Dancing to drums and music, the participants walked for more than two hours to the Jantar Mantar area near India’s Parliament. They held banners reading “Equality for all” and “Queer and proud.”

The annual event comes after India’s top court refused to legalize same-sex marriages in an October ruling that disappointed campaigners for LGBTQ+ rights in the world’s most populous country.

“It’s not about marriage. It’s about equality. Everybody should have the same right because that’s what our constitution says,” said Noor Enayat, one of the volunteers organizing this year’s event.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court’s five-judge bench heard 21 petitions that sought to legalize same-sex marriage in India.

The justices called for steps to raise awareness among the public about LGBTQ+ identity and to establish hotlines and safe houses for those in the community who are facing violence. They also urged the state to make sure same-sex couples don’t face harassment or discrimination in accessing basic needs, like opening a joint bank account, but stopped short of granting legal recognition to same-sex unions.

Legal rights for LGBTQ+ people in India have been expanding over the past decade, mostly as a result of the Supreme Court’s intervention.

In 2018, the top court struck down a colonial-era law that had made gay sex punishable by up to 10 years in prison and expanded constitutional rights for the gay community. The decision was seen as a historic victory for LGBTQ+ rights.

Despite this progress, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist government resisted the legal recognition of same-sex marriage and rejected several petitions in favor. Some religious groups, too, had opposed same-sex unions, saying they went against Indian culture.

Homosexuality has long carried a stigma in India’s traditional society, even though there has been a shift in attitudes toward same-sex couples in recent years. India now has openly gay celebrities and some high-profile Bollywood films have dealt with gay issues.

According to a Pew survey, acceptance of homosexuality in India increased by 22 percentage points to 37% between 2013 and 2019. But same-sex couples often face harassment in many Indian communities, whether Hindu, Muslim or Christian.

McGahey, a 29-year-old batter originally from Australia who moved to Canada in 2020, underwent a male-to-female medical transition in 2021. She made her international debut for Canada in the Women’s T20 Americas Qualifier in September 2023, which served as a pathway tournament to the 2024 T20 World Cup. McGahey has played six T20Is so far, scoring 118 runs at an average of 19.66 and a strike rate of 95.93.

The timing of the ICC’s decision has been deemed unfortunate by Brazil Women’s captain Roberta Moretti Avery, against whose side McGahey played two T20Is and achieved her highest score of 48. Avery respected the ICC’s ruling but expressed concern about the impact on McGahey’s mental health. She stated, “Danielle McGahey was allowed to play in the recent World Cup Qualifier on the basis of the rules that applied at the time. As a result, she was subjected to a lot of abuse from people who have never met her and who do not understand the difficult journey she has been on.”

Avery further added, “It’s unfortunate that this decision has been made after the event, once Danielle’s hopes had been raised and after she has already been exposed to a huge amount of scrutiny and abuse. The ICC lifted the hopes of a whole community, and it feels like those hopes have now been dashed.”

The ICC’s new policy was finalized after a nine-month consultation process with various stakeholders in the sport. The board emphasized that the regulations prioritize the protection of the integrity of the women’s game, safety, fairness, and inclusion. The policy will be reviewed within two years.

ICC CEO Geoff Allardice emphasized the importance of inclusivity but stated that the priority was to protect the integrity of the international women’s game and ensure player safety.

It is worth noting that the review conducted by the ICC medical advisory committee, chaired by Dr. Peter Harcourt, specifically pertains to gender eligibility for international women’s cricket. The regulations at the domestic level will be determined by each individual member board and may be influenced by local legislation, as stated by the ICC.

The ICC’s decision has sparked discussions and debates about the complexities of transgender inclusion in sports, highlighting the ongoing challenge of balancing inclusivity with fairness and maintaining the integrity of women’s sports.

India’s top court declined to give a ruling this week and said parliament should decide on whether to legalise same-sex marriage, agreeing with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government that the legislature is the forum to rule on the issue.

But there is no change in the position of the nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party government, which vehemently opposed the petitions to the court, the sources told Reuters.

During the court hearing the government had offered to form a committee to address the “human concerns” of same-sex couples, and this panel will include legal experts, LGBTQ activists and theologians, the sources said.

Both sources spoke on condition of anonymity as they are not authorised to discuss the issue with the media.

“The mandate of the committee will be to look into all aspects of legal protection for the LGBTQ population and what can be done to make their lives better,” said one source, a top policymaker in the federal law ministry.

“But discussions around same-sex marriage will not be part of the committee’s purview because it requires complete backing of all religious groups,” the source said.

The second source, a senior bureaucrat in the law ministry, said the panel will look at issues such as inheritance and financial and medico-legal rights of the LGBTQ community.

Both sources did not say how soon the panel will be formed.

Spokespersons for the law ministry and the Prime Minister’s Office did not respond to requests for comment.

Gay rights activists said they now expect lawmakers to start discussions in parliament, and they expressed frustration at the protracted process.

