AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION
The proposal to amend the Constitution in order to protect marriage as a voluntary union between a man and a woman may raise questions concerning the relationship between Parliament and the Constitutional Court, which is the guardian of the Constitution. Some may even argue that Parliament should not amend the Constitution to overturn a decision of the Court, because that would put Parliament in conflict with the Court and would interfere with the jurisdiction of the Court.
The answer to this is simple. The Court is responsible for the interpretation and application of the Constitution, but Parliament is responsible for the content of the Constitution. The Constitution itself provides that Parliament has the authority to amend the Constitution in accordance with the procedures prescribed in section 74. The Constitutional Court does not determine the content of the Constitution, nor does it have the authority to prevent its amendment by Parliament. It is then competent only to ensure that Parliament acts in accordance with the prescribed procedures. The Court’s sole responsibility is therefore to interpret and enforce the content of the Constitution as determined by Parliament.
Should Parliament find it desirable to amend the Constitution, nothing, not even the Court, can stop Parliament from doing so, provided that Parliament act in accordance with the prescribed procedures. As a matter of fact, if the Court interprets the Constitution in a way which in Parliament’s opinion does not reflect the views or values supported by the majority of South Africans, Parliament has the constitutional right and responsibility as the elected representative of the voters to amend the Constitution to overturn the decision of the Court.
There is a special joint standing committee of Parliament to consider possible amendments and report to Parliament annually. As a result, the Constitution has been amended every year since 1996. Clearly, it was never the intention that the Constitution should be cast in stone with no possibility ever to amend it. It is therefore not such a foreign notion for Parliament to amend the Constitution in order to protect marriage in accordance with the views of the majority of the people.
Rassie Malherbe
University of Johannesburg
Monday, August 28, 2006
African Enterprise letter to parliamentarians
8 August 2006
The Honourable , MP
Parliament
PO Box 15
CAPE TOWN
8000
Dear Hon ,
We in African Enterprise have been following the progress of the debate surrounding same-sex marriage in South Africa with great interest and concern. As it is now Parliament’s responsibility to take up this issue and make decisions regarding marriage in South Africa which will have enormous consequences for all our citizens – most especially families and children – we would like respectfully to ask that you give attention to the following relevant points in the debate.
What is marriage?
Marriage has been around about as long as human beings have existed and has, in all cultures and contexts throughout human history, been heterosexual (with the exception now of a few Western nations in the last several years). One essential aspect of marriage is that it sanctifies and publicly endorses the love that exists between a man and a woman who desire to live their lives together. But marriage is about more than this and the most salient other aspect of the institution is that it is procreative – i.e., that it be about producing children, who will make up the next generation and keep the human race, and the South African nation, growing at a rate that will sustain positive growth. That a small number of married couples either cannot have, or choose not to have, children does not invalidate this basic general fact about marriage.
Once children are a part of the picture, it behoves us as adult societal actors to seek to operate and govern society in large part with their best interests in mind, such that we live up to the responsibility entrusted to us as their parents and models. Thus the question arises: What family arrangement is in the best interests of children? Virtually all social science research has demonstrated that an intact family comprising a father, mother and child or children is the best environment in which a child can be loved, disciplined and instructed in how to become a positively contributing member of society. It is of course tragic and of great concern when a family unit is damaged or destroyed, either through separation or divorce, or by the removal of one or both parents through abandonment, death, disease or other calamity. But our aim as a society should be to do all we can to strengthen the traditional family structure for everyone’s benefit, but most of all for that of the children. It would be saddening and foolhardy indeed for our society to set up as conscious policy family structures that would be damaging, or even less than optimally enriching, to our children. Children need, and deserve, both a mother and a father who are married to one another. We must do all we can to ensure that they get both by strengthening traditional marriage.
How does same-sex marriage affect marriage?
We in South Africa are in something of an advantageous position as we consider same-sex marriage because we can look at how this novel institution has affected other societies and nations who have adopted it. Most especially we can look at The Netherlands, the first country to formalise same-sex marriage in 2000, but which first passed registered partnerships in 1997. We see that the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate has increased by an average of at least 2 percentage points for nine consecutive years, a rise greater than that of any other Western European nation and rivalled only by a few Eastern European countries whose social systems are recovering from near-total collapse in the wake of the demise of their communist governments. The reason for this? When marriage is redefined to include same-sex couples, heterosexuals very quickly begin to decide that marriage doesn’t mean much of anything and so why bother? Is it a good thing to have an increasing out-of-wedlock birthrate? Certainly not. Children need, and deserve, both a mother and a father who are married to one another. We must do all we can to ensure that they get both by strengthening traditional marriage.
Do many gays and lesbians get married if given the right?
