Dear Shrikant, There are two ways to look at marriage. A book written some years back by E J Graff, my activist friend from Brandeis Women's Studies Research Center, USA, called "What Is Marriage For? The Strange Social History of our Most Intimate Institution"* (Publisher*: Beacon Press; *ISBN*: 0807041157) may give you a very good idea about what is being spoken of here. If you can lay your hand on that book, I would suggest that you read it to really have a clearer perspective on the issue. You can also read a review of the book at http://atheism.about.com/od/bookreviews/fr/WhatMarriageFor.htm
The first is marriage as a social institution that gives you social recognition amongst your society and peers as a 'couple'. To undergo this marriage you may perform a ceremony where you call your society and peers as witness, and undertake such vows of commitment to each other as you deem fit, before this witness crowd. Undertaking such a ceremony may also give you the social endorsement, personal validation, and the support to fructify such commitments. The nature of such a ceremony may be secular, namely where you execute the vows without reference to any god or religious authority; OR, it could be religious, where you invite a supportive religious priest or interceeder who performs a ceremony that is witnessed by those gathered and thereby makes you married. The Second is marraige as a legal institution. This becomes possible only when the law where the parties to the marriage reside or get married in recognise the validity of such a marriage. Once the law recognises a marriage, it also creates certain legally binding responsibilities between the parties and creates certain rights that the parties have between each other and jointly have against the world as a couple. Rights and responsibilities between the parties may include things like inheriting the propoerty of the married partner, getting insurance and spousal benefits from the job of the partner, the right to divorce and seek maintanence, etc. Rights of the married couple against the world may include things like seeking joint tax benefits, not being compelled to testify against the partner, protection of communication between the partners from use in public, getting joint adoption and custody rights, etc. I am presuming that you are male and when you say you wish to get married to your partner, you mean your male partner and that you are both based in India. What I say henceforth are based on that presumption. If it is the first kind of marriage that you wish to have, there is nothing that can and will stop you from doing it. Please go right ahead. Find a priest or a secular notary who will preside over the ceremony. Invite friends and peers, and have your commitment ceremonised before such witnesses. But be clear that you will only be doing this for your own satisfaction and that in the eye of the law, your marriage would have no meaning. The law cannot stop you from going through such a ceremon and getting married in such a manner. But the law will not grant you any privileges or rights either. It would only have pure social significance within your community and nothing else. If it is the second type of marriage you want, then I am sorry to say that it is not possible in India at the moment, and given the fact that most of the energies of activists are focused on getting the 377 case through the Supreme Court, focusing on marriage will not be on activists agenda for a significant amount of time. Also many activists, myself included, are convinced that we should not focus on marriage at all at this stage for that would jeopardise our case before the SC and would give ammunition to those ranged against us. We feel that we should deal with marriage at the appropriate time after decriminalisation is confirmed by the SC and not before that. There are some who disagree, and are welcome to take any action they feel they need to take, but I feel that when I say that marriage should not be the focus at the moment, I am speaking of the larger consensus amongst the LGBT people and activists. I, personally am not convinced that someone should get married just for the show of it, unless it actually confers legal benefits and is recognised by the law. I feel that such a marriage without legal validity is really a waste of time, and everything that such a marriage signifies by way of commitments, can easily be achieved without the public show, by mutual understanding between the partners. So I have laid out the options (or the lack of it) that you face. From here on it is your choice to make. I wish you will have the wisdom to choose correctly. I wish you all the best. Aditya Bondyopadhyay PS: I take it back, don't try Prashant, its likely to be disastrous.... On 4 March 2010 18:20, Shrikant Kanchar <shrikantkanc...@rocketmail.com>wrote: > > > hello > mr.adi & sanjay i just wana suggetion not a comment so please try to make > happy someone,and by the way of m the meaning of partner is different.....& > i think u both r responsibale person so hert someone who wana u r help,& if > anyone have prroblem with my this thinking then try to discus as per there > level no need to publish it.... > > thanks > > --- On *Thu, 4/3/10, Sanjay Lulla <sanjay_lulla2...@yahoo.com>* wrote: > > > From: Sanjay Lulla <sanjay_lulla2...@yahoo.com> > > Subject: Re: g_b FW: Marriage of Convenience > To: gay_bombay@yahoogroups.com > Date: Thursday, 4 March, 2010, 5:58 AM > > > what is this partner, Shrikant? > All marriages are for mutual convenience. Someone for company to look after > each other listen to talk to. Be together thru thick and thin sickness and > health. If you both agree and are convinced to this then whats the necessity > to gather the whole world and do some tamasha of rituals that have no > meaning? Meeting of the souls is true marraige. I can know when the one I > love is going to sneez or cough or is in pain or bliss. > > You mail is ambiguous please be clear. > God Bless > > little prince-Sanjay N Lulla > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Aditya Bondyopadhyay <adit.b...@gmail. com> > *To:* gay_bom...@yahoogro ups.com > > *Sent:* Wed, March 3, 2010 11:27:37 PM > *Subject:* Re: g_b FW: Marriage of Convenience > > > Try Prashant.... .. > > On 3 March 2010 16:56, Shrikant Kanchar <shrikantkanchar@ rocketmail. > com<http://in.mc957.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=shrikantkanc...@rocketmail.com> > > wrote: > >> >> he all >> >> i wana mary with my partneer can someone help m >> >> ------------------------------ >> The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! >> Homepage<http://in.rd.yahoo.com/tagline_yyi_1/*http://in.yahoo.com/>. >> >> > > > > -- > Do not print this mail unless really necessary. > Save paper, save trees..!! > > If you loose your way while SCUBA diving, the safest direction to head for > is UP..!!! > > > ------------------------------ > The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! > Homepage<http://in.rd.yahoo.com/tagline_yyi_1/*http://in.yahoo.com/> > . > > -- Do not print this mail unless really necessary. Save paper, save trees..!! If you loose your way while SCUBA diving, the safest direction to head for is UP..!!!
