Naz Foundation v. Union of India (2009)
Don’t have time. But I want to say: Yay! And also:
1) Gay sex has not been legalised it has been decriminalised.
2) Some religious outfits are saying they do not oppose decriminalisation but have a moral problem with homosexuality. This is actually a positive sign, an opening for engagement and a debate about what is “natural” and “normal” and what is not, but the media’s effort to polarise the discussion in it’s ever hysterical voice does not help. Hair nearly fell out watching NDTV yesterday.
3) There are people who are gay and Muslim, gay and Hindu etc-why are they not being interviewed? Why is it only the religious leaders, i.e. geriatric men being asked for quotes?
4) This is a democracy, and a secular one at that. There’s space for all of us, Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, atheists etc because of that. And there isn’t one version of “Indian culture.” You old men on TV, remember that.
5) Many congratulations to the tireless Naz Foundation and all its supporters.
6) Sometimes judgments are a pain to read. This one is a treat. Couldn’t stop smiling with pride.
7)Same-Sex Love in India: Readings from Literature and History is an excellent book to read/re-read at this point and to recommend to all the “this is not Indian culture” advocates.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Yay , indeed! How true! There’s space for all of us. Makes me wonder how simple truth can be difficult to drive home and people’s minds get so clouded in bigotry. Yes I thought the judgement with the Nehru quote was rather poetic too and read only portions of it. And I did want to ask you what exactly this http://bit.ly/7su4o meant, I got quite confused. Oh and don’t even go anywhere near rediff.com and read the comments. It just is bad for one’s blood pressure!
Vidya, I don’t know, since I don’t know Indian law too well at all, but it sounds right.