Results from a recent survey on same-sex contradict the claims made by the Bar Council of India (BCI). The survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 53 per cent of adult Indians are in favour of legalising same-sex marriage. The results for India challenge the claim made by the Bar Council of India (BCI) that "more than 99.9 per cent of people in the country are opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage".

<h2>India supports same-sex marriage</h2>

Of the 53 per cent in support of same-sex marriage, 28 per cent expressed strong support, while 25 per cent showed moderate support for the idea.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/he-said-she-said-outlandish-arguments-groundbreaking-statements-from-indias-same-sex-marriage-hearing-586946">'He said, she said': Outlandish arguments, groundbreaking statements from India's same-sex marriage hearing</a>

On the other hand, 43 per cent of Indian adults said they 'totally oppose' same-sex marriages, with 31&nbsp;per cent strongly opposing and 12 per cent moderately opposing such unions.

<h2>The Pew Research Center survey&nbsp;</h2>

Pew Research Center's latest survey was conducted in 24 countries across the world. The survey conducted between February 20 and May 22 evaluated how people across the globe viewed same-sex marriage.

It came up with results that&nbsp;can be seen as encouraging for same-sex couples and their advocates in India.

<h2>India and same-sex marriages</h2>

Currently, the issue of the legalisation of same-sex marriages is being deliberated in the Indian Supreme Court; a five-judge bench is hearing the case.&nbsp;However, the Union government has voiced opposition to the legalisation of same-sex marriages, citing cultural and traditional norms.&nbsp;

While homosexuality is legal in India, marriage between two individuals of the same sex is still considered illegal.

As per the Wire, the survey results for India challenge the claim made by the Bar Council of India (BCI) that "more than 99.9 per cent of people in the country are opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage."&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/child-rights-activist-says-same-sex-marriage-denies-kids-one-parents-love-585347">Indian child rights activist claims same-sex marriage denies kids one parent's love</a>

Reportedly, the BCI had based its claim on its own survey but had not released any detailed methodology, sample size, or other data points.&nbsp;

The BCI even passed a resolution opposing the legalisation of same-sex marriage and called on the Supreme Court to refrain from adjudicating on the issue, stating that it should be left to the legislative process.

<h2>Global opinion on same-sex marriage</h2>

Globally, the survey revealed that support for legalising same-sex marriage is highest in Sweden, with 92 per cent of adults in favour, and lowest in Nigeria, with only two&nbsp;per cent supporting it.&nbsp;

The survey also examined attitudes across various demographic factors such as age, gender, political ideology, and religious beliefs.

In Western Europe, a strong majority of adults in countries such as Sweden (92 per cent), the Netherlands (89 per cent), Spain (87 per cent), France (82 per cent), and Germany (80 per cent) support same-sex marriage. These countries have already legalised such unions.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

<img alt="A map and bar chart that shows same-sex marriage attitudes and legality across 24 countries." src="https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/SR_2023.06.14_LGBTQ.global_2.png?w=640" />

Acceptance of same-sex marriage around the world. Image courtesy: Pew Research Centre.

However, in Poland, only 41 per cent of adults support same-sex marriages, while in Hungary, the figure is even lower at 31 per cent. Same-sex marriages are not legal in these countries, and LGBTQ+ rights activists often face state repression.

In North America, 79 per cent of Canadians support same-sex marriage, while the figures stand at 63 per cent in both the United States and Mexico. All three countries have legalised same-sex marriage. In South America, 67 per cent of Argentinians and 52 per cent of Brazilians are in favour. These countries have also legalised same-sex marriage.

In the Asia-Pacific region, approximately three-quarters of adults in Australia (75 per cent) and Japan (74 per cent) support legalising same-sex marriage. While Australia has already legalised it, Japan has yet to do so.&nbsp;

South Korea is currently debating the issue, and 40 per cent of South Koreans support legalising same-sex marriage, while 59 per cent oppose it. Indonesians showed strong opposition, with only five&nbsp;per cent supporting same-sex marriage.

The survey also found that in 12 countries, adults under 40 are more likely than older individuals to support same-sex marriage. Similarly, women in 14 countries expressed more support for legalising same-sex marriage compared to men. In 17 of the surveyed countries, individuals with higher levels of formal education were more likely to support allowing gays and lesbians to marry.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

Results from a recent survey on same-sex contradict the claims made by the Bar Council of India (BCI). The survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 53 per cent of adult Indians are in favour of legalising same-sex marriage.

Results from a recent survey on same-sex contradict the claims made by the Bar Council of India (BCI). The survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 53 per cent of adult Indians are in favour of legalising same-sex marriage. The results for India challenge the claim made by the Bar Council of India (BCI) that "more than 99.9 per cent of people in the country are opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage". India supports same-sex marriage Of the 53 per cent in support of same-sex marriage, 28 per cent expressed strong support, while 25 per cent showed moderate support for the idea. Also read | 'He said, she said': Outlandish arguments, groundbreaking statements from India's same-sex marriage hearing On the other hand, 43 per cent of Indian adults said they 'totally oppose' same-sex marriages, with 31 per cent strongly opposing and 12 per cent moderately opposing such unions. The Pew Research Center survey Pew Research Center's latest survey was conducted in 24 countries across the world. The survey conducted between February 20 and May 22 evaluated how people across the globe viewed same-sex marriage. It came up with results that can be seen as encouraging for same-sex couples and their advocates in India. India and same-sex marriages Currently, the issue of the legalisation of same-sex marriages is being deliberated in the Indian Supreme Court; a five-judge bench is hearing the case. However, the Union government has voiced opposition to the legalisation of same-sex marriages, citing cultural and traditional norms. While homosexuality is legal in India, marriage between two individuals of the same sex is still considered illegal. As per the Wire, the survey results for India challenge the claim made by the Bar Council of India (BCI) that "more than 99.9 per cent of people in the country are opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage." Also read | Indian child rights activist claims same-sex marriage denies kids one parent's love Reportedly, the BCI had based its claim on its own survey but had not released any detailed methodology, sample size, or other data points. The BCI even passed a resolution opposing the legalisation of same-sex marriage and called on the Supreme Court to refrain from adjudicating on the issue, stating that it should be left to the legislative process. Global opinion on same-sex marriage Globally, the survey revealed that support for legalising same-sex marriage is highest in Sweden, with 92 per cent of adults in favour, and lowest in Nigeria, with only two per cent supporting it. The survey also examined attitudes across various demographic factors such as age, gender, political ideology, and religious beliefs. In Western Europe, a strong majority of adults in countries such as Sweden (92 per cent), the Netherlands (89 per cent), Spain (87 per cent), France (82 per cent), and Germany (80 per cent) support same-sex marriage. These countries have already legalised such unions. Acceptance of same-sex marriage around the world. Image courtesy: Pew Research Centre. However, in Poland, only 41 per cent of adults support same-sex marriages, while in Hungary, the figure is even lower at 31 per cent. Same-sex marriages are not legal in these countries, and LGBTQ+ rights activists often face state repression. In North America, 79 per cent of Canadians support same-sex marriage, while the figures stand at 63 per cent in both the United States and Mexico. All three countries have legalised same-sex marriage. In South America, 67 per cent of Argentinians and 52 per cent of Brazilians are in favour. These countries have also legalised same-sex marriage. In the Asia-Pacific region, approximately three-quarters of adults in Australia (75 per cent) and Japan (74 per cent) support legalising same-sex marriage. While Australia has already legalised it, Japan has yet to do so. South Korea is currently debating the issue, and 40 per cent of South Koreans support legalising same-sex marriage, while 59 per cent oppose it. Indonesians showed strong opposition, with only five per cent supporting same-sex marriage. The survey also found that in 12 countries, adults under 40 are more likely than older individuals to support same-sex marriage. Similarly, women in 14 countries expressed more support for legalising same-sex marriage compared to men. In 17 of the surveyed countries, individuals with higher levels of formal education were more likely to support allowing gays and lesbians to marry. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Global survey finds broad acceptance of same-sex marriage in India

Japan's Fukuoka District Court on Thursday ruled that the non-recognition of same-sex marriage was "in a state of unconstitutionality". The ruling stopped short of the expectations of marriage-equality activists, reports Reuters.

As per the lawyer for the plaintiffs, the specifics of the recent ruling are still being verified, but it is believed to be similar to the Tokyo court's decision, which when passed was seen as a step forward by activists.

Previously, in May, Japan's Nagoya District Court deemed the prohibition on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional. The May ruling provided hope for the LGBTQ community in Japan.

<h2>Public opinion on&nbsp;same-sex marriages</h2>

Public opinion polls indicate that approximately 70 per cent of the Japanese public supports same-sex marriage. However, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida's conservative ruling party opposes it. In February, Kishida dismissed an aide who made offensive remarks against same-sex marriage, generating widespread outrage.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/japan-court-rescues-nations-lgbt-community-from-hurt-says-ban-on-same-sex-marriage-unconstitutional-598384">Japan court 'rescues' nation's LGBT community from 'hurt', says ban on same-sex marriage 'unconstitutional'</a>

While more than 300 municipalities in Japan allow same-sex couples to enter partnership agreements, these agreements offer limited rights. Couples are unable to inherit each other's assets, obtain parental rights to each other's children, or even guarantee hospital visitation rights.

<h2>PM Kishida&nbsp;non-committal&nbsp;to same-sex marriage</h2>

Despite pressure from other G7 nations, including the United States, Kishida has not taken a firm stance on the issue.&nbsp;

Kishida's government had initially promised to pass a law promoting the "understanding" of LGBTQ individuals before the G7 leaders' summit.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ahead-of-g7-summit-japans-lgbtqia-community-demand-legalisation-of-same-sex-marriage-585495">Ahead of G7 summit, Japan's LGBTQIA+ community demand legalisation of same-sex marriage</a>

However, opposition from conservative factions has caused significant delays, and a diluted version of the law is expected to be voted on next week.

Major business organisations have called for change, emphasising that without LGBTQ rights and diversity, Japan's position as the world's third-largest economy may be compromised.

<h2>Marriages and Japan</h2>

Japan remains the only country among the Group of Seven nations that lacks legal protection for same-sex unions.&nbsp;The Japanese constitution defines marriage as something based on "the mutual consent of both sexes".

<h2>Past rulings on same-sex marriages in Japan</h2>

So far, there have been five court rulings on same-sex marriage in Japan. The last ruling was made in May by the Nagoya District Court. It was the second ruling that found the ban on same-sex marriages unconstitutional. Previously, in March 2021, a district court in Sapporo, the capital city of the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido, in a similar ruling,&nbsp;said that the ban was "unconstitutional".

However, in June 2022, the Osaka district court ruled that the ban was not unconstitutional. The court added that "from the perspective of individual dignity, it can be said that it is necessary to realise the benefits of same-sex couples being publicly recognised through official recognition."

Subsequently, in December of last year, a Tokyo court reiterated that while the ban was not "unconstitutional," the country's failure to protect same-sex partners legally creates an "unconstitutional situation".

(With inputs from agencies)

&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

Japan's Fukuoka District Court on Thursday ruled that the non-recognition of same-sex marriage was "in a state of unconstitutionality". The ruling stopped short of the expectations of marriage-equality activists, reports Reuters.

Japan's Fukuoka District Court on Thursday ruled that the non-recognition of same-sex marriage was "in a state of unconstitutionality". The ruling stopped short of the expectations of marriage-equality activists, reports Reuters. As per the lawyer for the plaintiffs, the specifics of the recent ruling are still being verified, but it is believed to be similar to the Tokyo court's decision, which when passed was seen as a step forward by activists. Previously, in May, Japan's Nagoya District Court deemed the prohibition on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional. The May ruling provided hope for the LGBTQ community in Japan. Public opinion on same-sex marriages Public opinion polls indicate that approximately 70 per cent of the Japanese public supports same-sex marriage. However, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida's conservative ruling party opposes it. In February, Kishida dismissed an aide who made offensive remarks against same-sex marriage, generating widespread outrage. Also read | Japan court 'rescues' nation's LGBT community from 'hurt', says ban on same-sex marriage 'unconstitutional' While more than 300 municipalities in Japan allow same-sex couples to enter partnership agreements, these agreements offer limited rights. Couples are unable to inherit each other's assets, obtain parental rights to each other's children, or even guarantee hospital visitation rights. PM Kishida non-committal to same-sex marriage Despite pressure from other G7 nations, including the United States, Kishida has not taken a firm stance on the issue. Kishida's government had initially promised to pass a law promoting the "understanding" of LGBTQ individuals before the G7 leaders' summit. Also read | Ahead of G7 summit, Japan's LGBTQIA+ community demand legalisation of same-sex marriage However, opposition from conservative factions has caused significant delays, and a diluted version of the law is expected to be voted on next week. Major business organisations have called for change, emphasising that without LGBTQ rights and diversity, Japan's position as the world's third-largest economy may be compromised. Marriages and Japan Japan remains the only country among the Group of Seven nations that lacks legal protection for same-sex unions. The Japanese constitution defines marriage as something based on "the mutual consent of both sexes". Past rulings on same-sex marriages in Japan So far, there have been five court rulings on same-sex marriage in Japan. The last ruling was made in May by the Nagoya District Court. It was the second ruling that found the ban on same-sex marriages unconstitutional. Previously, in March 2021, a district court in Sapporo, the capital city of the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido, in a similar ruling, said that the ban was "unconstitutional". However, in June 2022, the Osaka district court ruled that the ban was not unconstitutional. The court added that "from the perspective of individual dignity, it can be said that it is necessary to realise the benefits of same-sex couples being publicly recognised through official recognition." Subsequently, in December of last year, a Tokyo court reiterated that while the ban was not "unconstitutional," the country's failure to protect same-sex partners legally creates an "unconstitutional situation". (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Japan's Fukuoka district court says ban on same-sex marriage ‘in a state of unconstitutionality’

In Florida, a federal judge has temporarily halted a portion of a recently enacted law that prohibits doctors from providing gender-affirming care to transgender children. Judge Robert Hinkle from the Federal District Court in Tallahassee made the ruling, allowing three transgender minors in the state to receive puberty blockers.&nbsp;

Hinkle, as per an AFP report, made this decision in response to a lawsuit filed by the parents of these individuals against state officials.

