emulating the u.s

OPINIONLEADPublished:June30,201501:39IST|Updated:June30,201503:01ISTJune30,2015EmulatingtheU.S.srainbowmomentSUHRITHPARTHASARATHYAPThedecisioninObergefellwillgodownintheannalsasaculminationofdecadesofstrugglebygayrightsactivistsforequaltreatment.PhotoshowstheWhiteHouseilluminatedinrainbowcoloursonFriday.ThelessonsfromthereasoningbehindtheverdictintheU.S.onsamesexmarriage,ifcorrectlyapplied,oughttoreverberateacrosstheworld,includinginIndia,wheregaypeoplearestilldeniedtheirmostbasicfreedomsInahistoricverdictrenderedonFriday,theU.S.SupremeCourt,throughafivetofourvote,declaredlawsthatprohibitsamesexmarriagesinthecountryasunconstitutional.JusticeAnthonyKennedysopinion,writtenonbehalfofthemajority,isnotonlyevocativelyworded,butitalsopresentsadazzlingdefenceofhumandignityandindividualautonomy.Thereis,inthe14thAmendmenttotheU.S.Constitution,JusticeKennedywroteinObergefellv.Hodges,animplicitrighttomarry,whichrequiresstatestocompulsorilylicenceamarriagebetweentwoindividualsofthesamesex.TheopinionisavictoryforcivillibertiesinAmerica,andthelessonsfromitsreasoning,ifcorrectlyapplied,oughttoreverberateacrosstheworld,includinghereinIndia,wherewecontinuetounconstitutionallyandunconscionablydenygaymen,womenandtransgenderseventheirmostbasicfreedoms.RighttoequalityThisdecisioninObergefellwillgodownintheannalsasaculminationofdecadesofstrugglebygayrightsactivistsforequaltreatment.Itwasonlyin1986,afterall,inBowersv.Hardwick,thatthecourthadfoundnothingunconstitutionalaboutlawspenalisingconsensualsexbetweenhomosexuals.Toarguethatsodomywasimplicitintheconceptoforderedliberty,asthepetitionersdid,wroteJusticeByronWhiteinBowers,was,atbest,facetious.Ittook17yearsforBowerstobeformallyoverruled(inLawrencev.Texas),but,today,thecourtdeservescreditformoving,inlessthanthreedecades,fromviewingargumentsinsupportofautonomyofgayindividualsasfrivoloustorecognisingtheirrightstobetreatedasequalbeings.Therewere,inall,16petitionersinObergefell,whichincluded14samesexcouplesandtwomen,whosesamesexpartnerswerenowdeceased.TheircasesemanatedfromthestatesofMichigan,Kentucky,OhioandTennessee,eachofwhichrecognisedmarriagesolelyasaunionbetweenmanandwoman.Thefirstpetitioner,JimObergefell,wantedthestateofOhiotorecognisehimasthesurvivingspouseofJohnArthur,whomhehadlegallymarriedinMaryland.AsJusticeKennedyrecounted,ObergefellandArthurhadbeeninacommittedrelationshipformorethan20years,whentheydiscovered,in2011,thatArthurwassufferingfromamyotrophiclateralsclerosis(LouGehrigsdisease),whichcausesaprogressivedegenerationofthebody.KnowingthatArthurslifewasinimmediateperil,heandObergefelldecidedtowed,travellingfromOhiotoMaryland,wheresamesexmarriageswerepermitted.ArthursconditionwassopoorthattheweddingceremonywasconductedonthetarmacinBaltimore,wherethemedicaltransportplanethathadbroughtArthurwasstationed.Arthurdiedthreemonthslater,but,inspiteoftheirlawfulmarriage,thestateofOhiorefusedtorecogniseObergefellasArthurssurvivingspouse.Theotherpetitionsinthecasealsocomprised,asJusticeKennedywrote,equallycompellingstories.Noneofthemrepresented,assomeofthejusticesintheminoritycontended,anyerosionofsocietalnorms,andallofthemrevealed,withstarkclarity,whythedenialofarighttomarryanindividualofthesamesexstruckatthecoreofonesessentialfreedom.OndignityandlibertyThe14thAmendmenttotheU.S.Constitution,underwhichtheseappealsultimatelysucceeded,provides,amongotherthings,thatthestateshallnotdepriveanypersonoflife,liberty,orproperty,withoutdueprocessoflaw,andthatthestateshallnotdenytoanypersontheequalprotectionofthelaws.AlthoughJusticeKennedysreasoningisoccasionallyrhetoricalaflourish,whichalbeitreadslyricallyhespecificallyreliesbothonthedueprocessandtheequalprotectionclausesinrecognisingarighttosamesexmarriage.Thethrustofhisreasoning,however,liesingivingrecognitiontothefundamentaldignityofgaypeople,andtheirautonomytomakeethicalchoicesabouttheirlives,aliberty,whichJusticeKennedywrote,oughttoaccrueequallytoindividualsregardlessoftheirsexuality.Relyinguponprecedent,Obergefellreiteratedthattherighttomarry,toestablishahomeandtobringupchildrenisprotectedbytheDueProcessclauseofthe14thamendment.Byvirtueoftheirexclusionfromtheinstitutionofmarriage,samesexcouplesaredeniedtheconstellationofbenefitsthattheStateshavelinkedtomarriage,wroteJusticeKennedy.Thisharmresultsinmorethanjustmaterialburdens.Samesexcouplesareconsignedtoaninstabilitymanyoppositesexcoupleswoulddeemintolerableintheirownlives.Whatsmore,indenyingpeoplearighttomarryindividualsofthesamesex,theStatesalsoviolated,inJusticeKennedysopinion,therighttoequalprotectionofthelaws,whichcanhelptoidentifyandcorrectinequalitiesintheinstitutionofmarriage,vindicatingpreceptsoflibertyandequalityundertheConstitution.VoiceofdissentInasharplyworded,andastonishinglyblinkered,dissentingopinion,JusticeAntoninScaliawrote,TheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStateshasdescendedfromthedisciplinedlegalreasoningofJohnMarshallandJosephStorytothemysticalaphorismsofthefortunecookie.JusticeKennedysstyle,inJusticeScaliaswords,wasaspretentiousasitscontentisegotistic.Itshardtomisstheirony.JusticeScaliasdissentisvitriolic,constitutingapersonalattackonJusticeKennedy,andisalsoembeddedinauniqueandunjustifiablephilosophyoftextualoriginalism,whichisbackedneitherbytheConstitutionnorbygoodreason.AsJusticeKennedypointedout,ininterpretingtheEqualProtectionClause,theCourthasrecognizedthatnewinsightsandsocietalunderstandingscanrevealunjustifiedinequalitywithinourmostfundamentalinstitutionsthatoncepassedunnoticedandunchallenged.ChiefJusticeRobertshowever,inamoreprincipleddissentingopinionthanJusticeScalias,asksatellingquestion:oughtittobetheprerogativeofnineunelectedjusticestodeterminewhetherademocraticallyenactedlawviolateswhatintheirnotionconstitutesafundamentalright?Tothis,too,JusticeKennedyhasagoodresponse.TheNationscourtsareopentoinjuredindividuals,hewrote,whocometothemtovindicatetheirowndirect,personalstakeinourbasiccharter.Anindividualcaninvokearighttoconstitutionalprotectionwhenheorsheisharmed,evenifthebroaderpublicdisagreesandevenifthelegislaturerefusestoact.Thecourt,heopined,istaskedsimplywiththejobofdeterminingalegalquestion:whetherlawsdenyingarighttosamesexmarriageviolatetheConstitution.Theanswer,inthemajoritysopinion,wasaresoundingyes.IndiancontextThecurveofconstitutionalisminIndianodoubtdifferssignificantlyfromthedevelopmentofAmericanconstitutionallaw.Also,foreignjudgmentsdonotalwayslendthemselveswelltoconstitutionalinterpretation.But,wheretheyarerelevant,andwheregenuineparallelscanbedrawn,itsalwaysvaluabletoheedtoandtounderstandthereasoningbehindaforeigndecision.Nodoubt,noteveryaspectofJusticeKennedysopinioninObergefellwouldapplyintheIndiancontext.ButareadingofhisdecisionoughttoserveasanimportantreminderofthedeepdamagewreakedbytheIndianSupremeCourtsdecisioninDecember2013,inSureshKumarKoushalv.NazFoundation.Here,inajudgmentauthoredbyJusticeG.M.Singhvi,thecourtobduratelydismissedtherelevanceofforeignauthoritiesinupholdingthevalidityofSection377oftheIndianPenalCode,which,amongotherthings,effectivelycriminaliseshomosexualacts.Inwhatturnedouttobeaharmfulandflawedopinion,therewasnodiscussionwhatsoeveronhowtheIndianConstitutioninsofarasitappliedtoSection377wasdifferentfromitsAmericanequivalentanditsapplicationtolawsdiscriminatingagainstgaypeople.Wellreasonedargumentsquestioningtheinequalityofaclassificationbasedonsexualityweredismissedwithequalflippancy.Instead,thecourtofferedastrangedeferencetosupposedparliamentarywisdom.InObergefell,JusticeKennedyrefutespreciselythekindofundemocraticintransigenceshownbytheIndianSupremeCourtinKoushal.JusticeKennedypointsoutwhyjudicialreviewinmatterssuchasthis,wherefundamentalrightsareatstake,iscentraltoanappositefunctioningofademocracy.Whatsmore,heforcefullytellsuswhydiscriminationagainsthomosexualsisamatterthattravelstotheveryrootofhumandignity.Thesexualityofanindividualisfundamentaltothepersonsautonomy,anditisanethicalchoicethatgoesbeyondarealmwherethestatecanlawfullyoperate.ThesepreceptsareapplicableasmuchtotheguaranteeofequalprotectionundertheIndianConstitutionastheyaretothe14thamendmentofitsU.S.counterpart.InIndia,muchlikeintheUnitedStates,thepowerofthecourtstojudiciallyreviewactsoflegislaturederivesitselffromprinciplesofdemocracy,properlyunderstood.Infact,theIndianpeoplehaveadditionallybeenbestowedwithaspecificfundamentalrighttoapproachtheSupremeCourtdirectlytoquestionlaws,whichviolatetheirbasicliberties,guaranteedinPartIIIoftheConstitution.Therefore,itoughttobeamatterofshametousthattheIndianSupremeCourt,inKoushal,chosetodismississuesofsuchgraveconstitutionalconcernwithfacileneglect.WhenthecourtultimatelyhearsacurativepetitionfiledagainstitsdecisioninKoushal,itmustreflectprofoundlyontheconcernsthatJusticeKennedysopinioninObergefellhighlights.ItmustseektounderstandwhySection377disturbschoices,whicharecentraltothepersonallibertyexpresslyguaranteedbyourConstitution.Itmustregard,withgreatestrespect,theprotection,whichourConstitutionprovidestogaypersons,ofarighttobetreatedasequalindividuals.(SuhrithParthasarathyisanadvocatepractisingattheMadrasHighCourt).Printableversion|Jul2,20158:20:24AM|http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/emulatingtheussrainbowmoment/article7368040.eceTheHindu