new delhi the supreme court on tuesday made it clear that it will not go into the personal laws governing marriages while deciding the pleas seeking legal validation for samesex marriages and asked the lawyers to advance arguments on the special marriage acta fivejudge constitution bench headed by chief justice d y chandrachud termed the issue involving the pleas complex and said the very notion of a man and a woman as referred to in the special marriage act is not an absolute based on genitalsit is not the question of what your genitals are it is far more complex thats the point so even when the special marriage act says man and woman the very notion of a man and a woman is not an absolute based on genitals said the bench which also comprised justices justices s k kaul s r bhat hima kohli and p s narasimhaon being pointed out the difficulties and ramifications for the hindu marriage act and personal laws of various religious groups if the apex court were to hold samesex marriages valid the bench said then we can keep the personal laws out of the equation and all of you lawyers can address us on the special marriage act a religion neutral marriage lawthe special marriage act 1954 is a law that provides a legal framework for the marriage of people belonging to different religions or castes it governs a civil marriage where the state sanctions the marriage rather than the religionsolicitor general tushar mehta appearing for the centre referred to the laws on transgenders and said there are several rights such as the right to choose partners privacy right right to choose sexual orientation and any discrimination is criminally prosecutablehowever the conferment of sociolegal status of marriage cannot be done through judicial decisions it cannot even be done by the legislature the acceptance has to come from within the society the top government law officer saidhe said the problem will arise when a person who is a hindu wants to avail the right to marry within the same sex while remaining a hinduhindus and muslims and other communities will be affected and that is why the states should be heard the law officer saidwe are not going into the personal laws and now you want us to get into it why how can you ask us to decide it we cannot be compelled to hear everything the bench saidthen this will amount to short circuiting the issue and the centres stand is not to hear it all mehta said to which the cji responded we are taking a middle course we dont have to decide everything to decide somethingon being pointed out that even the religionneutral special marriage act has the term man and a woman the bench said it is not the question of genitals and the very notion of the special law having man and woman is not restricted to the genitalsmehta however insisted it is restricted to the genitals