Read Editorial with D2G Ep – LXXI

In Read Editorial With D2G
February 5, 2016

WELCOME TO THE NEXT EPISODE OF READ EDITORIAL WITH D2G. IF YOU THINK READING EDITORIAL IS A BORING AND YOU CANT READ IT – YOU ARE WRONG. READ THE EDITORIAL NOW IN UNIQUE WAY – THE D2G’S WAY. READ IT AND FEEL THE CHANGE.

EPISODE – LXXI
TOPIC: A New Chance for Gay Rights in India
BLOG: The New York Times
WRITER: The Opinion Page
GENRE: Editorial

READ BEFORE YOU PROCEED:
D2G wears no responsibility of the views published here by the respective Author. This Editorial is used here for Study Purpose. Students are advised to learn the word-meaning, The Art of Writing Skills and understand the crux of this Editorial.

MEANINGS are given in BOLD and ITALIC

On Tuesday, India’s Supreme Court took a welcome step toward opening the door to equal rights for gay, lesbian and transgender (Transgender people, such as transsexuals, do not have a straightforward gender identity) citizens. Citing (If you cite something, you quote it or mention it, especially as an example or proof of what you are saying) the “constitutional importance” of a petition to reverse its 2013 ruling upholding Section 377 of India’s Penal Code — which criminalizes “carnal (Carnal feelings and desires are sexual and physical, without any spiritual element) intercourse against the order of nature” — the three- judge panel decided to refer the petition to a five-judge panel headed by India’s chief justice.

Section 377, which dates back to 1861, has rarely been enforced, but it has been used to harass and blackmail gays, lesbians and transgender people. In 2009, the Delhi High Court struck the law down, ruling that Section 377 violated the rights to liberty and equality enshrined (If something such as an idea or a right is enshrined in something such as a constitution or law, it is protected by it) in India’s Constitution. But in 2013, the Supreme Court voided the lower court’s ruling, saying it was up to India’s Parliament to change the law. So far, attempts to do that have failed.

In December, Shashi Tharoor, an opposition member in Parliament, introduced a bill that would have rewritten Section 377 to limit the criminalization of private sexual acts to non consensual (If sexual activity is consensual, both partners willingly take part in it) sex and sex with minors, but it was voted down by a large margin.

Mr. Tharoor says he will resubmit his bill this spring — if only to spur (If one thing spurs you to do another, it encourages you to do it) public debate on gay rights. But India’s gay, lesbian and transgender citizens should not have to wait for lawmakers to repeal this antiquated (If you describe something as antiquated, you are criticizing it because it is very old or old-fashioned) and unjust (unfair) law. When the five-judge panel convenes (no date has yet been set), it should reverse the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision and consign Section 377 to India’s colonial past, where it belongs.

**************************