They Say Same-Sex Marriage, I Say Queermony - Redefining Relationships with Four People Theory

"Marriage is when a man and woman become one. The trouble starts when they try to decide which one."

It's like a clever jab at the complexities woven into the fabric of marriage. It hints at a constant struggle for autonomy and identity within the institution. The quote subtly critiques the traditional gender roles in marriage, making you wonder who gets to take the lead. It is nothing more than a struggle for dominance, and you find yourself in a constant battle of the three Ws- wits, willpower, and wardrobe space. In today's discussions about marriage, there's this ongoing debate about whether these traditional gender roles are still relevant or fair.

As I see it, marriage has been on quite a journey over the centuries, but it still carries the weight of its archaic and antiquated origins. Picture this: it all started with the idea that women were like possessions, a man's ownership certificate, complete with rigid gender roles. This whole setup was built on the foundation of patriarchy. Now, think about this in the context of the LGBTQIA+ community. The traditional idea of marriage, with its focus on the union between a man and a woman, doesn't quite capture the diversity of gender identities and expressions within the LGBTQIA+ spectrum. For those of us who don't fit into the neat boxes of traditional gender norms, this model feels limiting, excluding, and frankly, outdated.

But then again, why do we even need to legitimize this ancient, irrelevant, and slightly dubious institution of marriage, built upon the archaic concept of ownership?

Let's take a closer look at what marriage supposedly gives you:

·??????? Exclusivity: Well, isn't that just a fancy way of saying, "I choose you, and only you, to put up with my quirks and share my Netflix account"? You don't need a ring for that! Who says exclusivity is only served on a silver platter labelled 'marriage'? LGBTQIA+ couples are experts in crafting unique, customized relationships. Forget about traditional titles, let's invent our own - "Queermony”

·??????? Protection against Stigma: Ah, yes, the mythical shield that magically deflects judgment. Marriage has long been seen as the golden ticket to ward off those judgmental glances and raised eyebrows. LGBTQIA+ people are the fearless ones breaking norms and fighting stigma every single day with rainbow-colored armor. Also, the stigma associated with them isn't dependent on whether you've walked down the aisle or not.

·??????? Legal Property and Asset Rights: Because nothing says "I love you" like dividing the assets in case of a messy divorce. Who needs Cupid when you have lawyers? You get to share your assets, your debts, and your last piece of cake. But, here's the kicker: you can technically cobble together the same benefits with contracts, wills, and legal paperwork. Legal security is just a notary public away!

In the LGBTQIA+ community, the traditional concept of marriage not only dismisses the fluidity of gender but also perpetuates a system that has, for too long, stigmatized non-heteronormative relationships. The fight for recognition and acceptance within the institution of marriage isn't just about equal rights; it's about rewriting a societal script that has marginalized those who live beyond the confines of traditional gender norms.

Now let me take you on a journey through a recent legal development on same-sex marriage, and then we'll dive into something fascinating – the "Four People Theory."

So, picture this: The Chief Justice of India (CJI) dropped some wisdom recently about how the Supreme Court (SC) can't tweak the Special Marriage Act (SMA) for same-sex marriages. It's in the hands of Parliament. The SMA, dating back to 1956, can't be interpreted to let queer folks tie the knot. And it’s not SC’s turf to make laws; it's more of an interpreter.

Now, imagine a group of petitioners – fighting for equal rights for LGBTQIA+ couples in a marriage-centric society. They argued that everyone should have the same rights, regardless of their orientation. However, the verdict from the five-judge Constitution Bench, led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, ruled 3:2 and was a complex one.