Five years after decriminalising homosexuality, the Supreme Court continues to hear arguments over whether or not to permit same-sex marriage on a daily basis. It has been criticised by the Centre as an “urban elite concept.” The Supreme Court, on the other hand, maintains that there is no objective definition of what a man or woman is and that gender is far more nuanced than one’s genitalia.
The hearing which started on the 18th of April has gathered support, ire and chaos from people across the nation. Twitter is filled with members of the queer community and allies expressing solidarity that the right to marry should be legalised. While this is an important hearing for the queer community, I find our obsession with this a little unnerving, if not jarring.
While having this conversation with a friend of mine, they said, “it [marriage equality] will achieve the result for a specific group of queer people who will then immediately be de-radicalised.” I couldn’t help but agree because I am strongly of the opinion that this right will permeate only to upper-class, upper-caste people who will then forget the very essence of how their identity is against majoritarian politics. For example, will queer people continue to be motivated to fight for their trans comrades? Will we show an equal amount of enthusiasm for Dalit queer people when they demand for rights? What this is doing is making a group of queer people think their fight is won because they can be accepted by society.
My Thoughts As A Queer Woman
I am a queer woman who has had the privilege to access active spaces of protest which nurtured and shaped my politics. I understand how this does not come easy for a lot of people my age. But I do want to point out how conversations around marriage equality are mostly guided by upper caste, upper class queer folks who fail to point out the oppressive nature of this structure.
Marriage is an inherently casteist social system. In a paper named ‘Marry for What? Caste and Mate Selection in Modern India,’ the authors conduct interviews with 783 families that posted newspaper matrimonial ads in a major Bengali newspaper. About 50% of the sample lives or works in Kolkata, and just under half believe their family is from West Bengal.
According to the authors’ estimates, the bride’s side would be willing to trade off the difference between a prospective husband having no education and one who has a master’s degree in order to avoid getting married outside of their caste. They discovered evidence for very strong own-caste preferences for men as well. The own caste effect is twice the effect of the difference between a self-described “very beautiful” woman and a self-described “decent-looking” one.
Queerness cannot be an identity exclusive of caste. My question to the queer community then is, where does our politics lie? Is it very individualistic in nature where we think of our own lives separate from the community? What happens to community support and love then? What happens to community solidarity? I fully agree with the intent behind celebrating it. But we are going out of our way to say that queer relationships are valid now because the state is sanctioning it.
A friend of mine, Aaron* says, “On the whole, I'm feeling quite hopeful about the verdict. At the same time, I have thought about whether I want to become a part of the norm that discriminates against me. As in the idea of a conjugal marriage and the resultant family is what marginalises queer people in a significant way, doesn't it?”
This also prompts me to ask the question, why is the queer community not urging the state to recognise civil partnership instead of marriage. If we are aware of the oppressive structure that marriage brings with it, why do we want to be included in the same? Are we then saying that marriage is the marker that we should all aspire to?
An Important Judgment But Are We Forgetting Something
The right to marriage is definitely an important right for us to have. But is it a right that is imperative for us to liberate ourselves? I don’t think so. Queerness as a political identity cannot be separate from the intersections that lie within it. Let me explain. I am an upper caste queer woman. I am in a relationship which passes as heterosexual. I have the privilege of access to resources and not worry about my survival on an everyday basis. But is that the case for a Dalit queer person? Here comes the intersectionality of caste within queerness. A Dalit queer person has to face discrimination for their identity as a queer person and as someone who belongs to a marginalised caste group.
Similarly, for trans people within the queer community, marriage equality does not seem to be the number one concern for their livelihood. While majority of us are ardently following the Supreme Court hearing, the Chennai police have been violently detaining and clamping down on trans folks demanding horizontal reservation. Grace Banu, a trans rights and Dalit rights activist writes, “Final hearings on #marriageequality before the Supreme Court, all lgbtqi+ persons are happy and eagerly waiting for the victory. I am disappointed as to why don't you people have this much interest in #Horizontalreservationfortrans , this is also our basic right. This is the privilege of your caste, class and power. #equalityforall”
The provision of distinct reservations inside each vertical SC/ST/OBC/General category under horizontal reservations would cut across all caste groups. This indicates that transgender people would be granted some percentage of ST, SC, OBC, and general merit seats, respectively. Is this not a more integral fight for us as a community?
As cis-queer people, is it really that easy for us to forget that our identities were validated by the fight that was undertaken by trans people of colour, rebelling against a vicious system of shutting down queer identities? While marriage equality definitely provides ease of access to us, it achieves little to nothing for people who are trying to bring ground up change for the community.
A trans friend of mine Rio says, “I understand where a lot of people are coming from. With marriage equality, queer people can legally access buying houses or adopting. But these in itself are privileges that many cannot dream of. I am afraid that with this hearing, conversations around trans rights, discrimination within the community and so on will fade out and we will receive no solidarity in our fight.”
Some Parting Thoughts
I am a very typical product of generation Z. So this may come across as a cynical outlook on something that is a step forward. In no way do I want to shame or not celebrate if we do get the right to marry. But I do want to say that transgression is not a crime. As queer people, we do not need the state to sanction our relationship to validate our identities. As queer people, we do not need to be a part of a social system that is known for oppressing us. I don’t want to celebrate legal proceedings with oppressive undertones based on the thought that this might make things easier for queer people when it won’t.
Being queer and not fitting into the ideal social understanding of what family and union means is not an insult. Our identities are radical, political and deeply insurgent. While I will join the fight for marriage equality, I also want to urge my fellow queers to not forget our fight does not end here. The fight activists are doing right now is the answer to our liberation.
*Name changed to maintain anonymity