The lawsuit claims that 56 per cent of transgender youth have reported at least one previous suicide attempt, while 86 per cent reported they were still suicidal.

<h2>Federal Judge Robert Hinkle's ruling on gender-affirming care in Florida</h2>

Judge Hinkle emphasised the legitimacy of gender identity in his opinion, stating that "gender identity is real." He further pointed out that Florida's statute and regulations also prohibit these medically necessary treatments.

"Florida has adopted a statute and rules that prohibit these treatments even when medically appropriate."

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/elon-musks-tweet-on-whatisawoman-fans-twitter-buzz-heres-all-you-need-to-know-600021">Elon Musk's tweet on #WhatIsAWoman fans Twitter buzz. Here's all you need to know</a>

However, Tuesday's ruling only applies to puberty blockers and does not impact other components of the law enacted by Florida's Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, last month. The law includes the prohibition of gender reassignment surgery for minors and the restriction on public funding for the treatment of gender dysphoria.

<h2>What are puberty blockers?&nbsp;</h2>

Puberty blockers, also known as hormone suppressors, are utilised in teens exploring gender transition to delay the onset of unwanted physical changes like puberty.&nbsp;

Advocates of gender-affirming care argue that these treatments are effective for individuals experiencing gender dysphoria, a condition where one's gender identity does not align with their biological sex, causing distress.

The condition is recognised by the American Psychiatric Association, and it is known to cause anxiety, depression and self-harm.&nbsp;

<h2>Transgender rights and the US</h2>

The issue of transgender rights has increasingly become a contentious topic in US politics. As per AFP, around a dozen Republican-controlled states have implemented limitations and regulations similar to Florida.

Democrats argue that these actions encroach upon fundamental rights and express concern over the restrictive measures being imposed.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/propaganda-vs-bullying-groups-of-parents-clash-at-anti-lgbtq-protest-outside-los-angeles-school-599920">'Propaganda' vs 'bullying': Groups of parents clash at anti-LGBTQ protest outside Los Angeles school</a>

As per a June 2022 report by Pew Research, roughly eight in 10 adults in the nation acknowledge that trans people witness some kind of discrimination. A majority favour laws protecting transgender individuals from discrimination in jobs, housing and public spaces.

However, the same report shows that 60 per cent of people believe that a person's gender is determined by their sex assigned at birth. In 2021, this number stood at 56 per cent, four years earlier, in 2017, at 54 per cent.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

In Florida, a federal judge has temporarily halted a portion of a recently enacted law that prohibits doctors from providing gender-affirming care to transgender children.

In Florida, a federal judge has temporarily halted a portion of a recently enacted law that prohibits doctors from providing gender-affirming care to transgender children. Judge Robert Hinkle from the Federal District Court in Tallahassee made the ruling, allowing three transgender minors in the state to receive puberty blockers. Hinkle, as per an AFP report, made this decision in response to a lawsuit filed by the parents of these individuals against state officials. The lawsuit claims that 56 per cent of transgender youth have reported at least one previous suicide attempt, while 86 per cent reported they were still suicidal. Federal Judge Robert Hinkle's ruling on gender-affirming care in Florida Judge Hinkle emphasised the legitimacy of gender identity in his opinion, stating that "gender identity is real." He further pointed out that Florida's statute and regulations also prohibit these medically necessary treatments. "Florida has adopted a statute and rules that prohibit these treatments even when medically appropriate." Also read | Elon Musk's tweet on #WhatIsAWoman fans Twitter buzz. Here's all you need to know However, Tuesday's ruling only applies to puberty blockers and does not impact other components of the law enacted by Florida's Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, last month. The law includes the prohibition of gender reassignment surgery for minors and the restriction on public funding for the treatment of gender dysphoria. What are puberty blockers? Puberty blockers, also known as hormone suppressors, are utilised in teens exploring gender transition to delay the onset of unwanted physical changes like puberty. Advocates of gender-affirming care argue that these treatments are effective for individuals experiencing gender dysphoria, a condition where one's gender identity does not align with their biological sex, causing distress. The condition is recognised by the American Psychiatric Association, and it is known to cause anxiety, depression and self-harm. Transgender rights and the US The issue of transgender rights has increasingly become a contentious topic in US politics. As per AFP, around a dozen Republican-controlled states have implemented limitations and regulations similar to Florida. Democrats argue that these actions encroach upon fundamental rights and express concern over the restrictive measures being imposed. Also read | 'Propaganda' vs 'bullying': Groups of parents clash at anti-LGBTQ protest outside Los Angeles school As per a June 2022 report by Pew Research, roughly eight in 10 adults in the nation acknowledge that trans people witness some kind of discrimination. A majority favour laws protecting transgender individuals from discrimination in jobs, housing and public spaces. However, the same report shows that 60 per cent of people believe that a person's gender is determined by their sex assigned at birth. In 2021, this number stood at 56 per cent, four years earlier, in 2017, at 54 per cent. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

'Gender identity is real': Judge temporarily halts Florida law banning gender-affirming care for trans kids

In the United States Los Angeles, over a hundred anti-LGBT protesters and pro-LGBT counter-protesters clashed on a typically quiet suburban street on Friday. The trigger behind this was a Pride Month event being held at Saticoy Elementary School, which drew contrasting views from the two groups.&nbsp;

As per BBC, a group of parents initiated a boycott of the school, denouncing the Pride event as "indoctrination" and unsuitable for children.&nbsp;Those on the other side of the protest argued that the demonstration was discriminatory and emphasised that children have the right to learn about the different types of families.

<h2>Same-sex marriage and America</h2>

Although gay marriage has gained widespread acceptance — according to opinion pollster Gallup — including among most Republicans, the teaching of gender and sexuality in schools has recently faced a conservative-led backlash.&nbsp;

Saticoy Elementary, situated in a progressive city within one of America's most liberal states, has become the latest battleground in this cultural conflict.

<h2>What happened at the protest?</h2>

As the situation escalated and a scuffle broke out among the protesters, police had to intervene. One individual sustained minor injuries and was treated at the scene, according to the Los Angeles School Police Department, but no arrests have been made.

<img alt="LA protest" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="36632d25-5b65-4a4a-9020-c6287b0e0997" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/New%20wion%20%2833%29_0.png" />

When contacted, a school employee confirmed that Saticoy Elementary had planned to read a book to students that discussed families with "two mommies and two daddies," although further details about the event were not provided.

An event to bully the LGBTQ community?

Renato Lira, the director of the San Fernando Valley LGBTQ Center, participated in the school assembly and reported that the children enjoyed the event. Talking to BBC, he explained that educators read from a book that highlighted families from different cultures, including those with same-sex parents. Lira emphasized that the purpose of the event was to demonstrate love, respect, and unity, characterising the protesting parents as "trying to bully us."

The boycott of the school's Pride event on June 2 as per BBC, was organized online over the preceding two weeks by an anonymous Instagram account with the username @saticoyelementaryparents.&nbsp;

This account urged parents to keep their children home from school on that day.&nbsp;

<img alt="LA protest" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="914f1154-d27f-4060-be3b-d7b4dcb2a3d1" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/New%20wion%20%2832%29.png" />

Prior to the rally, the Instagram account posted that their "protest is in no way an attack on the LGBTQ community".&nbsp;

However, critics found many of the signs displayed by demonstrators, such as "No sexual indoctrination!" and "The only people who want to teach kids sex: Pedophiles," to be discriminatory.

On the opposite side of the street, counter-protesters waved Pride and transgender flags, declaring their celebration of Pride through a bullhorn and via signs like "Hate has no home here."&nbsp;

<h2>Propaganda and parent's consent</h2>

Opponents of the Pride event, however, argued that teaching children about LGBT issues was inappropriate and asserted that schools should obtain parental consent before discussing such matters in the classroom.&nbsp;

Watch a video of the scuffle here:

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
“Stop grooming our kids” 
 
Armenian families gathered to protest queer pride celebrations at Saticoy Elementary in Los Angeles. Leftist supporters of pride gathered to oppose them, leading to a physical clash. <a href="https://t.co/EbLAXi2NX3">pic.twitter.com/EbLAXi2NX3</a>
— Andy Ngô 🏳️‍🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) <a href="https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1664758966994313216?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 2, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

One parent, who spoke anonymously to the Los Angeles Times due to concerns about potential bullying toward her child, expressed exhaustion with what she referred to as "propaganda." She stated that she came to the United States from Armenia seeking freedom and an education focused on math and academics, rather than discussions about LGBT topics.&nbsp;

Earlier, on May 22, as per a report in the Los Angeles Times, a pride flag belonging to a transgender teacher at Saticoy Elementary School was burned after a conservative-leaning parents' rights Instagram account shared alleged pre-and-post-transition photos of the teacher. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD)&nbsp;according to Officer Tony Im,&nbsp;is investigating the flag-burning as a hate crime. However, the officer refrained from providing further details, citing an ongoing investigation.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

In the United States Los Angeles, over a hundred anti-LGBT protesters and pro-LGBT counter-protesters clashed on a typically quiet suburban street on Friday. The trigger behind this was a Pride Month event being held at Saticoy Elementary School, which drew contrasting views from the two groups.

In the United States Los Angeles, over a hundred anti-LGBT protesters and pro-LGBT counter-protesters clashed on a typically quiet suburban street on Friday. The trigger behind this was a Pride Month event being held at Saticoy Elementary School, which drew contrasting views from the two groups. As per BBC, a group of parents initiated a boycott of the school, denouncing the Pride event as "indoctrination" and unsuitable for children. Those on the other side of the protest argued that the demonstration was discriminatory and emphasised that children have the right to learn about the different types of families. Same-sex marriage and America Although gay marriage has gained widespread acceptance — according to opinion pollster Gallup — including among most Republicans, the teaching of gender and sexuality in schools has recently faced a conservative-led backlash. Saticoy Elementary, situated in a progressive city within one of America's most liberal states, has become the latest battleground in this cultural conflict. What happened at the protest? As the situation escalated and a scuffle broke out among the protesters, police had to intervene. One individual sustained minor injuries and was treated at the scene, according to the Los Angeles School Police Department, but no arrests have been made. When contacted, a school employee confirmed that Saticoy Elementary had planned to read a book to students that discussed families with "two mommies and two daddies," although further details about the event were not provided. An event to bully the LGBTQ community? Renato Lira, the director of the San Fernando Valley LGBTQ Center, participated in the school assembly and reported that the children enjoyed the event. Talking to BBC, he explained that educators read from a book that highlighted families from different cultures, including those with same-sex parents. Lira emphasized that the purpose of the event was to demonstrate love, respect, and unity, characterising the protesting parents as "trying to bully us." The boycott of the school's Pride event on June 2 as per BBC, was organized online over the preceding two weeks by an anonymous Instagram account with the username @saticoyelementaryparents. This account urged parents to keep their children home from school on that day. Prior to the rally, the Instagram account posted that their "protest is in no way an attack on the LGBTQ community". However, critics found many of the signs displayed by demonstrators, such as "No sexual indoctrination!" and "The only people who want to teach kids sex: Pedophiles," to be discriminatory. On the opposite side of the street, counter-protesters waved Pride and transgender flags, declaring their celebration of Pride through a bullhorn and via signs like "Hate has no home here." Propaganda and parent's consent Opponents of the Pride event, however, argued that teaching children about LGBT issues was inappropriate and asserted that schools should obtain parental consent before discussing such matters in the classroom. Watch a video of the scuffle here: “Stop grooming our kids” Armenian families gathered to protest queer pride celebrations at Saticoy Elementary in Los Angeles. Leftist supporters of pride gathered to oppose them, leading to a physical clash. pic.twitter.com/EbLAXi2NX3 — Andy Ngô 🏳️‍🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) June 2, 2023 × One parent, who spoke anonymously to the Los Angeles Times due to concerns about potential bullying toward her child, expressed exhaustion with what she referred to as "propaganda." She stated that she came to the United States from Armenia seeking freedom and an education focused on math and academics, rather than discussions about LGBT topics. Earlier, on May 22, as per a report in the Los Angeles Times, a pride flag belonging to a transgender teacher at Saticoy Elementary School was burned after a conservative-leaning parents' rights Instagram account shared alleged pre-and-post-transition photos of the teacher. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) according to Officer Tony Im, is investigating the flag-burning as a hate crime. However, the officer refrained from providing further details, citing an ongoing investigation. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

'Propaganda' vs 'bullying': Groups of parents clash at anti-LGBTQ protest outside Los Angeles school

On Twitter, a very peculiar hashtag is trending. As per an analysis, WION ran using Tweet binder, in the last seven days, the hashtag #WhatIsAWoman has already garnered around 166,361 tweets. But what is it about? About one year ago, conservative commentator Matt Walsh released a documentary film titled 'What is a Woman' on the Daily Wire.&nbsp;

The film, which tackles gender and transgender issues,&nbsp;was initially only available for subscription-only streaming services. However, on June 2nd, the American conservative news website and media company posted the 1 hour 34 minutes long film for free viewing on Twitter.