Some say that same-sex couples are being denied their civil rights by not being allowed to marry. So, once given the opportunity to marry, wouldn’t we expect a huge surge of same-sex marriages to occur, especially as there would surely be a pent-up demand from same-sex couples who have never had this right and would rush out to claim it? The experience of other countries demonstrates that not many same-sex couples actually choose to get married if given the chance. In The Netherlands, there were 2 414 same-sex marriages in 2001, 1 838 in 2002, 1 499 in 2003, 1 210 in 2004 and 1 166 in 2005 (out of a total population of 16,4 million). Belgium saw 1 708 same-sex marriages in seven months of 2003, and 2 204 in all of 2004 (out of a total population of 10,4 million). In The Netherlands, then, between 2 percent and 6 percent of the gay and lesbian population (or 0,05 percent of the total population) have availed themselves of the right of same-sex marriage since it was legalised, and in Belgium between 2 percent and 5 percent of the gay and lesbian population have done so (or 0,04 percent of the total population). Does it make good sense to so radically alter and damage so vital a social institution as marriage for the supposed benefit of so few? We believe not. Same-sex marriage does not give children both a mother and a father. But children need, and deserve, both a mother and a father who are married to one another. We must do all we can to ensure that they get both by strengthening traditional marriage.
We appeal to you, then, as a person entrusted with great responsibility for the future of our nation – which resides in our children – to take to heart our concerns, along with those of many others, and seek with all courage and wisdom to strengthen traditional marriage – that between a man and a woman – so that as many of our children as possible grow up in an intact family with both a mother and a father. They will thereby have the best foundation from which to aspire to live out their dreams and their potential as positively contributing members of society.
We call on you to join with other Parliamentarians to enact a Constitutional Amendment that will define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. We note that Parliament has amended the Constitution twelve times since 1996 (i.e., an average of more than one amendment each year), sometimes in regard to matters far less consequential than the definition of the most central institution in all of human history. It is altogether right and proper, we believe, for Parliament, as the elected representative of the people of this nation, to shoulder this responsibility and not leave this matter to be decided by a small number of unelected judges, nor to succumb to a Court judgement which is so unreflective of the views of the vast majority of South African citizens and which is also anathema to African culture.
We pledge to you to keep you in our prayers as you take up this matter which is vital beyond any other you will consider in your political career.
Sincerely,
Greg Smerdon Esmé Bowers
Team Leader Chairperson of the Board
The Honourable , MP
Parliament
PO Box 15
CAPE TOWN
8000
Dear Hon ,
We in African Enterprise have been following the progress of the debate surrounding same-sex marriage in South Africa with great interest and concern. As it is now Parliament’s responsibility to take up this issue and make decisions regarding marriage in South Africa which will have enormous consequences for all our citizens – most especially families and children – we would like respectfully to ask that you give attention to the following relevant points in the debate.
What is marriage?
Marriage has been around about as long as human beings have existed and has, in all cultures and contexts throughout human history, been heterosexual (with the exception now of a few Western nations in the last several years). One essential aspect of marriage is that it sanctifies and publicly endorses the love that exists between a man and a woman who desire to live their lives together. But marriage is about more than this and the most salient other aspect of the institution is that it is procreative – i.e., that it be about producing children, who will make up the next generation and keep the human race, and the South African nation, growing at a rate that will sustain positive growth. That a small number of married couples either cannot have, or choose not to have, children does not invalidate this basic general fact about marriage.
Once children are a part of the picture, it behoves us as adult societal actors to seek to operate and govern society in large part with their best interests in mind, such that we live up to the responsibility entrusted to us as their parents and models. Thus the question arises: What family arrangement is in the best interests of children? Virtually all social science research has demonstrated that an intact family comprising a father, mother and child or children is the best environment in which a child can be loved, disciplined and instructed in how to become a positively contributing member of society. It is of course tragic and of great concern when a family unit is damaged or destroyed, either through separation or divorce, or by the removal of one or both parents through abandonment, death, disease or other calamity. But our aim as a society should be to do all we can to strengthen the traditional family structure for everyone’s benefit, but most of all for that of the children. It would be saddening and foolhardy indeed for our society to set up as conscious policy family structures that would be damaging, or even less than optimally enriching, to our children. Children need, and deserve, both a mother and a father who are married to one another. We must do all we can to ensure that they get both by strengthening traditional marriage.
How does same-sex marriage affect marriage?
We in South Africa are in something of an advantageous position as we consider same-sex marriage because we can look at how this novel institution has affected other societies and nations who have adopted it. Most especially we can look at The Netherlands, the first country to formalise same-sex marriage in 2000, but which first passed registered partnerships in 1997. We see that the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate has increased by an average of at least 2 percentage points for nine consecutive years, a rise greater than that of any other Western European nation and rivalled only by a few Eastern European countries whose social systems are recovering from near-total collapse in the wake of the demise of their communist governments. The reason for this? When marriage is redefined to include same-sex couples, heterosexuals very quickly begin to decide that marriage doesn’t mean much of anything and so why bother? Is it a good thing to have an increasing out-of-wedlock birthrate? Certainly not. Children need, and deserve, both a mother and a father who are married to one another. We must do all we can to ensure that they get both by strengthening traditional marriage.
Do many gays and lesbians get married if given the right?