“We ran from pillar to post to secure equal rights and now we have to turn towards the government to secure complete equality,” said Supriyo Chakraborty, the main petitioner in the Supreme Court case.

Opinion Of Religious Experts

India’s top court decriminalised homosexuality by scrapping a colonial-era ban on gay sex in an historic verdict in 2018. But same-sex marriage is a sensitive topic and speaking openly about homosexuality is taboo for most in the socially conservative country of 1.4 billion people.

LGBTQ activists say that while the 2018 ruling affirmed their constitutional rights, it is unjust that they still lack legal backing for marriages, a basic right enjoyed by heterosexual couples.

The petitioners who sought legalisation of same-sex marriage had argued that without legal recognition they are denied rights such as those linked to medical consent, pensions, adoption or even simpler things like club memberships for couples.

The law ministry bureaucrat said the committee would seek the opinion of religious experts on whether religious institutions accept or reject same-sex couples.

“Thoughts of every stakeholder will be documented before any discussion is initiated in parliament,” said the bureaucrat, adding that nearly one thousand religious organisations had made representations and a majority were against legalising same-sex marriage.

India’s top court on Tuesday declined tolegalizes same-sex marriage and left it to parliament to decide, agreeing with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government that the legislature is the right forum to rule on the issue.

The unanimous order by a five-judge bench came as a huge disappointment to the large LGBTQ community in the world’s most populous country, five years after the court scrapped a colonial-era ban on gay sex.

“The United States supports marriage equality globally,” a U.S. State Department spokesperson said. “We are closely monitoring follow-up steps from the government and reactions from civil society on this issue following the court’s ruling.”

Modi’s nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) administration had opposed petitions to the court on the issue, saying same-sex marriage is not “comparable with the Indian family unit concept of a husband, a wife and children.”

“We will continue to voice our support for marriage equality and protections for LGBTQI+ persons against discrimination and encourage the Indian government to take the necessary steps to offer equal legal protection to same-sex couples,” the State Department spokesperson said.

Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, said on Tuesday the Supreme Court “cannot make law. It can only interpret it and give effect to it.”

Asia, a continent where conservative values still dominate society in many nations, largely lags behind the West in accepting same-sex marriage.

The U.S. State Department said it regularly engages with the Indian government on human rights concerns, including over LGBT rights.

State Department reports have previously raised concerns over treatment of religious minorities, journalists and dissidents in India. New Delhi denies that such discrimination exists.

A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by the Chief Justice of India heard arguments in the case between April and May and had reserved its order on May 11.

Erdogan said he would have liked to discuss it with U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, Turkish media reported on Thursday. Turkey’s government – led by Erdogan and his Islamist-rooted AK Party – has toughened its stance on LGBTQ freedoms.

“One of the issues that bothers me the most … is that when entering the United Nations General Assembly, you see the LGBT colors on steps and other places,” Erdogan was quoted as saying by broadcaster Haberturk and others.

“How many LGBT are there in the world right now? However much right they have on these steps, those against LGBT have as much right as well,” said Erdogan, who has frequently labeled members of the LGBTQ community as “deviants” and particularly toughened his rhetoric during his election campaign this year.

However, some U.N. diplomats suggested Erdogan might have confused the 17 different colors associated with the Sustainable Development Goals – and decorating parts of U.N. headquarters, including steps, for a summit that was held earlier this week – with the rainbow Pride colors associated with LGBTQ rights.

While Guterres has been a vocal supporter of LGBTQ rights and spoken out about discrimination, there are no rainbow Pride colors at U.N. headquarters promoting LGBTQ rights.

A spokesperson for Guterres did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Erdogan’s remarks.

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals, adopted by world leaders in 2015 with a deadline of 2030, are a global “to do” list that includes wiping out hunger, extreme poverty, battling climate change and inequality, and promoting gender equality.

Homosexuality is not a crime in Turkey, but hostility to it is widespread, and police crackdowns on Pride parades have become tougher over the years.

The bill, which was approved unanimously by both chambers of parliament, bans any “medical interventions aimed at changing the sex of a person,” as well as changing one’s gender in official documents and public records. Medical treatment for congenital abnormalities will be the lone exception.

Additionally, it invalidates unions in which one partner has “changed gender” and prohibits transgender people from becoming foster or adoptive parents.

The Kremlin’s campaign to defend what it sees as the nation’s “traditional values” is supposed to be the cause of the ban. Legislators claim that the act is necessary to protect Russia from “Western anti-family ideology,” and some have even called gender changing “pure satanism.”

When Putin first advocated an emphasis on “traditional family values,” endorsed by the Russian Orthodox Church, the persecution of LGBTQ+ individuals in Russia began ten years ago.

The Kremlin passed legislation outlawing any public support of “nontraditional sexual relations” between adolescents in 2013.

Putin pushed for constitutional change in 2020 that forbade same-sex unions, and he approved legislation last year outlawing “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations” among adults as well.