Needless to say, the film and the hashtag #WhatIsAWoman have since then spread like wildfire. Here's everything you need to know.

<h2>What is a woman?</h2>

The controversial film, which criticises gender and transgender issues, follows its maker Matt Walsh as he travels across the United States and Africa, posing a seemingly simple question that left many individuals stumped: "What Is a Woman?"

The movie has garnered a lot of praise from conservatives. However, it has also faced criticism from many who deemed it "transphobic."&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/delhi-polices-purrfect-reply-to-elon-musks-tweet-leaves-internet-in-splits-stst-599616">Delhi Police’s ‘purrfect’ reply to Elon Musk’s cat query tweet leaves internet in splits</a>

Walsh, as per Express UK, claims to have even received death threats following the film's release. He reportedly had to involve the police.

<h2>What is a Woman? and Twitter</h2>

As mentioned earlier, the movie was released around a year back. Now, coinciding with the beginning of Pride Month, 'What Is a Woman?' has been made available for free streaming on the Daily Wire's official Twitter account. This was originally posted for 24 hours but given the views, the outlet said: "We've decided to leave it up the rest of the weekend, so the sky's the limit!"

The movie has accumulated 102.4 million views, 297.8K likes, 112.8K retweets, and 18.6K quote tweets since it was posted. Additionally, around 82K people have bookmarked it.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/elon-musk-shown-dapped-up-for-desi-wedding-with-henna-and-sherwani-600011">Elon Musk shown dapped up for desi wedding with henna and sherwani</a>

In a tweet posted hours after the movie was shared on Twitter, Walsh said: "Our film has been posted for a couple of hours. You cannot retweet it. It will not appear in anyone’s feed. It has been flagged as hate speech. It has been blacklisted from the trends list. It still has nearly 900 thousand views."

Walsh and the outlet, as per Express UK, assert that they were asked to edit certain scenes involving "misgendering" before the launch. They reportedly refused to comply with the request.

<h2>Elon Musk enters the chat</h2>

Supportive accounts on social media soon began accusing Twitter of stifling free speech.&nbsp;

CEO Elon Musk has since joined the conversation. Reportedly, once he got wind of Twitter attempting to restrict the film's view as potential "hate speech" he declared the move a mistake. Since then, he has even retweeted the movie with the caption "Every parent should watch this."

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

On Twitter, a very peculiar hashtag is trending. As per an analysis, WION ran using Tweet binder, in the last seven days, the hashtag #WhatIsAWoman has already garnered around 166,361 tweets.

On Twitter, a very peculiar hashtag is trending. As per an analysis, WION ran using Tweet binder, in the last seven days, the hashtag #WhatIsAWoman has already garnered around 166,361 tweets. But what is it about? About one year ago, conservative commentator Matt Walsh released a documentary film titled 'What is a Woman' on the Daily Wire. The film, which tackles gender and transgender issues, was initially only available for subscription-only streaming services. However, on June 2nd, the American conservative news website and media company posted the 1 hour 34 minutes long film for free viewing on Twitter. Needless to say, the film and the hashtag #WhatIsAWoman have since then spread like wildfire. Here's everything you need to know. What is a woman? The controversial film, which criticises gender and transgender issues, follows its maker Matt Walsh as he travels across the United States and Africa, posing a seemingly simple question that left many individuals stumped: "What Is a Woman?" The movie has garnered a lot of praise from conservatives. However, it has also faced criticism from many who deemed it "transphobic." Also read | Delhi Police’s ‘purrfect’ reply to Elon Musk’s cat query tweet leaves internet in splits Walsh, as per Express UK, claims to have even received death threats following the film's release. He reportedly had to involve the police. What is a Woman? and Twitter As mentioned earlier, the movie was released around a year back. Now, coinciding with the beginning of Pride Month, 'What Is a Woman?' has been made available for free streaming on the Daily Wire's official Twitter account. This was originally posted for 24 hours but given the views, the outlet said: "We've decided to leave it up the rest of the weekend, so the sky's the limit!" The movie has accumulated 102.4 million views, 297.8K likes, 112.8K retweets, and 18.6K quote tweets since it was posted. Additionally, around 82K people have bookmarked it. Also read | Elon Musk shown dapped up for desi wedding with henna and sherwani In a tweet posted hours after the movie was shared on Twitter, Walsh said: "Our film has been posted for a couple of hours. You cannot retweet it. It will not appear in anyone’s feed. It has been flagged as hate speech. It has been blacklisted from the trends list. It still has nearly 900 thousand views." Walsh and the outlet, as per Express UK, assert that they were asked to edit certain scenes involving "misgendering" before the launch. They reportedly refused to comply with the request. Elon Musk enters the chat Supportive accounts on social media soon began accusing Twitter of stifling free speech. CEO Elon Musk has since joined the conversation. Reportedly, once he got wind of Twitter attempting to restrict the film's view as potential "hate speech" he declared the move a mistake. Since then, he has even retweeted the movie with the caption "Every parent should watch this." (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Elon Musk's tweet on #WhatIsAWoman fans Twitter buzz. Here's all you need to know

South Korean lawmakers have proposed the country's first same-sex marriage bill it is being called a defining moment in the fight for equality. The move seeks to amend the Civil Court but, lawmakers are arguing that it should include persons of the same sex in marriage. Experts say the bill is unlikely to pass as past efforts to get a green light on the same have met with opposition, especially from religious groups. They claim such moves would legalize homosexuality but it will help increase pressure on the government to expand the concept of a family.

Is South Korea's traditional society moving towards equality?

In a major win for the LGBTQIA+ community in Japan, a court has ruled that the nation's insistence on not allowing same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. The Tuesday ruling is seen by activists as a welcome step towards marriage equality in a nation where there exists no protection for same-sex unions.

Speaking to the press outside the court, the lead lawyer Yoko Mizutani said that the ruling has "rescued" them from the "hurt" of the last ruling on this issue.

"This ruling has rescued us from the hurt of last year's ruling that said there was nothing wrong with the ban, and the hurt of what the government keeps saying."

<h2>Past rulings on same-sex marriages in Japan</h2>

To date, Japan has had four rulings on the issue. The recent ruling by the Nagoya District Court is the second ruling to find a ban on same-sex marriages unconstitutional. Previously, in March 2021, a district court in Sapporo, the capital city of the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido in a similar ruling&nbsp;said that the ban was "unconstitutional".

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ahead-of-g7-summit-japans-lgbtqia-community-demand-legalisation-of-same-sex-marriage-585495">Ahead of G7 summit, Japan's LGBTQIA+ community demand legalisation of same-sex marriag</a>

However, in June 2022, the Osaka district court ruled that the ban was not unconstitutional. The court added that "from the perspective of individual dignity, it can be said that it is necessary to realise the benefits of same-sex couples being publicly recognised through official recognition."

Subsequently, in December of last year, a Tokyo court reiterated that while the ban was not "unconstitutional," the country's failure to legally protect same-sex partners creates an "unconstitutional situation".

<h2>Marriages and Japan</h2>

Japan is the only remaining G7 nation where same-sex marriage is banned. The Japanese constitution defines marriage as something based on "the mutual consent of both sexes".

<h2>Same-sex marriage, the Japanese people, and the government</h2>

As per a Reuters report, opinion polls on the issue have found overwhelming support for the legality of same-sex marriages. Roughly 70 per cent of the public said they are all for the legality of same-sex unions.

However, the conservative ruling Liberal Democratic Party of Prime Minister Fumio Kishida opposes it.

Also read |&nbsp;<a data-ctorig="https://www.wionews.com/photos/perils-of-the-lgbtq-community-in-africa-597866" data-cturl="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/photos/perils-of-the-lgbtq-community-in-africa-597866&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiuhJOTjJ3_AhVWyGEKHRvBAU4QFnoECAkQAg&amp;usg=AOvVaw0QahE8YA-xkyddSC5yTNSU" dir="ltr" href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/perils-of-the-lgbtq-community-in-africa-597866" target="_blank">Perils faced by the LGBTQ community in Africa</a>

In March of this year, Kishida reiterated that a ban on same-sex marriage is not unconstitutional. "I believe I do not have a sense of discrimination (on the issue)," he said, adding, "I have never stated I’m against it."

"I don’t think disallowing same-sex couples to marry is unjust discrimination by the state," said the Japanese PM when questioned by an opposition lawmaker about whether in his opinion the ban on same-sex marriage constitutes discrimination.

In spite of the ban, more than 300 Japanese municipalities that account for some 65 per cent of the Japanese population allow same-sex couples to enter partnership agreements. However, these agreements are far from marriage.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

In a major win for the LGBTQIA+ community in Japan, a court has ruled that the nation's insistence on not allowing same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. The Tuesday ruling is seen by activists as a welcome step towards marriage equality in a nation where there exists no protection for same-sex unions.

In a major win for the LGBTQIA+ community in Japan, a court has ruled that the nation's insistence on not allowing same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. The Tuesday ruling is seen by activists as a welcome step towards marriage equality in a nation where there exists no protection for same-sex unions. Speaking to the press outside the court, the lead lawyer Yoko Mizutani said that the ruling has "rescued" them from the "hurt" of the last ruling on this issue. "This ruling has rescued us from the hurt of last year's ruling that said there was nothing wrong with the ban, and the hurt of what the government keeps saying." Past rulings on same-sex marriages in Japan To date, Japan has had four rulings on the issue. The recent ruling by the Nagoya District Court is the second ruling to find a ban on same-sex marriages unconstitutional. Previously, in March 2021, a district court in Sapporo, the capital city of the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido in a similar ruling said that the ban was "unconstitutional". Also read | Ahead of G7 summit, Japan's LGBTQIA+ community demand legalisation of same-sex marriag However, in June 2022, the Osaka district court ruled that the ban was not unconstitutional. The court added that "from the perspective of individual dignity, it can be said that it is necessary to realise the benefits of same-sex couples being publicly recognised through official recognition." Subsequently, in December of last year, a Tokyo court reiterated that while the ban was not "unconstitutional," the country's failure to legally protect same-sex partners creates an "unconstitutional situation". Marriages and Japan Japan is the only remaining G7 nation where same-sex marriage is banned. The Japanese constitution defines marriage as something based on "the mutual consent of both sexes". Same-sex marriage, the Japanese people, and the government As per a Reuters report, opinion polls on the issue have found overwhelming support for the legality of same-sex marriages. Roughly 70 per cent of the public said they are all for the legality of same-sex unions. However, the conservative ruling Liberal Democratic Party of Prime Minister Fumio Kishida opposes it. Also read | Perils faced by the LGBTQ community in Africa In March of this year, Kishida reiterated that a ban on same-sex marriage is not unconstitutional. "I believe I do not have a sense of discrimination (on the issue)," he said, adding, "I have never stated I’m against it." "I don’t think disallowing same-sex couples to marry is unjust discrimination by the state," said the Japanese PM when questioned by an opposition lawmaker about whether in his opinion the ban on same-sex marriage constitutes discrimination. In spite of the ban, more than 300 Japanese municipalities that account for some 65 per cent of the Japanese population allow same-sex couples to enter partnership agreements. However, these agreements are far from marriage. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Japan court 'rescues' nation's LGBT community from 'hurt', says ban on same-sex marriage 'unconstitutional'

In an unusual display of open disagreement, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Italian counterpart Giorgia Meloni on Friday took public potshots at each other. The spat happened as the two world leaders were attending the Group of Seven (G7) leader summit in Japan's Hiroshima. The topic of this spat, as per reports, was LGBTQ rights.

The disagreement, as per Bloomberg, started when just ahead of closed-door talks, Trudeau criticised Meloni and Italy on camera.

