Unmarried couples in a live-in relationship must register it with the government within 30 days of moving in together. The registrar reviews the application and may ask for additional information during an investigation. If approved, the relationship is recorded in a register and a certificate issued. Refusal to register may occur if one partner is married, a minor, or if consent was obtained through coercion or fraud. Partners can end the relationship by notifying the registrar and their partner. Failing to register the relationship or providing false information can result in fines, up to 3 months of imprisonment, or both.
I’m not Indian, so I might not be getting the full picture here, but this seems like a mostly positive move. Of the three denial reasons, I’m very in support of the latter two and against the first, but it seems less harmful to bar married people from living with non marital romantic partners than it does to allow people to work around the age and consent requirements for marry by simply not legally marrying the child and/or unwilling participant. That’s how, for example, the US has sister wives even though polygamy is illegal. (I’m not against fully aware adults being polyamorous, but that’s not the same as polygamy. )
What’s the issue you see with this law itself? I can definitely see a problem if it’s unevenly enforced, but the law itself seems like a net positive.
This will end every closeted same-sex “we’re just roomates” relationship. The unspoken way gay relationships have been overlooked for generations by having “a roomate” could land you in jail now.
Conservatives love to pass laws to “protect the children” as a pretext to oppress people. It is already illegal to be in a sexual relationship with a child. A registration will not enhance that. Their reasons are fake.
Remember that a conservative is not capable of honesty. Every word spoken by a conservative is either deception or manipulation. Especially when they give excuses for a law designed to tighten the noose on a vulnerable class.
Would the government recognize that for same-sex co-residents? I’m assuming they’re too conservative to care about anything other than an unmarried man and unmarried woman living together.
Live-in relationships tend to be viewed by Indian society as taboo. If any cohabitants are accused of being homosexual, they could be charged with a crime for not registering a live-in relationship. Under this live-in registration law, same-sex relationships are not permitted.
Conservatives despise gay people (and other vulnerable classes). They weaponize laws to harm these people. They are creating a weapon with this law and they will definitely use it as I am describing. While many may slip under the radar or not become a victim to this law, it is still designed to harm innocent people and teach the populace to discriminate against them.
I’m surprised the government would risk recognizing them and potentially legitimizing them.
This. Not a chance in hell the government would have any way to regulate men working in the cities from living with other men. That’s pretty much how working in indian metropolii works
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
If you truly believe that those are going to be the ONLY criteria, I have oceanfront property in Dehradun to sell you…
That would be an enforcement issue, which I can 100% see.
The government should not be in our bedrooms. What consenting adults do is not the government’s concern
So it seems like people weren’t having to register at all before and now only unmarried couples will, confounded by an existing belief that Muslim men “coerce” Hindu women to marry them, which is conveniently listed as a denial reason.
The government where I live knows where I live, whom I live with, and recently fined me ~20€ for telling them I moved in later than I should have. That’s understandably stifling to some, but not everyone and it’s not a universally unacceptable infringement on human rights, as long as it is equally imposed. Doing it only to unmarried couples or intentionally to break up interfaith relationships is a different thing.
What is so difficult with saying: fuck the government love who you want? Spending whole paragraphs wandering around a point without making it.
Fuck the government, love who you want. My point was that I believe fuck the government, love who you want, but the problem wasn’t initially clear to me because I live in a bureaucratic country. I’m not sure why you’re mad that I needed a follow up question to understand
The article spells out why they are doing this. It is to go after people wanting to have sex outside of marriage.
The article says it’s to prevent child and coercion partnerships. I needed extra context to understand that coercion is probably a political term for interfaith. Again, I don’t know how that could bother someone, but go off, I guess.
The next paragraph, for clarity.
This is a really weird thing you’re doing here: I made a good faith effort to understand, did, and for some reason you now want me to explain this to you. I’m really curious about why it bothers you that I didn’t understand.
deleted by creator
So… the problem is that before nobody had to register and now only unmarried couples do. See how easy a straight answer was?
I’m living in Germany where everyone has to register, this would essentially just change cohabitating couples’ status from roommates to domestic.
It’s very different. Here, the government can deny this if it believes that one of the partners are being “coerced”. Now this is where context matters. There is a conspiracy theory in the Indian far right called “Love Jihad”, where Muslims are allegedly marrying Hindu women with the sole purpose of converting them to their religion to lower the number of Hindus in India. Interfaith marriages have even been banned in some northern states. This is to take that ban even further, where relationships involving partners of different faiths would be deemed “coercive”. Sooooo yeah…
That’s a much clearer problem, thanks.
Np :)