The article, “A love that is unequal in the eyes of the law” (Jan. 31), brought tears to my eyes. How can love for another human being be considered a crime? How can a country like ours, which stands by world peace, not encourage love — of whatever description? The Supreme Court is the last hope for a citizen. Such peremptory judgments would leave victims who are less indefatigable than the LGBT community quite high and dry.
Nandini S., New Delhi
A court that declares itself as a champion of citizens’ fundamental rights ought to have decriminalised the disputed Section 377 (“A lost opportunity”, Jan. 31). What is more, it has let a chance to review its erroneous judgment go a-begging. If the court earnestly stood for people’s rights, why would it choose to remand the matter in a legislature whose decisions are dictated by vote-bank politics and religious groups that hold parochial views? Regardless, the time is ripe for the apex court to remedy the situation by revisiting its earlier verdict and proactively asserting its role as a custodian of constitutional rights.
P.K. Varadarajan, Chennai
Apart from being a touchy subject, the issue of criminalising homosexuality makes for a fairly rich debate. The distress and insecurity which the Supreme Court’s verdict on Section 377 brought into the lives of the LGBT community, howsoever minuscule, is not conscionable. The supposed deviant behaviour is quite natural to the community in question, even if it repulses those who oppose its behaviour. Decriminalisation of homosexuality will ensure societal dignity to LGBTs and greatly reduce, once the activity is rid of its untouchable status, the spread of AIDS and other diseases.
On the other hand, one cannot disregard reservations expressed by the opponents, religious groups included, who fear that once accepted, homosexuality will spread across society and cause a colossal impact on the social order in addition to making demographic speculation quite obscure. A balance can be struck by amending the law to legalise homosexuality, while — and this is important — marriage between homosexual persons is not recognised by the law. Though this will be a painful decision, the state is bound to prescribe this bitter pill for the health of society.
M. Bhanu Prakash Reddy, Kazipet, Andhra Pradesh
There is much furore over the judicial denial of sexual freedom for the LGBT community. However, before raising an indignant voice, we must define clearly the line between acts which are “unnatural” and those which can be accommodated as “alternative forms of sexuality”. Can the taxi-driver who, in 2009, professed his love physically to a dog be deemed to have practised an alternative sexuality? And what of the German national who married his dying cat? Will we go up in arms against a court that deems such radical non-procreative behaviour as unnatural or try to counsel, if not proscribe the actions of, the persons in question?
P.R.V. Raja, Pandalam, Kerala