"Canada is concerned about some of the positioning that Italy is taking in terms of LGBT rights, but I look forward to talking with you," said Trudeau.

Aslo read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uganda-to-criminalise-identification-as-lgbtq-introduces-strict-punishments-for-violations-574498">Identifying as LGBTQ in Uganda can lead to life in jail and even death sentence</a>

Trudeau's comment left Meloni visibly bristling and annoyed. Later, after the closed-door meeting, while talking to reporters, she accused the Canadian prime minister of being a "victim of fake news" and even said he was a "bit rash" in his comments.&nbsp;

Speaking in Italian, Meloni also said that after their talks he now probably understood that what gets written about her doesn't correspond to her reality.&nbsp;

As per a statement released by Justin Trudeau's office, the Canadian prime minister&nbsp;also raised his concerns about LGBTQ rights in Italy during the meeting. The statement added that the Italian prime minister had defended her government's position and stated that they were following court rulings related to LGBTQ matters.

While speaking to the press, Meloni pointed out that she hasn't changed any existing legislation on LGBTQ issues in Italy.

In March, Meloni's far-right-led government ordered city councils to stop the official recording of both parents in same-sex couples. Instead, they were instructed to only acknowledge the biological parent.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/urban-elite-concept-indian-govt-opposes-same-sex-marriage-as-sc-to-begin-hearing-583259">‘Urban elite concept’: Indian govt opposes same-sex marriage as SC to begin hearing</a>

The move was denounced by gay rights activists as "homophobic". Speaking at the time, Alessia Crocini, the president of Rainbow Families, a non-profit organisation "supporting LGBTQ+ parents and their children",&nbsp;said the move exposed the Meloni government's homophobia.

"This government is the maximum expression of homophobia."

"Meloni says that for a child to grow up well, they need a mother and father, even if decades of research say otherwise. It is insulting to hundreds of thousands of families with two same-sex parents," she said.

Italy's law doesn't recognise same-sex parents and Meloni has previously stated that every child is entitled to a mother and a father.

She also remarked that people identifying with a gender other than what was assigned to them at birth are victims of ideology. In a magazine interview in March, the Italian prime minister said "Being a man or a woman is rooted in who we are, and can’t be changed."

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

In an unusual display of open disagreement, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Italian counterpart Giorgia Meloni on Friday took public potshots at each other.

In an unusual display of open disagreement, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Italian counterpart Giorgia Meloni on Friday took public potshots at each other. The spat happened as the two world leaders were attending the Group of Seven (G7) leader summit in Japan's Hiroshima. The topic of this spat, as per reports, was LGBTQ rights. The disagreement, as per Bloomberg, started when just ahead of closed-door talks, Trudeau criticised Meloni and Italy on camera. "Canada is concerned about some of the positioning that Italy is taking in terms of LGBT rights, but I look forward to talking with you," said Trudeau. Aslo read | Identifying as LGBTQ in Uganda can lead to life in jail and even death sentence Trudeau's comment left Meloni visibly bristling and annoyed. Later, after the closed-door meeting, while talking to reporters, she accused the Canadian prime minister of being a "victim of fake news" and even said he was a "bit rash" in his comments. Speaking in Italian, Meloni also said that after their talks he now probably understood that what gets written about her doesn't correspond to her reality. As per a statement released by Justin Trudeau's office, the Canadian prime minister also raised his concerns about LGBTQ rights in Italy during the meeting. The statement added that the Italian prime minister had defended her government's position and stated that they were following court rulings related to LGBTQ matters. While speaking to the press, Meloni pointed out that she hasn't changed any existing legislation on LGBTQ issues in Italy. In March, Meloni's far-right-led government ordered city councils to stop the official recording of both parents in same-sex couples. Instead, they were instructed to only acknowledge the biological parent. Also read | ‘Urban elite concept’: Indian govt opposes same-sex marriage as SC to begin hearing The move was denounced by gay rights activists as "homophobic". Speaking at the time, Alessia Crocini, the president of Rainbow Families, a non-profit organisation "supporting LGBTQ+ parents and their children", said the move exposed the Meloni government's homophobia. "This government is the maximum expression of homophobia." "Meloni says that for a child to grow up well, they need a mother and father, even if decades of research say otherwise. It is insulting to hundreds of thousands of families with two same-sex parents," she said. Italy's law doesn't recognise same-sex parents and Meloni has previously stated that every child is entitled to a mother and a father. She also remarked that people identifying with a gender other than what was assigned to them at birth are victims of ideology. In a magazine interview in March, the Italian prime minister said "Being a man or a woman is rooted in who we are, and can’t be changed." (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Justin Trudeau and Giorgia Meloni spar publicly over LGBTQ rights at G7 summit

The Indian government on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that replies were sent by seven states on the issue of same-sex marriage issue. The idea was opposed by Congress-led Rajasthan and states like Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Manipur&nbsp;and Sikkim demanded more time to examine the issue.&nbsp;

"We have received seven responses from state governments. Rajasthan has taken a position that they have examined and opposed it, while the rest say that this needs an expansive debate," said Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to the court.

Various religions and underlined Acts, which fall under the Constitution, were quoted by the opposing states to support their stand against same-sex marriage.

The Rajasthan government, opposing same-sex marriage's legalisation, said that people's sentiments were against homosexual marriages.

ALSO READ | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/urban-elite-concept-indian-govt-opposes-same-sex-marriage-as-sc-to-begin-hearing-583259">‘Urban elite concept’: Indian govt opposes same-sex marriage as SC to begin hearing</a>

The provisions regarding marriage in Muslim Law, &nbsp;Special Marriage Act and Hindu Marriage Act were quoted by the government to justify its stand.

“Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) states the essential conditions of marriage. These provisions make it clear that any matrimonial ceremony between a bride and a groom shall be valid only if the age of the groom is not less than 21 years and the age of the bride is not less than 18 years,” the state government said.&nbsp;

“In the Act, marriage between two persons of the opposite sex is considered valid, and the minimum age of separation has been fixed for them. Thus, marriage is a sacrament in Hinduism,” it further added.

“Son born from heterosexual marriages liberates 21 generations from sin - 10 from past generations and 10 from future generations - including self. Therefore, matrimonial belief in Hinduism is connected to the birth of a son. Marriage in Muslim law is considered a contract between man and woman," the government argued.

“Nikah (marriage) in Muslim law has three components 1. A willing couple 2. Witness, and 3. Mehr. The concepts of "mehr" and "iddat" also resolve that even in Muslim law, marriages are valid only between two persons of the opposite sex, where mehr is seen as a gift from the groom to the bride as a token of respect,” it said in its reply.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, the Asssam government said, “It may be said that even across cross-sections of societies, the legal understanding of marriage has been that of an agreement/contract between two persons of opposite genders."&nbsp;

WATCH | Central government files affidavit against same-sex marriage

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/central-government-files-affidavit-against-same-sex-marriage-583478/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

“Marriage, divorce and ancillary subjects so related, fall under entry 5 of the Concurrent list of the Constitution and hence it is also in the domain of the state legislature in a manner that it is in the domain of Union Parliament,” it further stated.

Meanwhile, the apex court earlier stated that Indian laws permit a person to adopt a child irrespective of his/her marital status as it asserted that the law does recognise situations which may not fit in the category of an “ideal family”, where couples have their own biological children.

The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), in its submission, argued that the idea of gender may be “fluid” and may not be restricted to mothers and motherhood.

You can&nbsp;now write for wionews.com&nbsp;and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

The Indian government on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that replies were sent by seven states on the issue of same-sex marriage issue. The idea was opposed by Congress-led Rajasthan and states like Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Manipur and Sikkim demanded more time to examine the issue.

The Indian government on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that replies were sent by seven states on the issue of same-sex marriage issue. The idea was opposed by Congress-led Rajasthan and states like Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Manipur and Sikkim demanded more time to examine the issue. "We have received seven responses from state governments. Rajasthan has taken a position that they have examined and opposed it, while the rest say that this needs an expansive debate," said Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to the court. Various religions and underlined Acts, which fall under the Constitution, were quoted by the opposing states to support their stand against same-sex marriage. The Rajasthan government, opposing same-sex marriage's legalisation, said that people's sentiments were against homosexual marriages. ALSO READ | ‘Urban elite concept’: Indian govt opposes same-sex marriage as SC to begin hearing The provisions regarding marriage in Muslim Law, Special Marriage Act and Hindu Marriage Act were quoted by the government to justify its stand. “Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) states the essential conditions of marriage. These provisions make it clear that any matrimonial ceremony between a bride and a groom shall be valid only if the age of the groom is not less than 21 years and the age of the bride is not less than 18 years,” the state government said. “In the Act, marriage between two persons of the opposite sex is considered valid, and the minimum age of separation has been fixed for them. Thus, marriage is a sacrament in Hinduism,” it further added. “Son born from heterosexual marriages liberates 21 generations from sin - 10 from past generations and 10 from future generations - including self. Therefore, matrimonial belief in Hinduism is connected to the birth of a son. Marriage in Muslim law is considered a contract between man and woman," the government argued. “Nikah (marriage) in Muslim law has three components 1. A willing couple 2. Witness, and 3. Mehr. The concepts of "mehr" and "iddat" also resolve that even in Muslim law, marriages are valid only between two persons of the opposite sex, where mehr is seen as a gift from the groom to the bride as a token of respect,” it said in its reply. Meanwhile, the Asssam government said, “It may be said that even across cross-sections of societies, the legal understanding of marriage has been that of an agreement/contract between two persons of opposite genders." WATCH | Central government files affidavit against same-sex marriage “Marriage, divorce and ancillary subjects so related, fall under entry 5 of the Concurrent list of the Constitution and hence it is also in the domain of the state legislature in a manner that it is in the domain of Union Parliament,” it further stated. Meanwhile, the apex court earlier stated that Indian laws permit a person to adopt a child irrespective of his/her marital status as it asserted that the law does recognise situations which may not fit in the category of an “ideal family”, where couples have their own biological children. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), in its submission, argued that the idea of gender may be “fluid” and may not be restricted to mothers and motherhood. You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here. WATCH WION LIVE HERE

India: Rajasthan stands against same-sex marriage, 6 states demand time to examine matter

A five-judge Constitution Bench which comprises Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Hima Kohli, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice S Ravindra Bhat is listening to a batch of petitions related to ‘marriage equality rights' for LGBTQIA+ community.

Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told&nbsp;the court that the government remains positive about the idea of adopting administrative steps in this regard.&nbsp;

"The issue has some genuine human concerns and there were discussions on whether something can be done administratively. The government is positive. This would need coordination by different ministries. A committee headed by a cabinet secretary will be formed and suggestions given by the petitioners will be addressed," Mehta said.&nbsp;

ALSO READ |<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/urban-elite-concept-indian-govt-opposes-same-sex-marriage-as-sc-to-begin-hearing-583259"> ‘Urban elite concept’: Indian govt opposes same-sex marriage as SC to begin hearing</a>

Speaking to the bench, Mehta said that this would require coordination between various ministries and may need some time. He stated that the petitioners can provide their suggestions on what administrative steps can be adopted in this regard.

Replying to this, CJI Chandrachud said, "The petitioners can submit suggestions between today and the next hearing so that they can apply their minds as well to it."

However, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi told the bench that the matter is very complicated and it needs interpretation of the law. Justice Ravindra Bhat stated, "Sometimes beginnings are small".&nbsp;

Justice SK Kaul further added, "This is without prejudice to everyone's rights, even if marriage rights are granted, there will be many changes required in the legislative and administrative domain. The government is not reluctant to solve the problems arising from gay companionship, just not the label of marriage."

Meanwhile, senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, who is appearing for the petitioners, said, "I speak here mostly for young people in the small towns who want to be married. Please do not leave them."

WATCH | Gravitas: Indian Government opposes same-sex marriage

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-indian-government-opposes-same-sex-marriage-583469/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

After listening to the arguments, the CJI said that the Supreme Court, as a constitutional court, has an issue "if we go by what young people feel".&nbsp;

"If we entertain this argument, then the other side will throw at us what the country wants and we cannot go into that. This is a social institution which is evolving and the court, as a facilitator, can ensure that there is some development. If we don't recognize same-sex marriage, we do not want you to be with nothing in your hand," he added.&nbsp;

The court hearing continued on Wednesday for the seventh day. A batch of petitions is being heard that seek legal recognition of same-sex marriage in India.

<main>
<section>
You can&nbsp;now write for wionews.com&nbsp;and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>
</section>
</main>

A five-judge Constitution Bench which comprises Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Hima Kohli, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice S Ravindra Bhat is listening to a batch of petitions related to ‘marriage equality rights' for LGBTQIA+ community.

