relationships provide legal rights, benefits and protection to same-sex couples remains unsourced. Are cohabiting same-sex couples able to inherit? Can they open joint bank accounts? Adopt? If not, these live-in relationships are essentially purely symbolic, and this needs to be made clear. I don’t quite understood how mentioning partnership certificates is in any way noteworthy here. It’s a purely Japanese institution, not to mention not legally binding and likewise mostly symbolic. I’m also afraid you are "overcharging" the lead. I think most of this should be moved to designated subsections.

However, I agree the article can be restructured.

Panda2024 (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

There are quite a few articles dealing with the Supreme Court judgement on live-in relationships:

https://www.livemint.com/news/india/supreme-court-on-unmarried-partnerships-queer-relationships-family-unit-as-real-as-read-here-11661705797437.html

https://www.indiatoday.in/law/story/unmarried-queer-relationships-to-be-considered-family-entitled-protection-supreme-court-1993844-2022-08-29

https://thewire.in/law/domestic-unmarried-partnerships-queer-relationships-family-sc

https://www.vogue.in/culture-and-living/content/the-supreme-court-remark-about-queer-relationships-constituting-family-is-not-legally-binding-but-definitely-hopeful

https://www.theswaddle.com/domestic-unmarried-partnerships-or-queer-relationships-also-constitute-a-family-supreme-court

The remaining comment on partnership certificates overlooks that it's about providing a NPOV rather than the very Americanised viewpoint being written on this article. There's no reason why it shouldn't be included anymore than western concepts of marriage, along with the Chinese style guardianship system and the European style cohabitation system. What this article really lacks is a truly Indian view on marriage and LGBTQ marriage, and about how same-sex relationships can be recognised beyond providing marriage (which is what the partnership certificate is about). NPOV requires you to refrain from pushing secular marriage as the only option forward.

Arind7 (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Arind7 (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I have just read all these sources, and my understanding remains that the Supreme Court ruling was symbolic. One of the sources explicitly states it: "The apex court’s observation on expanding the definition of family does not translate to marital rights for queer people but it’s a refreshing step regardless". It seems live-in couples still have no rights to inherit, adopt, be protected from domestic violence, etc. Couples are "also entitled to legal recognition and protection." What does "protection" mean ? What benefits does "recognition" entail ? The first sentence of the lead: "India provides some legal recognition of homosexual partnerships as live-in relationships." thus seems very false. My understanding is that live-in relationships provide zero legal recognition and rights. If they did, why would couples have even gone to the Supreme Court to request (secular) marriage rights then ?

Marriage is an institution defined and codified in various Indian laws, notably the HMA and the SMA. It is not merely a Western concept, but is a very real legal institution in India as well. It is not merely an American POV.

"What this article really lacks is a truly Indian view on marriage and LGBTQ marriage, and about how same-sex relationships can be recognised beyond providing marriage (which is what the partnership certificate is about)." Sure, but currently no such institution exists in India for same-sex couples. Panda2024 (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Recognition of live-in relationships by India

Firstly, the recognition of the homosexual live-in relationships should not be dismissed as merely being symbolic, and the recognition of same-sex relationships is what this article is about. On the other side there's nothing special about marriages in a country where cohabitation and unwritten common law provides all the rights and benefits are homosexual couple would need (and remember there might be family tax breaks etc... aimed at married heterosexual couples that may not be required for homosexual couples). The fact is that the Supreme Court "recognised" live-in relationships even if the provisions provided to heterosexual couples and homosexual couples are different (and that should not inherently matter in a religion with multiple concepts of marriage and a country with numerous more).

Before the supreme court ruling, there were also other rulings that provided some rights to homosexual live-in couples, so the text can still stand:

https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-6583-same-sex-live-in-relationship.html

https://lawminds.co.in/article_dummy/same-sex-relationship-laws-a-brief-analysis/?amp=1

https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4391-marital-rights-of-same-sex-couple-a-socio-legal-issue-in-india.html

The Indian concept of marriage

"Marriage is an institution defined and codified in various Indian laws, notably the HMA and the SMA. It is not merely a Western concept, but is a very real legal institution in India as well. It is not merely an American POV."

You touch on the problem in that the legal concept of marriage was defined during colonialism and is designed around the western concept of marriage. You're way of thinking in this article only works when you're dealing with the western concept of marriage (or secular marriage).

However we know that the vast majority of Indians do not follow legal marriage. Muslims follow Sharia Law and Hindus mostly have unwritten common law marriages. Why is this entire article focused on the legal concept of marriage and writing about the progression towards the western/American concept of secular marriage?

Non-western/american solutions for LGBTQ people

"Sure, but currently no such institution exists in India for same-sex couples." No such institution exists in India for anything you wrote about. Arind7 (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

"On the other side there's nothing special about marriages in a country where cohabitation and unwritten common law provides all the rights and benefits are homosexual couple would need (and remember there might be family tax breaks etc... aimed at married heterosexual couples that may not be required for homosexual couples)." Unfortunately, my question remains unanswered. What are these rights? Okay, family tax breaks. Do we have sources that these have been granted to same-sex couples? I do not dispute the fact live-in relationships may provide legal rights to different-sex couples, but sources confirming that same-sex couples enjoy these rights too are seriously lacking. We need these sources before claiming without evidence that same-sex couples have "legal recognition". Readers may incorrectly assume by reading the lead that same-sex couples enjoy some married rights akin to civil unions or partnerships when this is completely false. The couples in the Supriyo case proved this. In numerous interviews, they said they filed suit for lack of legal rights and recognition. Why would they have needed to sue if their live-in relationships would have granted them the rights of marriage?

