OPINIONLEAD

Published:June30,201501:39IST|Updated:June30,201503:01IST
June30,2015

EmulatingtheU.S.srainbowmoment
SUHRITHPARTHASARATHY

AP
ThedecisioninObergefellwillgodownintheannalsasaculminationofdecadesofstrugglebygayrightsactivistsforequaltreatment.Photo
showstheWhiteHouseilluminatedinrainbowcoloursonFriday.
ThelessonsfromthereasoningbehindtheverdictintheU.S.onsamesexmarriage,ifcorrectlyapplied,oughttoreverberateacrossthe
world,includinginIndia,wheregaypeoplearestilldeniedtheirmostbasicfreedoms
InahistoricverdictrenderedonFriday,theU.S.SupremeCourt,throughafivetofourvote,declaredlawsthatprohibitsamesexmarriages
inthecountryasunconstitutional.JusticeAnthonyKennedysopinion,writtenonbehalfofthemajority,isnotonlyevocativelyworded,butit
alsopresentsadazzlingdefenceofhumandignityandindividualautonomy.Thereis,inthe14thAmendmenttotheU.S.Constitution,Justice
KennedywroteinObergefellv.Hodges,animplicitrighttomarry,whichrequiresstatestocompulsorilylicenceamarriagebetweentwo
individualsofthesamesex.
TheopinionisavictoryforcivillibertiesinAmerica,andthelessonsfromitsreasoning,ifcorrectlyapplied,oughtto
reverberateacrosstheworld,includinghereinIndia,wherewecontinuetounconstitutionallyandunconscionably
denygaymen,womenandtransgenderseventheirmostbasicfreedoms.
Righttoequality
ThisdecisioninObergefellwillgodownintheannalsasaculminationofdecadesofstrugglebygayrightsactivistsfor
equaltreatment.Itwasonlyin1986,afterall,inBowersv.Hardwick,thatthecourthadfoundnothingunconstitutional
aboutlawspenalisingconsensualsexbetweenhomosexuals.Toarguethatsodomywasimplicitintheconceptofordered
liberty,asthepetitionersdid,wroteJusticeByronWhiteinBowers,was,atbest,facetious.Ittook17yearsforBowersto
beformallyoverruled(inLawrencev.Texas),but,today,thecourtdeservescreditformoving,inlessthanthreedecades,
fromviewingargumentsinsupportofautonomyofgayindividualsasfrivoloustorecognisingtheirrightstobetreatedas
equalbeings.
Therewere,inall,16petitionersinObergefell,whichincluded14samesexcouplesandtwomen,whosesamesexpartnerswerenow
deceased.TheircasesemanatedfromthestatesofMichigan,Kentucky,OhioandTennessee,eachofwhichrecognisedmarriagesolelyasa
unionbetweenmanandwoman.Thefirstpetitioner,JimObergefell,wantedthestateofOhiotorecognisehimasthesurvivingspouseof
JohnArthur,whomhehadlegallymarriedinMaryland.AsJusticeKennedyrecounted,ObergefellandArthurhadbeeninacommitted
relationshipformorethan20years,whentheydiscovered,in2011,thatArthurwassufferingfromamyotrophiclateralsclerosis(Lou
Gehrigsdisease),whichcausesaprogressivedegenerationofthebody.KnowingthatArthurslifewasinimmediateperil,heandObergefell
decidedtowed,travellingfromOhiotoMaryland,wheresamesexmarriageswerepermitted.Arthursconditionwassopoorthatthe
weddingceremonywasconductedonthetarmacinBaltimore,wherethemedicaltransportplanethathadbroughtArthurwasstationed.
Arthurdiedthreemonthslater,but,inspiteoftheirlawfulmarriage,thestateofOhiorefusedtorecogniseObergefellasArthurssurviving
spouse.
Theotherpetitionsinthecasealsocomprised,asJusticeKennedywrote,equallycompellingstories.Noneofthemrepresented,assomeof
thejusticesintheminoritycontended,anyerosionofsocietalnorms,andallofthemrevealed,withstarkclarity,whythedenialofarightto
marryanindividualofthesamesexstruckatthecoreofonesessentialfreedom.