A five-judge Constitution Bench which comprises Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Hima Kohli, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice S Ravindra Bhat is listening to a batch of petitions related to ‘marriage equality rights' for LGBTQIA+ community. Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that the government remains positive about the idea of adopting administrative steps in this regard. "The issue has some genuine human concerns and there were discussions on whether something can be done administratively. The government is positive. This would need coordination by different ministries. A committee headed by a cabinet secretary will be formed and suggestions given by the petitioners will be addressed," Mehta said. ALSO READ | ‘Urban elite concept’: Indian govt opposes same-sex marriage as SC to begin hearing Speaking to the bench, Mehta said that this would require coordination between various ministries and may need some time. He stated that the petitioners can provide their suggestions on what administrative steps can be adopted in this regard. Replying to this, CJI Chandrachud said, "The petitioners can submit suggestions between today and the next hearing so that they can apply their minds as well to it." However, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi told the bench that the matter is very complicated and it needs interpretation of the law. Justice Ravindra Bhat stated, "Sometimes beginnings are small". Justice SK Kaul further added, "This is without prejudice to everyone's rights, even if marriage rights are granted, there will be many changes required in the legislative and administrative domain. The government is not reluctant to solve the problems arising from gay companionship, just not the label of marriage." Meanwhile, senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, who is appearing for the petitioners, said, "I speak here mostly for young people in the small towns who want to be married. Please do not leave them." WATCH | Gravitas: Indian Government opposes same-sex marriage After listening to the arguments, the CJI said that the Supreme Court, as a constitutional court, has an issue "if we go by what young people feel". "If we entertain this argument, then the other side will throw at us what the country wants and we cannot go into that. This is a social institution which is evolving and the court, as a facilitator, can ensure that there is some development. If we don't recognize same-sex marriage, we do not want you to be with nothing in your hand," he added. The court hearing continued on Wednesday for the seventh day. A batch of petitions is being heard that seek legal recognition of same-sex marriage in India. You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here. WATCH WION LIVE HERE

India: Will form committee to address issues being faced by same-sex couples, govt tells SC

Change is slow in Japan. To nudge the country towards legally recognising same-sex marriage, on Sunday crowds of cheering, flag-waving crowds in Tokyo came together for the nation's first full Pride parade in four years. The Pride parade comes ahead of next month's Group of Seven (G7) summit.

Japan as per Reuters is the only G7 industrial power that does not recognise same-sex marriage.&nbsp;

However, growing support from the nation's top business lobby and major companies is putting pressure on Prime Minister Fumio Kishida's government and his conservative ruling party to change that.

As per organiser estimates, around 10,000 people marched in Sunday's Pride parade in Tokyo's Shibuya district.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/child-rights-activist-says-same-sex-marriage-denies-kids-one-parents-love-585347">Indian child rights activist claims same-sex marriage denies kids one parent's love</a>

"Japan is really far behind ... We will fight until the entire country has same-sex marriage," said Himama, one of the participants to Reuters.

The traditional nation's constitution refers to marriage as being between "both sexes" and mentions "the equal rights of husband and wife".&nbsp;

For Japan to allow same-sex marriage, an amendment to its civil code would be required.

However, ahead of the summit, some lawmakers have vowed to pass a law promoting "understanding of LGBTQ". Activists and business leaders have called this a good step, but say that it falls short of Japan's last year G7 commitment to ensuring equal rights and anti-discrimination measures for LGBTQ.

Reuters reports that in Japan, the number of municipalities allowing same-sex couples to enter partnership agreements has increased significantly from 26 to around 300 since the last pre-pandemic Pride parade in 2019, covering roughly 65 per cent of the population.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/are-men-responsible-for-motherhood-on-ice-aka-women-freezing-their-eggs-585342">Are men responsible for 'Motherhood on Ice' a.k.a., women freezing their eggs?</a>

However, these agreements do not grant partners the right to inherit each other's assets or parental rights to each other's children, and hospital visits are not guaranteed. Despite this, it is considered a positive development in a country where LGBTQ+ rights have been slow to progress.&nbsp;

A district court in Japan's Sapporo in March 2021 ruled the nation's ban on same-sex marriages unconstitutional. The Sapporo court argued that laws or regulations that deprive same-sex couples of the legal benefits of marriage are discriminatory and violate Article 14 of the Japanese Constitution. The court also ruled that Article 24 of the Constitution, which defines marriage as "based only on the mutual consent of both sexes", does not prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages. However, in June 2022, another district court, this one in Osaka, upheld the constitutionality of the ban on same-sex marriage.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

Change is slow in Japan. To nudge the country towards legally recognising same-sex marriage, on Sunday crowds of cheering, flag-waving crowds in Tokyo came together for the nation's first full Pride parade in four years.

Change is slow in Japan. To nudge the country towards legally recognising same-sex marriage, on Sunday crowds of cheering, flag-waving crowds in Tokyo came together for the nation's first full Pride parade in four years. The Pride parade comes ahead of next month's Group of Seven (G7) summit. Japan as per Reuters is the only G7 industrial power that does not recognise same-sex marriage. However, growing support from the nation's top business lobby and major companies is putting pressure on Prime Minister Fumio Kishida's government and his conservative ruling party to change that. As per organiser estimates, around 10,000 people marched in Sunday's Pride parade in Tokyo's Shibuya district. Also read | Indian child rights activist claims same-sex marriage denies kids one parent's love "Japan is really far behind ... We will fight until the entire country has same-sex marriage," said Himama, one of the participants to Reuters. The traditional nation's constitution refers to marriage as being between "both sexes" and mentions "the equal rights of husband and wife". For Japan to allow same-sex marriage, an amendment to its civil code would be required. However, ahead of the summit, some lawmakers have vowed to pass a law promoting "understanding of LGBTQ". Activists and business leaders have called this a good step, but say that it falls short of Japan's last year G7 commitment to ensuring equal rights and anti-discrimination measures for LGBTQ. Reuters reports that in Japan, the number of municipalities allowing same-sex couples to enter partnership agreements has increased significantly from 26 to around 300 since the last pre-pandemic Pride parade in 2019, covering roughly 65 per cent of the population. Also read | Are men responsible for 'Motherhood on Ice' a.k.a., women freezing their eggs? However, these agreements do not grant partners the right to inherit each other's assets or parental rights to each other's children, and hospital visits are not guaranteed. Despite this, it is considered a positive development in a country where LGBTQ+ rights have been slow to progress. A district court in Japan's Sapporo in March 2021 ruled the nation's ban on same-sex marriages unconstitutional. The Sapporo court argued that laws or regulations that deprive same-sex couples of the legal benefits of marriage are discriminatory and violate Article 14 of the Japanese Constitution. The court also ruled that Article 24 of the Constitution, which defines marriage as "based only on the mutual consent of both sexes", does not prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages. However, in June 2022, another district court, this one in Osaka, upheld the constitutionality of the ban on same-sex marriage. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Ahead of G7 summit, Japan's LGBTQIA+ community demand legalisation of same-sex marriage

As India debates whether same-sex marriage should be allowed legally, a child rights activist has come out against the move, and has said that such marriages will infringe upon the rights of the children and would deprive them of "at least one parent."

Talking to IANS, Kumar V Jahgirdar, founder and president of the Child Rights Initiative for Shared Parenting (CRISP) told IANS that "It is natural for any child to have a natural father and mother," and that with the proposed law India is "heading to the creation of a fatherless or motherless society."

He said that in a same-sex marriage, one person will be 'acting' as though they are "a father or mother respectively," but that in fact a child "raised by a same-sex couple is deprived of at least one parent."

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/centre-has-no-data-to-prove-same-sex-marriage-is-an-urban-elitist-concept-says-chief-justice-of-india-584141">Centre has no data to prove same-sex marriage is an urban elitist concept, says Chief Justice of India</a>

He labelled&nbsp;this "a human rights violation that the same-sex marriage movement will never address."

As per Jahgirdar, "this will have a devastating effect on the psychology of the child and is also a violation of child rights as per a UN convention to have two different genders as parents. It is set to become a fashion to speak about LGBTQ rights and nobody is bothered about child rights. The child rights and same sex rights can't go in the same boat."

"I hope the apex court takes this seriously and does not hamper child fundamental rights," he added.

The child rights activist also predicted that "children in same-sex marriage may feel a stigma that may end in drugs or school dropouts or land up in jail as a teenager."

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/explained-why-same-sex-couples-in-india-are-seeking-conjugal-rights-when-homosexuality-is-decriminalised-583772">Explained: Why same-sex couples in India are seeking conjugal rights when homosexuality is decriminalised</a>

He further said&nbsp;that if same-sex marriages are awarded a legal status, the "law will be unconstitutional and is not only against Indian social and cultural values but also in violation of basic human rights."

Jahgirdar claimed&nbsp;that the legalisation of same-sex marriages will further add confusion to the Domestic Violence Act that "is meant to protect women against men."

He also said that if the law is passed, rules regarding the custody of the child post-separation or divorce of the parents must be laid out. The custody of children and shared parenting in cases of separation must be ensured, he added.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

As India debates whether same-sex marriage should be allowed legally, a child rights activist has come out against the move, and has said that such marriages will infringe upon the rights of the children and would deprive them of "at least one parent.

As India debates whether same-sex marriage should be allowed legally, a child rights activist has come out against the move, and has said that such marriages will infringe upon the rights of the children and would deprive them of "at least one parent." Talking to IANS, Kumar V Jahgirdar, founder and president of the Child Rights Initiative for Shared Parenting (CRISP) told IANS that "It is natural for any child to have a natural father and mother," and that with the proposed law India is "heading to the creation of a fatherless or motherless society." He said that in a same-sex marriage, one person will be 'acting' as though they are "a father or mother respectively," but that in fact a child "raised by a same-sex couple is deprived of at least one parent." Also read | Centre has no data to prove same-sex marriage is an urban elitist concept, says Chief Justice of India He labelled this "a human rights violation that the same-sex marriage movement will never address." As per Jahgirdar, "this will have a devastating effect on the psychology of the child and is also a violation of child rights as per a UN convention to have two different genders as parents. It is set to become a fashion to speak about LGBTQ rights and nobody is bothered about child rights. The child rights and same sex rights can't go in the same boat." "I hope the apex court takes this seriously and does not hamper child fundamental rights," he added. The child rights activist also predicted that "children in same-sex marriage may feel a stigma that may end in drugs or school dropouts or land up in jail as a teenager." Also read | Explained: Why same-sex couples in India are seeking conjugal rights when homosexuality is decriminalised He further said that if same-sex marriages are awarded a legal status, the "law will be unconstitutional and is not only against Indian social and cultural values but also in violation of basic human rights." Jahgirdar claimed that the legalisation of same-sex marriages will further add confusion to the Domestic Violence Act that "is meant to protect women against men." He also said that if the law is passed, rules regarding the custody of the child post-separation or divorce of the parents must be laid out. The custody of children and shared parenting in cases of separation must be ensured, he added. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Indian child rights activist claims same-sex marriage denies kids one parent's love

Indian Supreme Court is hearing final arguments this week in a historic group of petitions to legalize same-sex marriage. The hearings are being livestreamed online in what the court calls the public interest.

Indian Supreme Court hears final arguments on same-sex union this week

The Indian Supreme Court, on Tuesday (April 18) heard arguments on a batch of 15 pleas which have sought the legalisation of same-sex marriage in the country. This comes a day after the Indian government reiterated its opposition to the motion calling the petitions an “urban elitist concept far removed from social ethos of the country”. &nbsp;

The five-judge bench&nbsp;

The five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud also comprised Justices S K Kaul, S R Bhat, Hima Kohli and P S Narasimha. During the hearing, the CJI said there is no such thing as an “absolute” concept of biological man and woman adding that “it’s not just a question of what your genitals are.”

The CJI has called the marriage issue one of “seminal importance”. The apex court on November 25 last year had sought the Centre’s response to separate pleas moved by two gay couples seeking enforcement of their right to marry and a direction to the authorities concerned to register their marriages under the Special Marriage Act.&nbsp;

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-hearing-on-same-sex-marriage-live-indias-apex-court-to-hear-arguements-today-583596">Supreme Court hearing on same-sex marriage&nbsp;| India's apex court to hear arguments today</a>

However, the CJI had earlier said that the mandatory 30-day notice of a couple’s intention to marry under the previously mentioned act is “unconstitutional”. He stated, “Even in a heterosexual marriage, that you have to give notice and have people object to whether there should be a marriage or not is unconstitutional.”

Petitioners’ argument&nbsp;

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi who presented the arguments from the petitioners said that those in same-sex relationships should also have equal rights similar to their heterosexual brethren.&nbsp;

Subsequently, referring to the 2018 ruling which struck down section 377 and decriminalised homosexuality, Rohtagi argued that the LGBTQ should also have the right to dignity and to the institution of marriage and family which is available to others.

