India: Delhi High Court overturns ban on homosexuality

They also used Jerry Brown's argument:

"the two constitutional rights relied upon i.e. 'right to personal liberty' and 'right to equality' are fundamental human rights which belong to individuals simply by virtue of their humanity, independent of any utilitarian consideration. A Bill of Rights does not 'confer' fundamental human rights. It confirms their existence and accords them protection."

and their constitution is based on ours.   I wish our SCOTUS were as enlightened at present.

some excerpts:

The core of the
commitments to the social revolution lies in Parts III and IV,
in the Fundamental Rights and in the Directive Principles of
State Policy. These are the conscience of the Constitution.
The Fundamental Rights, therefore, were to foster the social
revolution by creating a society egalitarian to the extent that
all citizens were to be equally free from coercion or
restriction by the state, or by society privately; liberty was
no longer to be the privilege of the few. The Constitution of
India recognises, protects and celebrates diversity. To
stigmatise or to criminalise homosexuals only on account of
their sexual orientation would be against the constitutional
morality.
[

Moral indignation, howsoever strong, is not a valid basis for overriding individuals' fundamental rights of dignity and privacy. In our scheme of things Constitutional morality must outweigh the argument of public morality, even if it be the majoritarian view,

The notion of equality in the Indian Constitution flows from
the 'Objective Resolution' moved by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
on December 13, 1946. Nehru, in his speech, moving this
Resolution wished that the House should consider the
Resolution not in a spirit of narrow legal wording, but rather
look at the spirit behind that Resolution. He said, "Words are
magic things often enough, but even the magic of words sometimes cannot convey the magic of the human spirit and
of a Nation's passion........ (The Resolution) seeks very
feebly to tell the world of what we have thought or dreamt
of so long, and what we now hope to achieve in the near
future."

If there is one constitutional tenet that can be said to be
underlying theme of the Indian Constitution, it is that of
'inclusiveness'. This Court believes that Indian Constitution
reflects this value deeply ingrained in Indian society,
nurtured over several generations. The inclusiveness that
Indian society traditionally displayed, literally in every
aspect of life, is manifest in recognising a role in society for
everyone. Those perceived by the majority as "deviants' or
'different' are not on that score excluded or ostracised.

Where society can display inclusiveness and understanding,
such persons can be assured of a life of dignity and nondiscrimination.
This was the 'spirit behind the Resolution' of
which Nehru spoke so passionately. In our view, Indian
Constitutional law does not permit the statutory criminal law
to be held captive by the popular misconceptions of who the
LGBTs are. It cannot be forgotten that discrimination is antithesis
of equality and that it is the recognition of equality
which will foster the dignity of every individual

The role of the judiciary is to protect the fundamental
rights. A modern democracy while based on the principle of
majority rule implicitly recognizes the need to protect the
fundamental rights of those who may dissent or deviate
from the majoritarian view. It is the job of the judiciary to
balance the principles ensuring that the government on the
basis of number does not override fundamental rights. After
the enunciation of the basic structure doctrine, full judicial
review is an integral part of the constitutional scheme. To
quote the words of Krishna Iyer, J. "... The compulsion of
constitutional humanism and the assumption of full faith in
life and liberty cannot be so futile or fragmentary that any
transient legislative majority in tantrums against any
minority by three quick readings of a Bill with the requisite
quorum, can prescribe any unreasonable modality and
thereby sterilise the grandiloquent mandate.

Amazing to watch the gay equality movement grow in India. I never thought it would happen.

That's a pretty big heap of persuasive authority we can use.  

Marriage equality.  Now with 50% more cake.

equalitycake.blogspot.com

And, when it does go national, the 17% of the world's population allowed to live freely and unmolested by the authorities.

Over a billion people. That's a major thing, far bigger in its way than Prop 8 of anything like it.