Ondignityandliberty
The14thAmendmenttotheU.S.Constitution,underwhichtheseappealsultimatelysucceeded,provides,amongotherthings,thatthestate
shallnotdepriveanypersonoflife,liberty,orproperty,withoutdueprocessoflaw,andthatthestateshallnotdenytoanypersonthe
equalprotectionofthelaws.AlthoughJusticeKennedysreasoningisoccasionallyrhetoricalaflourish,whichalbeitreadslyricallyhe
specificallyreliesbothonthedueprocessandtheequalprotectionclausesinrecognisingarighttosamesexmarriage.
Thethrustofhisreasoning,however,liesingivingrecognitiontothefundamentaldignityofgaypeople,andtheirautonomytomakeethical
choicesabouttheirlives,aliberty,whichJusticeKennedywrote,oughttoaccrueequallytoindividualsregardlessoftheirsexuality.
Relyinguponprecedent,Obergefellreiteratedthattherighttomarry,toestablishahomeandtobringupchildrenisprotectedbytheDue
Processclauseofthe14thamendment.Byvirtueoftheirexclusionfromtheinstitutionofmarriage,samesexcouplesaredeniedthe
constellationofbenefitsthattheStateshavelinkedtomarriage,wroteJusticeKennedy.Thisharmresultsinmorethanjustmaterial
burdens.Samesexcouplesareconsignedtoaninstabilitymanyoppositesexcoupleswoulddeemintolerableintheirownlives.Whats
more,indenyingpeoplearighttomarryindividualsofthesamesex,theStatesalsoviolated,inJusticeKennedysopinion,therighttoequal
protectionofthelaws,whichcanhelptoidentifyandcorrectinequalitiesintheinstitutionofmarriage,vindicatingpreceptsoflibertyand
equalityundertheConstitution.
Voiceofdissent
Inasharplyworded,andastonishinglyblinkered,dissentingopinion,JusticeAntoninScaliawrote,TheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates
hasdescendedfromthedisciplinedlegalreasoningofJohnMarshallandJosephStorytothemysticalaphorismsofthefortunecookie.
JusticeKennedysstyle,inJusticeScaliaswords,wasaspretentiousasitscontentisegotistic.Itshardtomisstheirony.JusticeScalias
dissentisvitriolic,constitutingapersonalattackonJusticeKennedy,andisalsoembeddedinauniqueandunjustifiablephilosophyof
textualoriginalism,whichisbackedneitherbytheConstitutionnorbygoodreason.AsJusticeKennedypointedout,ininterpretingthe
EqualProtectionClause,theCourthasrecognizedthatnewinsightsandsocietalunderstandingscanrevealunjustifiedinequalitywithinour
mostfundamentalinstitutionsthatoncepassedunnoticedandunchallenged.
ChiefJusticeRobertshowever,inamoreprincipleddissentingopinionthanJusticeScalias,asksatellingquestion:oughtittobethe
prerogativeofnineunelectedjusticestodeterminewhetherademocraticallyenactedlawviolateswhatintheirnotionconstitutesa
fundamentalright?Tothis,too,JusticeKennedyhasagoodresponse.TheNationscourtsareopentoinjuredindividuals,hewrote,who
cometothemtovindicatetheirowndirect,personalstakeinourbasiccharter.Anindividualcaninvokearighttoconstitutionalprotection
whenheorsheisharmed,evenifthebroaderpublicdisagreesandevenifthelegislaturerefusestoact.Thecourt,heopined,istasked
simplywiththejobofdeterminingalegalquestion:whetherlawsdenyingarighttosamesexmarriageviolatetheConstitution.Theanswer,
inthemajoritysopinion,wasaresoundingyes.
Indiancontext
ThecurveofconstitutionalisminIndianodoubtdifferssignificantlyfromthedevelopmentofAmericanconstitutionallaw.Also,foreign
judgmentsdonotalwayslendthemselveswelltoconstitutionalinterpretation.But,wheretheyarerelevant,andwheregenuineparallelscan
bedrawn,itsalwaysvaluabletoheedtoandtounderstandthereasoningbehindaforeigndecision.Nodoubt,noteveryaspectofJustice
KennedysopinioninObergefellwouldapplyintheIndiancontext.Butareadingofhisdecisionoughttoserveasanimportantreminderof
thedeepdamagewreakedbytheIndianSupremeCourtsdecisioninDecember2013,inSureshKumarKoushalv.NazFoundation.
Here,inajudgmentauthoredbyJusticeG.M.Singhvi,thecourtobduratelydismissedtherelevanceofforeignauthoritiesinupholdingthe
validityofSection377oftheIndianPenalCode,which,amongotherthings,effectivelycriminaliseshomosexualacts.Inwhatturnedouttobe
aharmfulandflawedopinion,therewasnodiscussionwhatsoeveronhowtheIndianConstitutioninsofarasitappliedtoSection377was
differentfromitsAmericanequivalentanditsapplicationtolawsdiscriminatingagainstgaypeople.Wellreasonedargumentsquestioning
theinequalityofaclassificationbasedonsexualityweredismissedwithequalflippancy.Instead,thecourtofferedastrangedeferenceto
supposedparliamentarywisdom.
InObergefell,JusticeKennedyrefutespreciselythekindofundemocraticintransigenceshownbytheIndianSupremeCourtinKoushal.
JusticeKennedypointsoutwhyjudicialreviewinmatterssuchasthis,wherefundamentalrightsareatstake,iscentraltoanapposite
functioningofademocracy.Whatsmore,heforcefullytellsuswhydiscriminationagainsthomosexualsisamatterthattravelstothevery
rootofhumandignity.Thesexualityofanindividualisfundamentaltothepersonsautonomy,anditisanethicalchoicethatgoesbeyonda
realmwherethestatecanlawfullyoperate.
ThesepreceptsareapplicableasmuchtotheguaranteeofequalprotectionundertheIndianConstitutionastheyaretothe14thamendment
ofitsU.S.counterpart.InIndia,muchlikeintheUnitedStates,thepowerofthecourtstojudiciallyreviewactsoflegislaturederivesitself
fromprinciplesofdemocracy,properlyunderstood.Infact,theIndianpeoplehaveadditionallybeenbestowedwithaspecificfundamental
righttoapproachtheSupremeCourtdirectlytoquestionlaws,whichviolatetheirbasicliberties,guaranteedinPartIIIoftheConstitution.
Therefore,itoughttobeamatterofshametousthattheIndianSupremeCourt,inKoushal,chosetodismississuesofsuchgrave
constitutionalconcernwithfacileneglect.
WhenthecourtultimatelyhearsacurativepetitionfiledagainstitsdecisioninKoushal,itmustreflectprofoundlyontheconcernsthat
JusticeKennedysopinioninObergefellhighlights.ItmustseektounderstandwhySection377disturbschoices,whicharecentraltothe
personallibertyexpresslyguaranteedbyourConstitution.Itmustregard,withgreatestrespect,theprotection,whichourConstitution
providestogaypersons,ofarighttobetreatedasequalindividuals.
(SuhrithParthasarathyisanadvocatepractisingattheMadrasHighCourt).
Printableversion|Jul2,20158:20:24AM|http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/emulatingtheussrainbow
moment/article7368040.ece
TheHindu