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/indian-sc-directs-petitions-seeking-same-sex-marriage-legalisation-to-constitutional-bench-571529">Indian SC directs petitions seeking same-sex marriage legalisation to constitutional bench</a>

He has also sought the provisions under the Special Marriage Act to read marriage between “spouse” instead of “man and woman”. Additionally, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, also arguing for the petitioners said that it is not only “a question of dignity but a bouquet of rights that LGBTQ people are being denied…like life insurance or medical insurance.”&nbsp;

This comes as the CJI asked the lawyers to steer clear of the personal laws as the court would focus on if the right can be conferred under The Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954 as they have ‘broadly understood matter’.&nbsp;

The Indian government’s stance

Prior to the hearing, the government, on Monday, said that a court order recognising same-sex marriages would be virtually rewriting an entire branch of law. It has also argued how the court must refrain from passing such “omnibus orders”. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the government, reiterates its stance that the judiciary has no authority on the matter.&nbsp;

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/urban-elite-concept-indian-govt-opposes-same-sex-marriage-as-sc-to-begin-hearing-583259">‘Urban elite concept’: Indian govt opposes same-sex marriage as SC to begin hearing</a>

“This would be better if gone into by the parliament. The parliament has eminent parliamentarians. Parliamentary committees are not acting in the way we see parliament function. Committees have all parties as members,” said Mehta.&nbsp;

The CJI’s remarks about the notion of a biological woman or man not being absolute were also in response to Mehta’s statement when he said, “Societal acceptance of any relationship is never dependent on either the legislation or judgement. The legislative intent of the legislature throughout has been a relationship between a biological man and a biological female.”

The next hearing

The apex court will continue to hear petitioners on Wednesday and Thursday while the Indian government will present their arguments next week.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

The Indian Supreme Court, on Tuesday (April 18) heard arguments on a batch of 15 pleas which have sought the legalisation of same-sex marriage in the country. This comes a day after the Indian government reiterated its opposition to the motion calling the petitions an “urban elitist concept far removed from social ethos of the country”.

The Indian Supreme Court, on Tuesday (April 18) heard arguments on a batch of 15 pleas which have sought the legalisation of same-sex marriage in the country. This comes a day after the Indian government reiterated its opposition to the motion calling the petitions an “urban elitist concept far removed from social ethos of the country”. The five-judge bench The five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud also comprised Justices S K Kaul, S R Bhat, Hima Kohli and P S Narasimha. During the hearing, the CJI said there is no such thing as an “absolute” concept of biological man and woman adding that “it’s not just a question of what your genitals are.” The CJI has called the marriage issue one of “seminal importance”. The apex court on November 25 last year had sought the Centre’s response to separate pleas moved by two gay couples seeking enforcement of their right to marry and a direction to the authorities concerned to register their marriages under the Special Marriage Act. ALSO READ | Supreme Court hearing on same-sex marriage | India's apex court to hear arguments today However, the CJI had earlier said that the mandatory 30-day notice of a couple’s intention to marry under the previously mentioned act is “unconstitutional”. He stated, “Even in a heterosexual marriage, that you have to give notice and have people object to whether there should be a marriage or not is unconstitutional.” Petitioners’ argument Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi who presented the arguments from the petitioners said that those in same-sex relationships should also have equal rights similar to their heterosexual brethren. Subsequently, referring to the 2018 ruling which struck down section 377 and decriminalised homosexuality, Rohtagi argued that the LGBTQ should also have the right to dignity and to the institution of marriage and family which is available to others. ALSO READ | Indian SC directs petitions seeking same-sex marriage legalisation to constitutional bench He has also sought the provisions under the Special Marriage Act to read marriage between “spouse” instead of “man and woman”. Additionally, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, also arguing for the petitioners said that it is not only “a question of dignity but a bouquet of rights that LGBTQ people are being denied…like life insurance or medical insurance.” This comes as the CJI asked the lawyers to steer clear of the personal laws as the court would focus on if the right can be conferred under The Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954 as they have ‘broadly understood matter’. The Indian government’s stance Prior to the hearing, the government, on Monday, said that a court order recognising same-sex marriages would be virtually rewriting an entire branch of law. It has also argued how the court must refrain from passing such “omnibus orders”. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the government, reiterates its stance that the judiciary has no authority on the matter. ALSO READ | ‘Urban elite concept’: Indian govt opposes same-sex marriage as SC to begin hearing “This would be better if gone into by the parliament. The parliament has eminent parliamentarians. Parliamentary committees are not acting in the way we see parliament function. Committees have all parties as members,” said Mehta. The CJI’s remarks about the notion of a biological woman or man not being absolute were also in response to Mehta’s statement when he said, “Societal acceptance of any relationship is never dependent on either the legislation or judgement. The legislative intent of the legislature throughout has been a relationship between a biological man and a biological female.” The next hearing The apex court will continue to hear petitioners on Wednesday and Thursday while the Indian government will present their arguments next week. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

India’s apex court heard arguments on same-sex marriage legalisation. Here’s what happened

Reiterating its opposition to same-sex marriage, the Indian government has filed a plea asking the Supreme Court to quash a batch of petitions seeking legal validation, saying that the “creation of a new social institution” is beyond the ambit of the judiciary.

Calling the petitions seeking the right to same-sex marriage an “urban elitist concept far removed from social ethos of the country”, the submission filed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on Monday stated that recognition of marriage is essentially a legislative function and that the courts should refrain from deciding.

“A decision by the court in recognising the right of same-sex marriage would mean a virtual judicial rewriting of an entire branch of law. The court must refrain from passing such omnibus orders. Proper authority for the same is appropriate legislature...Given the fundamental social origin of these laws, any change in order to be legitimate would have to come from the bottom up and through legislation...a change cannot be compelled by judicial fiat and the best judge of the pace of change is the legislature itself,” stated the application.

A bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud has taken note of the submissions of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta,&nbsp;who mentioned the plea to decide a preliminary issue.

"Yes, it will be listed tomorrow (April 18)," the bench also comprising justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala said.

The BJP-led government questioned the maintainability of the petitions, saying that concept of same-sex marriages, if allowed, will cause complete havoc with the delicate balance of personal laws and accepted societal values.

The constitutional bench, which also comprises S K Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, P S Narasimha and Hima Kohli, will hear the petitions on Tuesday which were referred to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement on March 13 by the CJI-led bench, saying it is a very seminal issue.

The hearing and the outcome are expected to have significant ramifications in India where the opinions of common people and political parties have been divergent.

The apex court on November 25 last year had sought the Centre's response to separate pleas moved by two gay couples seeking enforcement of their right to marry and a direction to the authorities concerned to register their marriages under the Special Marriage Act.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

Reiterating its opposition to same-sex marriage, the Indian government has filed a plea asking the Supreme Court to quash a batch of petitions seeking legal validation, saying that the “creation of a new social institution” is beyond the ambit of the judiciary.

Reiterating its opposition to same-sex marriage, the Indian government has filed a plea asking the Supreme Court to quash a batch of petitions seeking legal validation, saying that the “creation of a new social institution” is beyond the ambit of the judiciary. Calling the petitions seeking the right to same-sex marriage an “urban elitist concept far removed from social ethos of the country”, the submission filed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on Monday stated that recognition of marriage is essentially a legislative function and that the courts should refrain from deciding. “A decision by the court in recognising the right of same-sex marriage would mean a virtual judicial rewriting of an entire branch of law. The court must refrain from passing such omnibus orders. Proper authority for the same is appropriate legislature...Given the fundamental social origin of these laws, any change in order to be legitimate would have to come from the bottom up and through legislation...a change cannot be compelled by judicial fiat and the best judge of the pace of change is the legislature itself,” stated the application. A bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud has taken note of the submissions of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who mentioned the plea to decide a preliminary issue. "Yes, it will be listed tomorrow (April 18)," the bench also comprising justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala said. The BJP-led government questioned the maintainability of the petitions, saying that concept of same-sex marriages, if allowed, will cause complete havoc with the delicate balance of personal laws and accepted societal values. The constitutional bench, which also comprises S K Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, P S Narasimha and Hima Kohli, will hear the petitions on Tuesday which were referred to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement on March 13 by the CJI-led bench, saying it is a very seminal issue. The hearing and the outcome are expected to have significant ramifications in India where the opinions of common people and political parties have been divergent. The apex court on November 25 last year had sought the Centre's response to separate pleas moved by two gay couples seeking enforcement of their right to marry and a direction to the authorities concerned to register their marriages under the Special Marriage Act. WATCH WION LIVE HERE

‘Urban elite concept’: Indian govt opposes same-sex marriage as SC to begin hearing

The government of India has issued its opposition to petitions seeking legalisation of same-sex marriages in India. The govt says Indian laws are deeply embedded in religious and cultural values, and same-sex marriages could cause havoc in the society.

Gravitas: Will India legalise homosexual marriages? Here's what the govt says

Indian Supreme Court on Monday directed to list all the petitions seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage issue before a five judges&nbsp;constitution bench. The highest court has already decriminalised homosexuality in 2018 but now the LGBTQ community are hoping for the legalisation of homosexual marriages.&nbsp;

All the petitions, which are strongly contended by the Centre, are now listed for hearing on 18 April 2023, as per Live Law portal.&nbsp;

Appearing for the petitioners, Dr AM Singhvi said, "Right to love makes us human". It should be extended in equal terms. You can extend it only on equal terms only if your lordships reads down the Special Marriage Act and other acts. It has to be read in such a way that terms such as man, woman are done away with."

Senior Advocate KV Vishwanathan said, "Transgender Protection Act exists even if the Centre says that we don't recognise such a union."&nbsp;

"This case is not about a transgender statute or the Hindu Marriage Act. What it is about is Article 21 and Article 19(1)(a). The right of choosing a partner is the right of expression, right of dignity. It's only a natural right, an assertion of a right. It has implications," he added.&nbsp;

Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud said, "We are not on arguments today but this will help everyone understand."

The apex court made the remarks to list all the pleas to a constitutional bench while hearing the clubbed petitions seeking the legal recogisition of same sex marriage in world's largest democracy.&nbsp;

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta,&nbsp;appearing for Centre, said in the apex court, “that the right to love, express and freedom of choice is already upheld, and no one is interfering with that right, but that does not mean conferring the right of marriage.”

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/centre-opposes-same-sex-marriages-says-only-those-between-a-man-and-a-woman-the-norm-throughout-history-571127">Centre opposes same-sex marriages, says those between a man and a woman 'the norm throughout history'</a>

SG Mehta said that the "moment marriage as a recognized institution comes between same sex, question will come on adoption and therefore Parliament will have to see the issue of psychology of child, which has to be examined whether it can be raised in such a way."

Supreme Court remarked that the adopted child of a gay or lesbian couple does not have to be gay or a lesbian. Centre has already voiced its strong opposition towards the petitions filed before the court where it said that the matter for legalization should not be dealt with the judiciary but the Indian Parliament.&nbsp;

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/strangers-in-the-eyes-of-law-wion-speaks-with-hyderabad-gay-couple-569191">'Strangers in eyes of law': WION speaks with gay couple as India's top court set to hear petitions on marriage</a> 
 
The Centre in its affidavit, which came in response to the pleas, said that “recognised deviation…can occur only before the competent legislature”.&nbsp;

Watch | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/argentina-roasts-in-record-heat-wave-571506">Argentina roasts in record heat wave</a>

“Despite the decriminalisation of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Petitioners cannot claim a fundamental right for same-sex marriage to be recognised under the laws of the country,” the centre added.

If same-sex marriage is legalised in India, the country will become the second Asian nation to have done so. Taiwan was the first Asian nation to have legalised the same-sex marriage on 24 May in 2019.&nbsp;Indian SC in the year 2014 recognised transgender people as a "third gender."

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1  width=&quot;100%&quot;"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

Indian Supreme Court on Monday directed to list all the petitions seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage issue before a five judges constitution bench. The highest court has already decriminalised homosexuality in 2018 but now the LGBTQ community are hoping for the legalisation of homosexual marriages.

