A 57-year-old mother has placed India's first gay matrimonial advertisement seeking a groom for her son.
Mumbai resident Padma Iyer hit the headlines when her advertisement appeared in a daily newspaper on Tuesday, mimicking the style of traditional matrimonial adverts.
"Seeking 25-40, well-placed, animal-loving, vegetarian GROOM for my SON (36, 5'11") who works with an NGO," read the advertisement in a Mumbai tabloid.
News reports about the advert went viral on social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook, with many users commending Iyer for breaking taboos.
Iyer said the matrimonial was prompted by a normal wish any mother has to see her son settle down. She has already received six responses to the advert.
"We were discussing, both of us, that there was no life partner for him, he was growing old. He is 36, I am 58. So I was thinking, like, as long as I am there, I'll look after him (but) what happens to him after me. So I said, you should find a partner, it is high time. But he said I am not able to get anybody. So we were jokingly telling why not advertise for it. So he said there is no gay matrimony. Even I was under the impression that there is a gay matrimonial but there is nothing like that. So we said why not start a new trend, we will publish it in the mainstream (newspaper). So he gave (an advertisement) for the publication but many (news) papers refuse to publish it. But Mid Day was the only one who published the article," said Iyer.
Harish Iyer, a gay rights activist on whose behalf the advertisement was placed by his mother, said that he was disappointed that three leading English newspapers had refused to publish the advertisement, especially since these newspapers were the ones that have championed the cause of gay rights in the past.
In 2009, the Delhi high court ruled that Section 377 violated constitutional guarantee for equality, privacy and freedom of expression, ending the ban on same sex relationships and sparking a new era in openness about homosexuality.
But the decision was challenged by religious groups and the Supreme Court trashed the decision four years later observing that only Parliament can repeal Section 377.
