Homosexuality has been a matter of concern as well as a matter of taboo that the whole world is dealing with. Some parts of the law find no harm or nothing wrong with homosexuality that is a man being with a man as a partner, or a woman being with a woman. But the concern over here remains the marriage between two people who belong to the same sex, i.e. the gay marriages and the lesbian marriages. What needs to be dealt with is when the law interferes with the orientation with the people. Where there are places where it is made legal, there are others who believing in nullifying these kinds of marriages, and the point which is avoided is this does not stand in accordance with the equality where man and woman are said to be equal.
Penal Code’s given section, 377a, is something which has to be discussed and defined first. Before, the Penal Code’s section 377 was the only one that existed which said that if there were people who were found having sexual intercourse which the nature has not permitted, whether it be a man or a woman, or either caught in this kind of sexual act with animals, will be liable to pay a fine as decided by the law, or maybe imprisonment which can extend more than 10 years. it was repealed further with an amendment which took place in the Penal Code back in 2007 and something new was added section 377A was retained and it said that if a person belonging to the male gender was caught indulging in acts of “gross indecency” with other people, or in fact any such act was liable to get punishments, which can be either less than two years or two years maximum (J.F., 2014).starting from the 2010, where the first official case relating to homosexuality was filed, that moment had given birth to the debate which would be continued till the time the people who have orientations get their rights. Ho Peng Keep who happens to be an associate professor, a given minister, does not support homosexuality either. He had clearly said that the country that they live in does not follow the tradition which would approve of homosexuality or permit two people to have sexual relations of any kinds, because this is nothing but indecent. Hence this minister believes that the law which makes homosexuality a crime should not be removed from the code which is the main thing governing all aspects here.
The higher authorities of the country were not in favor of homosexuality nor will they ever be (Lum, 2014). The orthodox nature and the thoughts which happen to be conservative do not allow the laws to give the permit of constitutionality to matters like homosexuality. When homosexuality is discussed, the people who support it go ahead and make statements which want an explanation as to how this rule does not defy the law which states that all the people are equal irrespective of the gender or their background. When argued with this the court refused to take up the connection which can normally be labeled under the term ‘legal’ and tried to avoid the matter (Smith, 2013). Law is what governs the country, and when it says no to something, the country cannot be alright with the idea of something, it can be taken for granted that such matters will have not got the light they want easily. Homosexuality is something which is taken to be unethical and the acts which has been committed under the term homosexuality is nothing but indecent.
Any debate will always have two sides, where one side would be for and the other one would be against. This situation is somewhat similar. There are authorities who would never approve of this thing being something which would not be legalized, and at the same time there are homosexuals who will obviously try and support this term and try to get their rights equal in the eyes of law.
The law of this country that we are talking about does not agree with the terms which were taken out to the court by the couple who thought they could actually get some help from law, their names being, Kenneth Chee and Gary who are a homosexual couples . Apex court where appeal of any kind could have been produced hereby decided that there is country where this kind of homosexuality is banned and, the given laws are pretty much constitutional and do not make any deterrence with the rights of the humans laid down in the constitution in the very beginning (Tan, 2014), many pleas and appeals have been dismissed by the judges of the courts. It isn’t something which is inside the scope of the articles which has been brought up in the cases, the scope being the given Article 12, that no unjust action should be executed on any given ground whether it is the sex of the person, the gender, the caste or the creed or religion, within the scope of 377a and the sections mentioned. Justices said “it can be understood, what a person might be feeling but there is nothing in the law that can help these people. They cannot be helped, because what the laws have laid down is the ultimatum, and law happens to be the greatest and the authority which has to be kept in mind.” (Ram, 2014). This is something that they believe is right and therefore nothing can be done which will make the authorities take down this particular section of the law.
This kind of decision has obviously shocked a lot of people all over the world, because unjust nature of law can be depicted from the decision which has been made (Miller, 2014) after which the lawyer who was in favor of this has agreed to continue fighting who are being subjected to inequality under this particular section and the law. Moreover this, according to many common people and activists makes people with different sexual orientation unsafe in the country, and when everything about the country is so perfect, but a step towards a broader thought which would have resulted in the betterment of this country, this opportunity has been missed by the country.
Court of Appeal’s Verdict on 377a Constitutional Challenge: A Missed Opportunity. (2014, 10 30). Retrieved 3 21, 2015, from www.pinkdot.sg: https://pinkdot.sg/court-of-appeals-verdict-on-377a-constitutional-challenge-a-missed-opportunity/
High Court rejects arguments in second case involving S377A. (2013, 10 2). Retrieved 3 21, 2015, from www.singaporepolitics.sg: https://www.singapolitics.sg/news/high-court-rejects-arguments-second-case-involving-s377a
J.F. (2014, 10 30). Gay rights in Singapore. Retrieved 3 21, 2015, from www.economist.com: https://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2014/10/gay-rights-singapore
LEE, H. (2014, 10 29). Section 377A of Penal Code upheld in Constitutional challenge. Retrieved 3 21, 2015, from www.theonlinecitizen.com: https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2014/10/section-377a-of-penal-code-upheld-in-constitutional-challenge/
Lum, S. (2014, 10 30). Why Court of Appeal rejected arguments that Section 377A was unconstitutional - See more at: https://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/courts-crime/story/why-court-appeal-rejected-arguments-section-377a-was-unconstitutio#sthash.BsLnPZlO.dpuf. Retrieved 3 21, 2015, from www.straitstimes.com: https://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/courts-crime/story/why-court-appeal-rejected-arguments-section-377a-was-unconstitutio
Miller, H. (2014, 10 31). Singapore Court Upholds Anti-LGBT Law. Retrieved 3 21, 2015, from www.hrc.org: https://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/singapore-court-upholds-anti-lgbt-law
Ram, S. (2014, 10 30). Singapore`s Highest Court Upholds Ban On Sodomy, Says Section 377A Is Constitutional. Retrieved 3 21, 2015, from www.says.com: https://says.com/my/news/singapore-s-highest-court-upholds-ban-on-sodomy-says-section-377a-is-constitutional
Smith, P. D. (2013). The Section-377A debate: A Revelatory Intercourse between Law, Legal Institutions and Ethics. Retrieved 3 21, 2015, from www.academia.edu: https://www.academia.edu/5838532/The_Section-377A_debate_A_Revelatory_Intercourse_between_Law_Legal_Institutions_and_Ethics
Tan, J. (2014, 10 29). LGBT community ‘shocked and disappointed’ by Section 377A verdict. Retrieved 3 21, 2015, from www.sg.news.yahoo.com: https://sg.news.yahoo.com/singapore-supreme-court-upholds-constitutionality-of-section-377a-criminalising-gay-sex-080706731.html