Indian Supreme Court on Monday directed to list all the petitions seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage issue before a five judges constitution bench. The highest court has already decriminalised homosexuality in 2018 but now the LGBTQ community are hoping for the legalisation of homosexual marriages. All the petitions, which are strongly contended by the Centre, are now listed for hearing on 18 April 2023, as per Live Law portal. Appearing for the petitioners, Dr AM Singhvi said, "Right to love makes us human". It should be extended in equal terms. You can extend it only on equal terms only if your lordships reads down the Special Marriage Act and other acts. It has to be read in such a way that terms such as man, woman are done away with." Senior Advocate KV Vishwanathan said, "Transgender Protection Act exists even if the Centre says that we don't recognise such a union." "This case is not about a transgender statute or the Hindu Marriage Act. What it is about is Article 21 and Article 19(1)(a). The right of choosing a partner is the right of expression, right of dignity. It's only a natural right, an assertion of a right. It has implications," he added. Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud said, "We are not on arguments today but this will help everyone understand." The apex court made the remarks to list all the pleas to a constitutional bench while hearing the clubbed petitions seeking the legal recogisition of same sex marriage in world's largest democracy. During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Centre, said in the apex court, “that the right to love, express and freedom of choice is already upheld, and no one is interfering with that right, but that does not mean conferring the right of marriage.” Also Read | Centre opposes same-sex marriages, says those between a man and a woman 'the norm throughout history' SG Mehta said that the "moment marriage as a recognized institution comes between same sex, question will come on adoption and therefore Parliament will have to see the issue of psychology of child, which has to be examined whether it can be raised in such a way." Supreme Court remarked that the adopted child of a gay or lesbian couple does not have to be gay or a lesbian. Centre has already voiced its strong opposition towards the petitions filed before the court where it said that the matter for legalization should not be dealt with the judiciary but the Indian Parliament. Also Read | 'Strangers in eyes of law': WION speaks with gay couple as India's top court set to hear petitions on marriage The Centre in its affidavit, which came in response to the pleas, said that “recognised deviation…can occur only before the competent legislature”. Watch | Argentina roasts in record heat wave “Despite the decriminalisation of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Petitioners cannot claim a fundamental right for same-sex marriage to be recognised under the laws of the country,” the centre added. If same-sex marriage is legalised in India, the country will become the second Asian nation to have done so. Taiwan was the first Asian nation to have legalised the same-sex marriage on 24 May in 2019. Indian SC in the year 2014 recognised transgender people as a "third gender." WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Indian SC directs petitions seeking same-sex marriage legalisation to constitutional bench

Panama's Supreme Court has ruled against same-sex marriages, saying it's not a human right and, therefore, the country does not recognise such unions.&nbsp;

The court in its ruling dated Feb 16, said, "there is a reality, and it is that, until now, the right to equal marriage is no more than an aspiration, even though a legitimate one for the groups involved, and it does not fall into the category of a human right or a fundamental right."

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ban-on-same-sex-marriage-not-unconstitutional-japanese-pm-kishida-567288">Also read |&nbsp;Ban on same-sex marriage not unconstitutional: Japanese PM Kishida</a>

The court had been considering the issue since 2016, after several appeals from same-sex couples claiming the country's family code "unconstitutional," as it only recognises marriage between a man and woman.

The same-sex couples filed the suit attempting to make their marriages legal in the Central American country, like many other developed countries.&nbsp;

However, the court said that no matter how many changes happen in reality, for now, gay marriages lack "conventional and constitutional recognition."

It added that the family code is objectively and reasonably justified in the general interests of giving precedence to those unions capable of establishing families, giving continuity to humans and society.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/south-korea-moves-one-step-closer-to-legitimising-same-sex-couples-564432">Also read |&nbsp;South Korea moves one step closer to legitimising same-sex couples</a>

Reacting to the Feb 16 ruling, Ivan Chanis, president of the gay rights organisation Fundacion Iguales told AFP, “ the Panamanian justice system has rejected the recognition of the dignity of same-sex couples and their right to build a family in Panama.”

As per AFP, the Catholic Church which opposes same-sex couples holds a strong influence in Panama.

Currently, Costa Rica remains the only Central American country to recognise same-sex marriages.

(with inputs&nbsp;from agencies) 
&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

&nbsp;

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

Panama's Supreme Court has ruled against same-sex marriages, saying it's not a human right and, therefore, the country does not recognise such unions. The court in its ruling dated Feb 16, said, "there is a reality, and it is that, until now, the right to equal marriage is no more than an aspiration, even though a legitimate one for the groups involved, and it does not fall into the category of a human right or a fundamental right.

Panama's Supreme Court has ruled against same-sex marriages, saying it's not a human right and, therefore, the country does not recognise such unions. The court in its ruling dated Feb 16, said, "there is a reality, and it is that, until now, the right to equal marriage is no more than an aspiration, even though a legitimate one for the groups involved, and it does not fall into the category of a human right or a fundamental right." Also read | Ban on same-sex marriage not unconstitutional: Japanese PM Kishida The court had been considering the issue since 2016, after several appeals from same-sex couples claiming the country's family code "unconstitutional," as it only recognises marriage between a man and woman. The same-sex couples filed the suit attempting to make their marriages legal in the Central American country, like many other developed countries. However, the court said that no matter how many changes happen in reality, for now, gay marriages lack "conventional and constitutional recognition." It added that the family code is objectively and reasonably justified in the general interests of giving precedence to those unions capable of establishing families, giving continuity to humans and society. Also read | South Korea moves one step closer to legitimising same-sex couples Reacting to the Feb 16 ruling, Ivan Chanis, president of the gay rights organisation Fundacion Iguales told AFP, “ the Panamanian justice system has rejected the recognition of the dignity of same-sex couples and their right to build a family in Panama.” As per AFP, the Catholic Church which opposes same-sex couples holds a strong influence in Panama. Currently, Costa Rica remains the only Central American country to recognise same-sex marriages. (with inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE

'Not a human right': Panama's Supreme Court rules against same-sex marriages, unions express disappointment

In a big development, the Church of England's governing body has endorsed plans to let priests offer blessings to same-sec couples. This comes hours after the acrimonious debates highlighting deep Anglican divisions on the issue.

UK: Church of England to let priests offer blessings to same-sex couples

From major climate and social funding to protections of same-sex marriage and investigations into former US President Donald Trump, the democratic lawmakers had a busy year holding the majority in both Senate and the house. Watch the video to know more.

WION VOA: Busy year for democratic lawmakers

A landmark bill that will give federal protection&nbsp;to same-sex marriage was passed by the US Congress on Thursday (December 8).&nbsp;The bill was passed after a vote of 258-169, with all of the chamber's Democrats and 39 Republicans voting in favour. On the other hand, 169 of the chamber's Republicans voted against it and one voted "present".&nbsp;

President Joe Biden, who vouched for the bill, has promised that he will quickly sign the measure into law. It will be called the Respect for Marriage Act.&nbsp;

The bill had won the senate's approval last month with a vote of 61-36. Shortly before the vote, outgoing House Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: "Today this chamber proudly stands with the forces of freedom."&nbsp;

Today's vote was needed to reconcile minor differences with the Senate's version.&nbsp;

Pelosi tweeted on Thursday, "I began my career fighting for LGBTQ communities and now, one of the final bills that I will sign as Speaker will ensure the federal government never again stands in the way of marrying the person you love."&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
I began my career fighting for LGBTQ communities — and now, one of the final bills that I will sign as Speaker will ensure the federal government never again stands in the way of marrying the person you love. 
 
Read my op-ed on the Respect for Marriage Act: <a href="https://t.co/UyIE8vJlIG">https://t.co/UyIE8vJlIG</a>
— Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) <a href="https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/1600838293473878017?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 8, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Join <a href="https://twitter.com/SenSchumer?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SenSchumer</a>, Members of <a href="https://twitter.com/LGBTEqCaucus?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@LGBTEqCaucus</a>, advocates and me at the U.S. Capitol to sign the Respect for Marriage Act, a major victory for freedom, dignity and equality by enshrining into federal law marriage equality for same sex and interracial couples. <a href="https://t.co/dDlvZiczxd">https://t.co/dDlvZiczxd</a>
— Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) <a href="https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/1600891430905335817?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 8, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

During the debate, David Cicilline, a Democrat from Rhode Island said, "I urge all those here today who previously voted against this bill to reconsider, be part of history, and join us in voting for its passage today. Today’s vote is a monumental win in the fight LBTQ+ equality but the work does not stop here. We remain the only minority group in America where in a majority of states it still legal to discriminate against us in several key areas of life."&nbsp;

Jim Jordan, a Republican from Ohio said, "For years, the Democrats have been playing a dangerous game with the Court. They want Americans to believe that the Court lacks transparency and struggles with its ethics, simply not true. This bill is simply the latest installment of the Democrats campaign to intimidate the highest Court in our land."&nbsp;

After the passage of the bill,&nbsp;a 1996 US&nbsp;law called the Defense of Marriage Act will be revoked. It had denied federal benefits to same-sex couples. It bars states from rejecting the validity of out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, race or ethnicity.

The Supreme Court in 1967 declared prohibitions on interracial marriage unconstitutional.&nbsp;

Now, the new legislation does not require states to legalize same-sex marriage but does require them to recognize a marriage so long as it was valid in the state where it was performed.

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

A landmark bill that will give federal protection to same-sex marriage was passed by the US Congress on Thursday (December 8). The bill was passed after a vote of 258-169, with all of the chamber's Democrats and 39 Republicans voting in favour.

A landmark bill that will give federal protection to same-sex marriage was passed by the US Congress on Thursday (December 8). The bill was passed after a vote of 258-169, with all of the chamber's Democrats and 39 Republicans voting in favour. On the other hand, 169 of the chamber's Republicans voted against it and one voted "present". President Joe Biden, who vouched for the bill, has promised that he will quickly sign the measure into law. It will be called the Respect for Marriage Act. The bill had won the senate's approval last month with a vote of 61-36. Shortly before the vote, outgoing House Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: "Today this chamber proudly stands with the forces of freedom." Today's vote was needed to reconcile minor differences with the Senate's version. Pelosi tweeted on Thursday, "I began my career fighting for LGBTQ communities and now, one of the final bills that I will sign as Speaker will ensure the federal government never again stands in the way of marrying the person you love." I began my career fighting for LGBTQ communities — and now, one of the final bills that I will sign as Speaker will ensure the federal government never again stands in the way of marrying the person you love. Read my op-ed on the Respect for Marriage Act: https://t.co/UyIE8vJlIG — Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) December 8, 2022 × Join @SenSchumer, Members of @LGBTEqCaucus, advocates and me at the U.S. Capitol to sign the Respect for Marriage Act, a major victory for freedom, dignity and equality by enshrining into federal law marriage equality for same sex and interracial couples. https://t.co/dDlvZiczxd — Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) December 8, 2022 × During the debate, David Cicilline, a Democrat from Rhode Island said, "I urge all those here today who previously voted against this bill to reconsider, be part of history, and join us in voting for its passage today. Today’s vote is a monumental win in the fight LBTQ+ equality but the work does not stop here. We remain the only minority group in America where in a majority of states it still legal to discriminate against us in several key areas of life." Jim Jordan, a Republican from Ohio said, "For years, the Democrats have been playing a dangerous game with the Court. They want Americans to believe that the Court lacks transparency and struggles with its ethics, simply not true. This bill is simply the latest installment of the Democrats campaign to intimidate the highest Court in our land." After the passage of the bill, a 1996 US law called the Defense of Marriage Act will be revoked. It had denied federal benefits to same-sex couples. It bars states from rejecting the validity of out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, race or ethnicity. The Supreme Court in 1967 declared prohibitions on interracial marriage unconstitutional. Now, the new legislation does not require states to legalize same-sex marriage but does require them to recognize a marriage so long as it was valid in the state where it was performed. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

US: Landmark bill to protect same-sex marriage passed by Congress

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday debated a major case pitting LGBT rights. The dispute involves an evangelical Christian web designer who refuses to provide her services for same-sex marriages.

US Supreme Court debates web designer's anti-gay marriage stance

A Japanese court has ruled that the country's decades-old constitution's definition of marriage as something based on "the mutual consent of both sexes" is legal.&nbsp;The Tokyo court, however, added that the country's failure to legally protect same-sex partners creates an "unconstitutional situation".

"The current lack of legal framework that allows same-sex partners to become family is a serious threat and obstacle" to individual dignity and "this creates an unconstitutional situation with regards to clause two of article 24," said the court in its ruling.

Watch |&nbsp;Blow to LGBTQ rights: Japan rules same-sex marriage ban constitutional

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/blow-to-lgbtq-rights-japan-rules-same-sex-marriage-ban-constitutional-538793/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

In March of last year, a court in Sapporo made a similar ruling, while an Osaka court ruling from June of this year deemed that a ban on same-sex marriage was constitutional.&nbsp;

Japan remains the only country in the G7 group of nations that does not allow same-sex marriage.

The ruling comes in a case in which eight people (four same-sex couples) had demanded one million yen ($7,208) each in damages.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/old-school-japan-recognises-same-sex-relationships-530232">Old-school Japan's progressive Tokyo: City recognises same-sex relationships</a>

Even though their demand for damages was rejected, the group hailed the ruling as "a big step forwards".

Chizuka Oe, one of the plaintiffs, as per Reuters, said "There was progress" adding that even though the "judiciary delegated it to the legislature, I hope that the legislature will actively deliberate about it (same-sex marriage)".

Talking to AFP, another person said that the ruling "went as far as to criticise the lack of a legal system that allows same-sex couples to become family."

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-passes-the-respect-for-marriage-act-protecting-same-sex-marriages-know-all-about-it-and-its-history-538761">US Senate passes the Respect for Marriage Act protecting same-sex marriages, know all about it and its history</a>

"But an 'unconstitutional situation' is more nuanced than an outright declaration of unconstitutionality, which is a bit disappointing," they added.

In recent years, Japan which is a country deeply rooted in traditional values has taken small steps towards embracing sexual diversity. Early last month, the country's capital Japan even started issuing partnership certificates to LGBTQ couples. While these certificates do not confer the same legal rights as marriage, it is still a welcome development for couples who previously lacked official documentation of their relationship.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

A Japanese court has ruled that the country's decades-old constitution's definition of marriage as something based on "the mutual consent of both sexes" is legal.

