India decriminalises homosexuality

[Imran Siddiqui]

Delhi High Court

That's the name of the Supreme Court?

[aneeshm]

Delhi High Court

That's the name of the Supreme Court?

My bad, I misread the article. It's still valid nationwide, though - the High Courts have that power.

[Combat Ingrid]

Dare I wonder what a Hindu gay pride parade might look like?

Lots of guys like these, I suppose

[trev]

Why is a law against gay sex discriminative? After all a heterosexual who has gay sex gets the same punishment as a homo who has gay sex. AIDS. Also the relevant criminal punishment obviously. As punishment is identical for all classes of people, discrimination does not seem to come into it.

[Japher]

Like any Bollywood movie.

I know of no other country gayer than India.

I was going to argue this, but realized you're right. So, QFT.

[loinburger]

Why is a law against gay sex discriminative? After all a heterosexual who has gay sex gets the same punishment as a homo who has gay sex. AIDS. Also the relevant criminal punishment obviously. As punishment is identical for all classes of people, discrimination does not seem to come into it.

re-read paragraphs 3 and 4 of the quoted article

[MrFun]

My bad, I misread the article. It's still valid nationwide, though - the High Courts have that power.

No - as I understood it, this ruling is not nationwide. It only decriminalizes homosexuality within the jurisdiction of New Delhi court.

Just as here in United States - Iowa Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage has no jurisdiction outside of Iowa for example.

[MrFun]

Why is a law against gay sex discriminative? After all a heterosexual who has gay sex gets the same punishment as a homo who has gay sex. AIDS. Also the relevant criminal punishment obviously. As punishment is identical for all classes of people, discrimination does not seem to come into it.

I wish we can throw you in prison for posting retarded garbage such as this.

[BeBMan]

No - as I understood it, this ruling is not nationwide. It only decriminalizes homosexuality within the jurisdiction of New Delhi court.

Just as here in United States - Iowa Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage has no jurisdiction outside of Iowa for example.

Hm, I dunno how it works in India, but if something is declared a violation of the constitution in court here it goes for all federal states (unless a higher court says otherwise). Federal states can't decide on their own not to follow a certain part of the constitution just because they feel like it.

I thought it's the same in the US?

[MrFun]

Iowa Supreme Court ruling does not force U.S. Supreme Court ruling to go along with equal marriage rights.

However, two lawyers are determined to advance cause of equal marriage rights all the way to U.S. Supreme Court.

[KrazyHorse]

No - as I understood it, this ruling is not nationwide. It only decriminalizes homosexuality within the jurisdiction of New Delhi court.

Just as here in United States - Iowa Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage has no jurisdiction outside of Iowa for example.

You have no idea what you're talking about. The Iowa Supreme Court deals with matters of state law. It is not part of the federal court system. It did not base its judgement in the Varnum case on the US constitution, but on the Iowa state constitution. The Iowa state constitution does not apply to anybody outside Iowa, for obvious reasons.

The New Delhi court in this case struck down a NATIONAL law. Which, unless the Indian justice system is completely incoherent, means that its decision is binding on other courts unless and until their decision is overturned by a higher court.

[Zevico]

MrFun/BeBro--two things
"Iowa Supreme Court ruling does not force U.S. Supreme Court ruling to go along with equal marriage rights"--I'm not sure what you're uncertain about here but I'll try to explain what I can.
It is true that the Indian HC's decision is subject to being overridden by a higher court. However, it is a decision of a group of judges, so it has binding precedential effect over single judges of the lower courts until otherwise overridden. As such it is good law until appealed successfully at a court above the Indian HC or challenged successfully in the Indian HC again (before a group of judges of the same number or more).

[BeBMan]

But this isn't about marriage yes/no, it's about the basic stuff - if gay sex between consenting adults is per se a 'criminal' offence, which the court denied (the judge said it's only criminal when Wiglaf is involved - FACT). And they said therefore the section of the *Indian* Penal Code which does criminalize gay sex is stupid cuz it violates India's constitution. Sounds like stuff with nationwide importance to me.

edit: just noticed KHs and Zevico's posts, mine is re MrFun.

[KrazyHorse]

MrFun/BeBro--two things
"Iowa Supreme Court ruling does not force U.S. Supreme Court ruling to go along with equal marriage rights"--I'm not sure what you're uncertain about here but I'll try to explain what I can.
It is true that the Indian HC's decision is subject to being overridden by a higher court. However, it is a decision of a group of judges, so it has binding precedential effect over single judges of the lower courts until otherwise overridden. As such it is good law until appealed successfully at a court above the Indian HC or challenged successfully in the Indian HC again (before a group of judges of the same number or more).

MrFun doesn't understand the difference between state law and federal law. That is the only confusions here.

[Zevico]

BTW--does the USSC have appellate jurisdiction over matters arising under interpretation of State constitution anyway?