Dwivedi: They were there. They were given dignity but marriage is not a matter of dignity. If that were so unmarried people wouldn't have any dignity. It's not like that.
CJI DY Chandrachud: Let's be very clear. The existence of same sex couple is not something which will be imported from some other place. It's as much a part of our society as anything else.
CJI DY Chandrachud: We're a Constitution with an enforceable chapter on fundamental rights.
Dwivedi: But fundamental rights don't operate in vaccum. They operate in context of given society. That's why I'm averse when some try to cross seas.
Dwivedi: Preparedness of society to accept the change is also equally important. Let's not rush.
Dwivedi: Don't dilute the status with tinkering.
CJI DY Chandrachud: Alright we got your point.
CJI DY Chandrachud: So you're saying that marriage is understood as a union between a heterosexual couple. And by recognising anything apart from that you're affecting traditional values.
Dwivedi: While claiming dignity, you should not inflict indignity, whether traditionally, culturally, historically, socially...these are valuable things. They may not have meaning to people who don't attach value to it.
Dwivedi: In Section 4, the sense is that they're husband and wife. If you substitute, it'll include all other relationships.
CJI DY Chandrachud: That's a different point.
CJI DY Chandrachud: When you say that I take you as a spouse, that is also consistent with I take you as a spouse who is my wife.
Justice Bhat: What you're driving at is this- that you're not looking at this form, you're looking at the traditional form...but argument is how are you diminishing the dignity?
Dwivedi: Because you have to tell marriage officer that i take you as a spouse