A Japanese court has ruled that the country's decades-old constitution's definition of marriage as something based on "the mutual consent of both sexes" is legal. The Tokyo court, however, added that the country's failure to legally protect same-sex partners creates an "unconstitutional situation". "The current lack of legal framework that allows same-sex partners to become family is a serious threat and obstacle" to individual dignity and "this creates an unconstitutional situation with regards to clause two of article 24," said the court in its ruling. Watch | Blow to LGBTQ rights: Japan rules same-sex marriage ban constitutional In March of last year, a court in Sapporo made a similar ruling, while an Osaka court ruling from June of this year deemed that a ban on same-sex marriage was constitutional. Japan remains the only country in the G7 group of nations that does not allow same-sex marriage. The ruling comes in a case in which eight people (four same-sex couples) had demanded one million yen ($7,208) each in damages. Also read | Old-school Japan's progressive Tokyo: City recognises same-sex relationships Even though their demand for damages was rejected, the group hailed the ruling as "a big step forwards". Chizuka Oe, one of the plaintiffs, as per Reuters, said "There was progress" adding that even though the "judiciary delegated it to the legislature, I hope that the legislature will actively deliberate about it (same-sex marriage)". Talking to AFP, another person said that the ruling "went as far as to criticise the lack of a legal system that allows same-sex couples to become family." Also read | US Senate passes the Respect for Marriage Act protecting same-sex marriages, know all about it and its history "But an 'unconstitutional situation' is more nuanced than an outright declaration of unconstitutionality, which is a bit disappointing," they added. In recent years, Japan which is a country deeply rooted in traditional values has taken small steps towards embracing sexual diversity. Early last month, the country's capital Japan even started issuing partnership certificates to LGBTQ couples. While these certificates do not confer the same legal rights as marriage, it is still a welcome development for couples who previously lacked official documentation of their relationship. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Tokyo court upholds gay marriage ban, but says same-sex partners face "unconstitutional situation"

In a landmark decision, the US Senate passed a bill on Tuesday to protect same-sex marriage as the house senate voted 61-36 for the Respect for Marriage Act.

US Senate passes landmark vote to protect same-sex marriage

Days after the popular children's TV show Peppa Pig made history by introducing its first same-sex couple, an Italian political leader demanded an immediate ban on the cartoon series.

Days after the popular children's TV show Peppa Pig made history by introducing its first same-sex couple, an Italian political leader demanded an immediate ban on the cartoon series. Reportedly, Federico Mollicone, a senior leader of Brothers of Italy, a far-right Italian political party, stated that it would be 'unacceptable' to air the episode in Italy and appealed to the state broadcaster 'Rai' to ban the same. “We cannot accept gender indoctrination. Once again the politically correct has struck, at the expense of our children. Can’t children just be children?” said Mollicone. “We ask Rai, which buys the rights to the Peppa Pig series in Italy with a fee from all Italians, not to broadcast the episode in question on any channel or web platform,” he further added. It is pertinent to note that Mollicone's party is touted to win the upcoming elections. Giorgia Meloni, the top leader of Brothers of Italy is against same-sex parenting as well as marriage. Thus, even if the state broadcasters do not remove the episode right away, it would be taken off when the party assumes power. The episode has already aired in the UK As reported by WION, an episode titled 'Families' aired for the first time in the UK on Tuesday, showed two co-parenting same-sex polar bears. It was for the first time in the show's 18-year long history that an LGTBQ+ couple had found a mention. "I'm Penny Polar Bear. I live with my mummy and my other mummy. One mummy is a doctor and one mummy cooks spaghetti. I love spaghetti," announces Penny. Read more: Peppa Pig creates history as it introduces its first same-sex couple Peppa Pig, which debuted on TV in May 2004, is one of the TV shows most watched by pre-schoolers worldwide. The show is about the titular characters enjoying day-to-day activities. The series also includes Peppa's friends, Suzi Sheep and Danny Dog and Penny Polar Bear. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

Italian politician demands ban on Peppa Pig episode showing same-sex couple

The US Supreme Court decision ending the right to abortion established by Roe Vs Wade in 1973 has put other hard-won rights at risk, including the rights to same-sex marriage and contraception. Could same-sex marriage go the way of abortion? Molly Gambhir tells you.

WION Fineprint | Could Same-Sex Marriage Go the Way of Abortion?

Thailand took a step towards marriage equality Wednesday as lawmakers gave initial approval to legalising same-sex unions, prompting celebrations outside the parliament building.

It is a significant landmark in a Buddhist-majority country with a highly visible LGBTQ community but whose members still face major barriers and discrimination.

The legislation must clear several more hurdles before becoming law. If it succeeds, Thailand would be the first country in Southeast Asia to recognise same sex unions.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/thai-opposition-files-no-confidence-motion-against-flawed-pm-488416">Thai opposition files no-confidence motion against 'flawed' PM</a>

The lower house approved two bills that would allow same-sex marriages and also two others that would permit civil partnerships.

A committee of lawmakers will now scrutinise the bills in detail and consolidate them into two proposals, to give MPs a choice between backing civil partnerships and full same-sex marriage.

After the vote a small but enthusiastic group of activists celebrated noisily outside parliament, weeping, hugging and waving rainbow flags.

"I am very happy and glad, it is a good sign in Pride month that there are MPs who want equality and vote for the bills," LGBTQ activist Nada Chaiyajit told AFP.

"But there is a long way to go."

Watch |&nbsp;Thailand legalises cannabis – What does this mean? Are there restrictions on use?

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/thailand-legalises-cannabis-what-does-this-mean-are-there-restrictions-on-use-486727/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Pita Limjaroenrat, the leader of the opposition Move Forward Party which proposed one of the same-sex marriage bills, said the vote should give people hope.

"Today is an answer that politics is possible here in Thailand," Pita told the celebrating activists outside parliament.&nbsp;

"No matter who you are, there is a place for you in this country."

Demands for marriage equality were a theme at Bangkok's Pride parade earlier this month the Thai capital's first such event in nearly 16 years.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/thailand-giving-away-one-million-marijuana-plants-to-develop-as-cash-crop-486934">Thailand giving away one million marijuana plants to develop as cash crop</a>

Ryan Figueiredo, executive director of LGBT rights campaign group the Equal Asia Foundation, welcomed the vote but warned "there is a lot of work to be done on the ground in terms of moving the needle of public opinion and also talking to parliamentarians."

Figueiredo also urged the Thai parliament to back full marriage.

"Civil partnerships are not equal to marriage equality, it creates an entire different class of people," he told AFP.&nbsp;

"Civil partnerships seem like a consolation prize."

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

Thailand took a step towards marriage equality Wednesday as lawmakers gave initial approval to legalising same-sex unions, prompting celebrations outside the parliament building.

Thailand took a step towards marriage equality Wednesday as lawmakers gave initial approval to legalising same-sex unions, prompting celebrations outside the parliament building. It is a significant landmark in a Buddhist-majority country with a highly visible LGBTQ community but whose members still face major barriers and discrimination. The legislation must clear several more hurdles before becoming law. If it succeeds, Thailand would be the first country in Southeast Asia to recognise same sex unions. Also read | Thai opposition files no-confidence motion against 'flawed' PM The lower house approved two bills that would allow same-sex marriages and also two others that would permit civil partnerships. A committee of lawmakers will now scrutinise the bills in detail and consolidate them into two proposals, to give MPs a choice between backing civil partnerships and full same-sex marriage. After the vote a small but enthusiastic group of activists celebrated noisily outside parliament, weeping, hugging and waving rainbow flags. "I am very happy and glad, it is a good sign in Pride month that there are MPs who want equality and vote for the bills," LGBTQ activist Nada Chaiyajit told AFP. "But there is a long way to go." Watch | Thailand legalises cannabis – What does this mean? Are there restrictions on use? Pita Limjaroenrat, the leader of the opposition Move Forward Party which proposed one of the same-sex marriage bills, said the vote should give people hope. "Today is an answer that politics is possible here in Thailand," Pita told the celebrating activists outside parliament. "No matter who you are, there is a place for you in this country." Demands for marriage equality were a theme at Bangkok's Pride parade earlier this month the Thai capital's first such event in nearly 16 years. Also read | Thailand giving away one million marijuana plants to develop as cash crop Ryan Figueiredo, executive director of LGBT rights campaign group the Equal Asia Foundation, welcomed the vote but warned "there is a lot of work to be done on the ground in terms of moving the needle of public opinion and also talking to parliamentarians." Figueiredo also urged the Thai parliament to back full marriage. "Civil partnerships are not equal to marriage equality, it creates an entire different class of people," he told AFP. "Civil partnerships seem like a consolation prize." WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Thailand takes step towards same-sex marriage with parliament vote

Chile's Javier Silva and Jaime Nazar became the first two men to tie the knot in the South American country's history after a law allowing same-sex marriage went into effect.

Chile's first gay couple weds

Lawmakers in Chile on Tuesday legalized same-sex marriage, a landmark victory for gay rights activists that underscores how profoundly the country’s politics and society have shifted in the past decade.

By overwhelming majorities in both chambers, lawmakers put the unions of same-sex couples on par with others, making Chile the 31st nation to allow same-sex marriage and taking a significant step toward consolidating it as the norm in Latin America.

President Sebastían Piñera, a longtime opponent of same-sex marriage, startled the political establishment in June by coming out in favor of such unions. He urged Congress to prioritize passing a bill that had languished for years, ensuring the legislation will be among the last achievements of a turbulent presidency.

The measure will be signed into law at the final stretch of Chile’s presidential race, in which the leading candidates are bitterly at odds on a vast array of issues, including same-sex marriage.

While the movement for same-sex marriage has advanced slowly in much of the world in recent years, the vast majority of Latin Americans now live in countries where those unions are legal. In some large nations, including Brazil and Mexico, the right has been conferred by the courts.

The fight to extend the right to marriage to same-sex couples in Chile began in September 2010, when César Peralta and Hans Arias, a couple who were raising two children, walked into a government office in Santiago and asked to be married, knowing full well their request would be denied.

It was the first salvo of a legal battle that unfolded for more than a decade before judges at home and abroad.

Chile’s new law will enable same-sex parents to have parental rights over the biological or adopted children of a spouse and creates standard rules on inheritance and other financial matters.

Peralta and Arias split up in 2014. But Peralta said the dissolution of the relationship does not make Tuesday’s victory any less significant. While they were in the public spotlight, the couple endured ridicule and criticism, including from Chileans who said they should not be allowed to raise Peralta’s two biological children.

“I’m proud of what I’ve done,” he said. “I confronted people who said the state should take away my children.”

Lawmakers in Chile on Tuesday legalized same-sex marriage, a landmark victory for gay rights activists that underscores how profoundly the country’s politics and society have shifted in the past decade.

Lawmakers in Chile on Tuesday legalized same-sex marriage, a landmark victory for gay rights activists that underscores how profoundly the country’s politics and society have shifted in the past decade. By overwhelming majorities in both chambers, lawmakers put the unions of same-sex couples on par with others, making Chile the 31st nation to allow same-sex marriage and taking a significant step toward consolidating it as the norm in Latin America. President Sebastían Piñera, a longtime opponent of same-sex marriage, startled the political establishment in June by coming out in favor of such unions. He urged Congress to prioritize passing a bill that had languished for years, ensuring the legislation will be among the last achievements of a turbulent presidency. The measure will be signed into law at the final stretch of Chile’s presidential race, in which the leading candidates are bitterly at odds on a vast array of issues, including same-sex marriage. While the movement for same-sex marriage has advanced slowly in much of the world in recent years, the vast majority of Latin Americans now live in countries where those unions are legal. In some large nations, including Brazil and Mexico, the right has been conferred by the courts. The fight to extend the right to marriage to same-sex couples in Chile began in September 2010, when César Peralta and Hans Arias, a couple who were raising two children, walked into a government office in Santiago and asked to be married, knowing full well their request would be denied. It was the first salvo of a legal battle that unfolded for more than a decade before judges at home and abroad. Chile’s new law will enable same-sex parents to have parental rights over the biological or adopted children of a spouse and creates standard rules on inheritance and other financial matters. Peralta and Arias split up in 2014. But Peralta said the dissolution of the relationship does not make Tuesday’s victory any less significant. While they were in the public spotlight, the couple endured ridicule and criticism, including from Chileans who said they should not be allowed to raise Peralta’s two biological children. “I’m proud of what I’ve done,” he said. “I confronted people who said the state should take away my children.”

Chile legalises same-sex marriage at fraught political moment

Switzerland agreed to legalise civil marriage and the right to adopt children for same-sex couples by a nearly two-thirds majority in a referendum on Sunday, making it one of the last countries in Western Europe to legalise gay marriage.

Switzerland votes to make same-sex marriage legal by near two-thirds majority

Havana's main avenue on Monday saw a rainbow flag draped over a government building as lawmakers prepared a new code that could allow same-sex marriage in Cuba.

Gay pride flag unfurled on Cuban gov't building for first time