"Before the supreme court ruling, there were also other rulings that provided some rights to homosexual live-in couples, so the text can still stand:" My understanding is that these were decided on an individual, case-by-case basis, and may not be applicable for all couples. And again, what rights did these rulings even provide? The rulings were very limited in scope, and not always decided positively for same-sex couples. In Uttarakhand for instance, one court dismissed one such case taking into account the opinion of the family members of one of the partners. Panda2024 (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Legal recognition of same-sex marriage

The fact you bring up tax breaks backs my point. Do homosexual couples need tax breaks or do homosexual couples with children need tax breaks? How do you propose these married homosexual couples get children when they can't adopt? You're idea of equality is silly because it's not based on need and/or assumes that a homosexual and heterosexual couple need the same things.

I posted three links above that showed legal interpretation of certain rights and benefits being provided to those in live-in relationships. Even if limited or minimal, there are rights and most importantly they are recognition. If you believe in word for word equality on every form of marriage, then you need as a political issue going beyond recognition of same-sex relationships. Why don't you list what rights should be provided for same-sex couples? And remember we know that most Hindu marriages in India aren't legally registered anyway.

https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-6583-same-sex-live-in-relationship.html

https://lawminds.co.in/article_dummy/same-sex-relationship-laws-a-brief-analysis/?amp=1

https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4391-marital-rights-of-same-sex-couple-a-socio-legal-issue-in-india.html

For what you are arguing, it's mostly meaningless to fight that way because gay people don't need it. You're fighting based off a Christian-American notion of LGBTQ equality that has repeatedly failed in Asia.

If you provide live-in relationship rights in the required areas then the rest is symbolic to those with certain political affiliations.

• what rights do you want to provide to homosexual couples?
• could those rights be covered through live-in relationships, civil unions, partnership certificates (Japan/Thailand) or the guardianship system (China)?
• If you are looking for you're notion of equality, would that be possibly through Indian religions where the meaning of marriage is different?
• Have you taken into consideration the development of recognition of same-sex relationships in Europe and Asia (for example cohabitation in Europe and non-western forms of marriage in Asia)?
• Have you taken into consideration the history of marriage in India, and the implications of that on how gay marriage would progress for Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs in India?
• Does it really matter for a gay person in India if they don't have the American concept of gay marriage as long as they have all the rights?

etc...

The problem is that you've written the article with the idea of "getting equality for gay marriage as it was in America" and tried to achieve this through secular marriage. What you wrote is not a description of marriage in India, but rather your political view on what marriage should be like in India.

The way in which this article is constructed also makes it impossible to write about anything other than a single form of secular marriage, or at the most reforming existing laws to include gay couples - the latter of course does not make sense when the vast majority of gay marriages aren't registered by law and conducted outside government influence through religious common law. Arind7 (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

This article definitely had its issues beforehand, but now this is just ridiculous. I am going to assume it is good faith however. We have zero sources confirming that same-sex couples enjoy any legal rights. Tax breaks? No sources. Inheritance? No sources. Protection from domestic violence? No sources. Based on the lead of this article at it is now, most readers will assume same-sex couples enjoy legal rights and benefits akin to civil partnerships. This is completely false. I was of the opinion that Wikipedia was supposed to be factual, not claim something without a single secondary source. Not the mention, the SMA provides for "secular marriage" in India. Are we to ignore that? Or are couples who marry under the SMA too "American"?

Your first source states this: "India has decriminalised section 377 of the Indian Penal Code excluded consensual homosexual intercourse from its ambit. But legal protection have not been given for same-sex marriages therefore homosexual couples are left with only one option to carry their relationship as live-in relation couples. It is not specific how these various rights and benefits are applicable to same-sex couples, because for them, live-in relationships are the only type of union recognised by law to some extent." Welp, that’s not convincing. It goes on to state individual case-by-case court decisions, which may or may not be applicable to other couples.

"For what you are arguing, it's mostly meaningless to fight that way because gay people don't need it." I am going to suppose the couples who brought Supriyo did so out of boredom then, not because they can’t open joint bank accounts, can’t adopt, can’t visit as next-of-kin, can’t inherit property, etc…

"Does it really matter for a gay person in India if they don't have the American concept of gay marriage as long as they have all the rights?" Sure, but they currently have a grand total of 0% of these rights.

"could those rights be covered through live-in relationships, civil unions, partnership certificates (Japan/Thailand) or the guardianship system (China)?" Sure, but currently they don’t.

"Have you taken into consideration the development of recognition of same-sex relationships in Europe and Asia (for example cohabitation in Europe and non-western forms of marriage in Asia)?" This is an article on the legal situation in India so no.

"Does it really matter for a gay person in India if they don't have the American concept of gay marriage as long as they have all the rights?" I don’t know, maybe ask Supriya Chakraborty.

I must admit that this is getting ridiculous. Have a look at other same-sex marriage articles. They all discuss the legal situation of same-sex unions in their respective countries, i.e. what legal rights couples are afforded, the history of the legal recognition of same-sex unions, etc. All providing sources of course. I suggest we do the same for this article. Panda2024 (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

What we need is an expert in Indian law who can shed light on the legal situation of live-in relationships and the rights thereof, and hopefully who can severely fix this article as it currently stands. Panda2024 (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)