The Indian Psychiatric Society and the Delhi Commission for Protection Of Child Rights (DCPCR) have come out in support of marriage equality for the LGBTQIA+ community. Their statements have come days after 21 retired High Court judges wrote an open letter that said that legalising same-sex marriage will have negative consequences over the children adopted by such couples. The Union government also said that the “psychology of the child” of same-sex couples should be evaluated.
In a statement released on April 3, the Indian Psychiatric Society said that discrimination of LGBTQIA+ individuals might lead to mental health issues. Recalling that the society had, in 2018, supported the decriminalisation of section 377 of the Indian Penal Code asserting that sexuality is not an illness, they said that they are reiterating their stand that LGBTQIA+ individuals have to be treated like any citizen of the country. “A citizen can enjoy all civil rights like education, employment, housing, income, government or military service, access to health care, property rights, marriage, adoption, survivorship benefits to name a few. There is no evidence to indicate that individuals on the LGBTQIA+ spectrum cannot partake in any of the above. On the contrary, discrimination which prevents the above may lead to mental health issues,” the statement said.
“The Indian Psychiatric Society is very cognizant that a child adopted into a same-gendered family may face challenges, stigma, and/or discrimination along the way. It is imperative that, once legalised, parents in the LGBTQIA+ spectrum bring up the children in a gender neutral, unbiased environment. It is also of utmost importance that the family, community, school, and society in general, are sensitised to protect and promote the development of such a child, and prevent stigma and discrimination at any cost,” the statement further read.
Last week, the DCPCR filed an intervention petition at the apex court in the marriage equality case, with the stated aim of offering its professional expertise to assist the court on the question whether “same-sex marriages have an impact upon the rights of children.” DCPCR said that they came forward to file the application as the rights of same-sex couples to marry and constitute a family have a direct bearing upon the rights of children who may become members of such families.
In the application, DCPCR elaborated on the concerns around the psychological impact on children who are brought up in same-sex households and the impact of the legalisation of same-sex marriage upon the statutory framework. It also addressed the importance of legal recognition of same-sex marriage with regard to the opportunity for children to grow up in a non-discriminatory environment in general.
Stating that there was no evidence to show that same-sex couples are unfit to be parents or that the psychosocial development among children of same-sex couples is compromised, DCPCR submitted that “the sexual orientation of a child’s parents – and whether the child is brought up by a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple – has no bearing upon their emotional development or psychosocial growth.” They also cited multiple studies in several countries to prove the point.
Speaking about adoption and succession, DCPCR said that the legalisation of same-sex marriage was no cause for concern, and that the existing legislative language can accommodate same sex marriages, and ensure that the rights of children can be the same in any marriage.
Speaking about the repercussions of non-recognition of same-sex marriages, DCPCR pointed out that the adopted child of a same-sex couple will have only one guardian, but the child may actually be under joint custody and maintenance of two persons performing equal duties in the relationship. “This could have psychological and emotional consequences not only for the affected de facto guardian but also for the child who may be left with reduced choice in case of a rift or separation between [the child’s] de facto guardians. By depriving the legal status to homosexual marriages, the State is thus denying the legal security of dual parenthood and guardianship to the child. The child would thus be deprived of a legally-recognized family,” DCPCR said.
Further, pointing to the fact that individuals with homosexual orientations don’t enjoy basic legal rights similar to those with heterosexual orientation, DCPCR said that adolescents growing up in such a socio-legal environment “may develop adverse psychological complexes and low self-esteem and suffer from other mental health issues.” Referring to multiple judgements in the matter from around the globe, DCPCR said that the argument that “the best interests of the child require a heterosexual couple have been firmly rejected and debunked.”
DCPCR also stated that the society sometimes lags behind the law and hence additional safeguards to ensure children do not face any kind of social discrimination in spaces such as schools are required. It provided a list of guidelines for the apex court to consider.
> The Union and state governments should take steps to create public awareness that same-sex family units are as “normal” as heterosexual family units, and, specifically, that children belonging to the former are not “incomplete” in any way;
> Directions to National and State Council for Education Research and Training (N/SCERT) to check and eliminate homophobic content in school textbooks;
> Directions to National and State Council for Education Research and Training (N/SCERT) to rewrite or re-envisage the passages, caricatures, diagrams, and references to family to include a more diverse understanding of family and to add homosexual couples as examples for a family.
> Directions to the relevant authorities to create dedicated helplines for children facing stigma or bullying by virtue of belonging to a same-sex family unit.
> Directions to the relevant authorities to set aside resources and create infrastructure for counselling and psychological assistance to children suffering from bullying or victimisation on account of belonging to same-sex family units.
A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court is to take up the matter on April 18.