|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COHABITATION:
SC RULING DOES NOT UNDERMINE MARRIAGE? -
Philip P. Eapen |
 |
|
It’s futile to drag a matter to a
court of law unless there is a law in the land
that deals with the matter under consideration.
The people or agencies that sued Tamil super
star Khushboo for her remarks about premarital
sexual relationships and/or live-in
relationships probably did not realize this. |
Five years ago, Khushboo had allegedly
said that she found nothing wrong with premarital sex as
long as women who engaged in it took adequate
“precautions.” She also allegedly said that it was “not
fair of any educated youth to expect his wife to be a
virgin.”
A number of cases were filed against her by various
individuals and organisations for outraging public
decency. People worried that the super-star’s views
would misguide young people into immorality. Some Tamil
nationalist groups accused her of attacking Tamil
culture. Interestingly, the Madras High Court upheld the
charges against Khushboo.
The actress filed a special leave petition in the
Supreme Court seeking the quashing of over twenty
pending cases against her. Those who opposed Khushboo’s
views brought out their arguments. However, a bench of
the Supreme Court that included eminent judges wanted to
know just one thing: “When two adult people want to live
together, what is the offence?”
The Court did not say that cohabitation does not offend
anyone. The court did not even say that it was
supporting cohabitation at the expense of marriage. All
that the court wanted Khushboo’s detractors to realize
was that a cohabiting couple does not fall foul of any
existing Indian law. The word “offence” in the above
question refers to a transgression. In effect, the judge
asked, “When two adult people want to live together,
which law might they break?”
Many who read the headlines the following day were
troubled. ‘How could the learned judges of the Supreme
Court say that live-in relationships or cohabitation was
okay,’ they wondered. In fact, it would be unfortunate
on our part to attribute such views to the honourable
Supreme
 Court. BJP’s Venkiah Naidu sought consolation in
his view that the judges were airing their person
opinions. Conservative evangelical Christians expressed
concern about the future of marriage in India. They saw
the SC’s ruling as a portent of evil days that lie
ahead.
The Supreme Court has indeed made it clear that the
right of two consenting adults to live together is part
of their right to life. This does not mean that the
Supreme Court was recommending cohabitation as a viable
option that could replace marriage. The honourable Court
just said that no one can drag a cohabiting couple to
court.
Very many newspapers, without realising this important
point, praised the Court’s observations thinking that
that the Supreme court was supporting licentious
lifestyles. They waxed eloquent about the need to kick
out medieval morality and to usher in modern or
post-modern free lifestyles, which is not very different
from old immorality.
Similarly, the court wanted everyone to know that each
person has the freedom to hold his own or her own views
about marriage and sexual relations. Which is why the
judges said that they were not bothered about Khushboo’s
personal opinions. The Supreme Court did not endorse
Khushboo’s views on premarital sex. The court just
wanted Khusboo’s accusers to know that she had not
broken any Indian law while she expressed her private
views.
The Courts give their rulings on the basis of existing
laws of the land and not on the basis of various
religious traditions or moral codes. As long as there is
no law in the land that prohibits cohabitation or
premarital sex, how can the courts punish anyone for
promoting these practices? As long as there is no law in
this land that prohibits the expression of one’s views –
views that trash religion or moral codes – how can
anyone drag Khushboo to court?
This brings us to the crux of the issue: If marriage and
morality are so valuable to Indians, why is it that we
do not have a law that prohibits premarital sexual
relations or the practice of cohabitation? On one hand,
Indians and their leaders cry themselves hoarse against
“foreign” influences that corrupt the “glorious” Indian
culture. None of our representatives in various State
Assemblies or the Parliament had the guts to raise his
or her voice for India’s moral values. If for 60 years
they could not bring a law against premarital sex,
political parties that ruled India have no right to talk
about the sanctity of sex within marriage or about the
dangers of pre/extra-marital sex.
Parliaments of the world are not the final authority
when it comes to standards of human behaviour. Nor are
human courts the ultimate arbiters of all disputes. Laws
that determine the morality of human actions must come
from a Source that transcends humanity. Human law makers
and human judges are just a shadow of an unseen reality
– there is a Supreme Law Maker and an ultimate Judge
whom the Bible calls God Almighty.
In His wisdom, God instituted marriage and family as the
fundamental unit of a healthy society. Governments and
religions came much later. While it is not illegal to
cohabit without the boundaries of marriage, cohabitation
is not the best option.
We only need to look at Western societies to realize the
dangers of cohabitation. These “trial marriages” do not
provide any security to the men and women involved.
People who tried cohabitation were more inclined to
divorce their partners later in life. According to an
article in Population Trends: ‘For every duration of
marriage, the cumulative proportions of marriages which
had broken down are higher amongst marriages in which
there was premarital cohabitation than amongst marriages
in which there was no premarital cohabitation.’ (Trends
in marriage and cohabitation: the decline in marriage
and the changing pattern of living in partnership. John
Haskey, Population Trends 80; Summer 1995; OPCS.)
Further, cohabitation does not provide a secure
environment for the arrival and nurture of children.
Which is why abortion rates are much higher among
cohabiting couples. People who cohabit are willing to
live together as long as it suits their individual
conveniences. But they are not committed to bear
children and to raise a family.
The incidence of promiscuity is high among cohabiting
couples. Therefore, cohabiting couples are at a greater
risk of contracting and spreading sexually transmitted
diseases. Besides, women who cohabit are at a
significantly higher risk of displaying neurotic
symptoms than women who do not.
Marriage on the other hand is a secure environment where
a man and a woman become “one flesh.” They are “joined
together” by God in the presence of witnesses who are
part of the larger society. Thus, a new family is
welcomed by society as a new building-block. Cohabiting
couples are concerned only about their interests and not
about the interests of the society around them.
The Archbishop of Canterbury once said, ‘the wisdom and
truth of the Christian tradition (is) that a married man
and woman and their children should be the basic
building block of family life. Cohabitation is not, and
cannot be, marriage in all but name... Those who choose
to cohabit on the grounds that their relationship is a
private matter and nothing to do with the wider society
are, frankly, deluding themselves. Marriage, not
cohabitation, is the institution that is at the heart of
a good society and let us not be reluctant to say so. I
do not say this in condemnation; I say it as an
invitation to a better way.’ (Cited by Flanagan and
Williams, ‘Cohabitation or Marriage.’)
Finally, if we value chastity and marriage, let us
prepare our young adults for timely marriage as soon as
they attain the legal majority. The government has
stipulated a minimum age for marriage. Let us honour it
and prepare our teenagers for marriage. The practice of
postponing marriage for various reasons only serves to
undermine marriage and to put pressure on our young
people. No amount of preaching can then save them from
premarital misadventures. Let us practice what we
preach. (www.PhilipEapen.com)
|
|
|
This page
is updated on Apr 07, 2010 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PRAISE THE ALMIGHTY
10 YEARS CELEBRATION
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
