Heterosexual Marriage Wants To Be Oppressed So Bad...!

There is something oddly unsettling about society's ability to find a brand-new culprit every time the institution of marriage develops another crack. Every few years, we discover a fresh villain. And this year it is feminism, women with careers, dating apps, Instagram and the so-called Western culture, and the very fact that women now have their own opinions. This week's headline clearly showed that. Apparently, LGBTQ+ rights have now been promoted to the CEO of "destroying marriage."

During a recent podcast interview, Anuradha Paudwal argued that the "sanctity of marriage" has weakened because of LGBTQ+ rights. She went even further, questioning what the LGBTQ+ community contributes to society and suggesting that marriage derives its value from producing children. It's one of those statements that sounds definitive until you begin asking very simple questions. It makes you pause, not because it is shocking, but because it reminds us how spectacularly creative society can become when it wants to avoid discussing the real problems. Thus the very first question, naturally, is: what LGBTQ+ rights? Because if the argument is that queer rights are weakening marriage, there is one tiny logistical problem: queer couples in India still don't have the legal right to marry. It's a little difficult to dismantle an institution from the outside when you're still waiting at the gate.

Queer couples in India still do not have marriage equality. They are denied the automatic legal protections that heterosexual married couples receive from inheritance and succession to hospital decision-making, pension benefits and recognition as next of kin. Two people can build a life together for twenty years, share a home, share finances, share every milestone, and yet the law can still treat them as strangers. So before we accuse queer marriages of weakening the institution of marriage, perhaps we should first allow queer people to have one.

Because if we're making a list of everything that has threatened marriage, where exactly do we begin? The ones topping the list cannot possibly be dowry, domestic violence and marital abandonment; generations of women expected to quit jobs, raise children, care for ageing parents, smile through emotional neglect and still be told they "don't do enough"? After all, marriage has apparently “survived”  all of that.

But what about two consenting adults wanting equal rights? That's where the institution finally said, "I simply cannot." Seems to me that this institution is more fragile than masculinity even.

We keep hearing about the sanctity of marriage, but nobody ever seems to explain what that sanctity actually is. Is marriage sacred because it follows one rigid blueprint? Or is it sacred because two people choose to build a life together with love, respect and commitment? If two consenting adults are happy in their relationship, how exactly does someone else's relationship reduce the value of theirs? Since when did another person's happiness become a threat to your vows?

Because if marriage loses its sanctity simply because diverse people simply exist or want to join in, perhaps what we're protecting isn't marriage at all; it's exclusivity. Women spend their entire lives being told marriage is sacred– sacred enough to leave our homes, change our surnames, relocate cities, put careers on hold, have children when everyone else thinks it's time, compromise dreams, friendships, sleep, sanity and, occasionally, compromise on whether "he'll change after marriage."

But, in a twist that surprises no one, he usually doesn't change. Yet somehow, after expecting women to carry this institution like unpaid project managers for generations, we're now being told that the real danger arrived wrapped in a rainbow flag. 

Apparently, inequality is traditional, and equality is controversial. Then comes the question of "contribution." The implication seems to be that the purpose of marriage is producing children, and therefore relationships that cannot or do not produce children somehow contribute less to society. Which raises another rather awkward question. What about heterosexual couples who cannot have children? What about couples who simply choose not to? We even have a term for them, DINK: Double Income, No Kids. Are their marriages somehow less sacred? Does the success of a marriage now depend on an eventual birth certificate? Can marriage not stand unless it's based on a couple's fertility? There are a hell lot of questions attached to this.

If children are the only measure of a successful marriage, then where exactly does that leave thousands of couples who have built loving, lifelong partnerships without becoming parents? Are they too weakening the institution, or does this argument only apply when queer people are involved?

Marriage can survive a husband who thinks changing one diaper deserves a standing ovation or relatives asking newlyweds about babies before dessert has even been served. Marriage can survive WhatsApp University dispensing relationship advice from people who still think "helping" their wives means making tea once every six months, or can it survive destination weddings that cost more than apartments and guest lists longer than electoral rolls?

But somewhere, two women fall in love, and suddenly civilisation is on life support. One of the most interesting things about these debates is how repeatedly women become custodians of culture. We are expected to preserve traditions, protect family values, maintain relationships, remember birthdays, organise festivals, absorb everyone's emotions and somehow also ensure that the institution of marriage remains standing.

The truly amusing part is that queer couples have spent decades fighting for the very institution they're accused of destroying. Imagine standing outside a club for years asking to be let in, only to be told that your mere presence inside will burn the building down. That's quite the accusation.

If anything, it tells us less about marriage and more about how desperately society wants a convenient scapegoat. Let's also retire the idea that traditions are automatically sacred simply because they are old. Plenty of traditions have deserved questioning. Child marriage was once tradition. Sati was once defended in the name of tradition. Women eating after the men in the family was considered tradition in countless households. Age alone has never been proof of virtue.

Perhaps what has really changed isn't marriage, but the expectations we bring to it. Equality doesn't weaken institutions; it simply asks them to justify the rules they've always expected everyone else to follow. Maybe what feels like the decline of marriage is actually the decline of unquestioned privilege.

If the inclusion of more people is enough to threaten its existence, then perhaps inclusion was never the problem. Strong institutions do not collapse because they become more equal; they become stronger because they evolve. The real question isn't whether queer people are weakening marriage. It's whether we've mistaken control for commitment and exclusion for tradition all along.

Anuradha Paudwal, even your sweet voice could not sugarcoat the harshness of your words. Until next time, let's strive to hand her a mic only when she has something to sing. Queer people are not here to save or ruin an institution they were never allowed to enter; find a better target next time. Two people's desire to love and be with each other has kept queer love alive for centuries, despite people like you, while heterosexual marriage is constantly threatened. How about you learn a few things from us, bigots?

Here's a bar for Ms Anuradha: Don't lose your sanity trying to protect marriage’s sanctity, because quite frankly, that's an insane and unoriginal take. You want to preserve marriages? How about you start with Bollywood and its sea of failed marriages?! Now those are scandals worth gossiping about.

xoxo,

💋Gossip Gal💋