Some say that same-sex couples are being denied their civil rights by not being allowed to marry. So, once given the opportunity to marry, wouldn’t we expect a huge surge of same-sex marriages to occur, especially as there would surely be a pent-up demand from same-sex couples who have never had this right and would rush out to claim it? The experience of other countries demonstrates that not many same-sex couples actually choose to get married if given the chance. In The Netherlands, there were 2 414 same-sex marriages in 2001, 1 838 in 2002, 1 499 in 2003, 1 210 in 2004 and 1 166 in 2005 (out of a total population of 16,4 million). Belgium saw 1 708 same-sex marriages in seven months of 2003, and 2 204 in all of 2004 (out of a total population of 10,4 million). In The Netherlands, then, between 2 percent and 6 percent of the gay and lesbian population (or 0,05 percent of the total population) have availed themselves of the right of same-sex marriage since it was legalised, and in Belgium between 2 percent and 5 percent of the gay and lesbian population have done so (or 0,04 percent of the total population). Does it make good sense to so radically alter and damage so vital a social institution as marriage for the supposed benefit of so few? We believe not. Same-sex marriage does not give children both a mother and a father. But children need, and deserve, both a mother and a father who are married to one another. We must do all we can to ensure that they get both by strengthening traditional marriage.
We appeal to you, then, as a person entrusted with great responsibility for the future of our nation – which resides in our children – to take to heart our concerns, along with those of many others, and seek with all courage and wisdom to strengthen traditional marriage – that between a man and a woman – so that as many of our children as possible grow up in an intact family with both a mother and a father. They will thereby have the best foundation from which to aspire to live out their dreams and their potential as positively contributing members of society.
We call on you to join with other Parliamentarians to enact a Constitutional Amendment that will define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. We note that Parliament has amended the Constitution twelve times since 1996 (i.e., an average of more than one amendment each year), sometimes in regard to matters far less consequential than the definition of the most central institution in all of human history. It is altogether right and proper, we believe, for Parliament, as the elected representative of the people of this nation, to shoulder this responsibility and not leave this matter to be decided by a small number of unelected judges, nor to succumb to a Court judgement which is so unreflective of the views of the vast majority of South African citizens and which is also anathema to African culture.
We pledge to you to keep you in our prayers as you take up this matter which is vital beyond any other you will consider in your political career.
Sincerely,
Greg Smerdon Esmé Bowers
Team Leader Chairperson of the Board
Friday, August 18, 2006
Parliament must consider a Constitutional Marriage Amendment. It is not a 'rubber stamp' for the Court" says Defend Marriage
Parliament must consider a Constitutional Marriage Amendment. It is not a
'rubber stamp' for the Court" says Defend Marriage responding to Patrick
Chauke.
Responding today (18 August 2006), to Patrick Chauke's comment on 16 August
saying a
constitutional amendment was not being considered, Philip Rosenthal
spokesperson for Defend Marriage, said: "Parliament must consider the
alternative of a Constitutional Amendment to protect the definition of
marriage as between a man and a woman".
Defend Marriage, is a coalition of organisations lobbying for a
Constitutional Marriage Amendment. The current proposal is to add to
section 39 Interpretation of the Bill of Rights: "The Constitution shall be
interpreted to mean that a marriage is the voluntary union between a man and
a woman only." Patrick Chauke is chairperson on the Portfolio Committee on
Home Affairs in Parliament, which is considering proposals to recognise
'Same-Sex Marriage'.
Some reasons why a Constitutional Amendment must be seriously considered:
1. The Constitutional Marriage Amendment is not only being supported by
some opposition parties, as stated in Chauke's media statement, but also by
many in his own political party. The proposal has received letters of
support for the amendment from MP's in six different political parties.
2. On 1 August 2006, before Home Affairs presented their proposed Bill
in parliament, Philip Rosenthal of Defend Marriage asked Patrick Chauke for
the opportunity to present an alternative proposal of a Constitutional
Amendment. Patrick Chauke said that there would be opportunity to do this
during the public hearings the following month. Chauke must therefore keep
his word and hear the alternative.
3. The 1st December 05 Constitutional Court judgement does not allow
space for any meaningful legal alternatives to be considered During the 1st
August Portfolio Committee meeting, a parliamentarian voiced concern that
parliament was being expected to just 'rubber stamp' the decision of the
court. If this was allowed to happen, it would infringe on the democratic
decision making process. A Constitutional Amendment is the only way that
the current definition of marriage can be protected, and this should not be
rejected without serious consideration.
4. Yesterday's 17 August 06 Constitutional Court judgement emphasised
the need for public participation in legislation. The court found
parliament and the NCOP negligent in facilitating public hearings with
regard to two other pieces of legislation, we hope that parliament will not
shirk their constitutional obligation to consult with the public on this
issue, instead of rushing through legislation simply to comply with a time
limit set by the Constitutional Court. This would not be properly fulfilled
if other alternatives were not properly considered. There is widespread
concern over the proposals to change the definition of marriage and MPs had
expressed the need for comprehensive public consultation including that of
rural communities. Defend Marriage calls on parliament to request a time
extension from the Constitutional Court so that the voices of all South
Africans can be heard, not just those with access to the halls of power. Our
Nation's rich culture of imbizo, lekgotla, bosberaad and indaba referred to
by Judge Albie Sachs in yesterday's Constitutional Court ruling must be
respected, because marriage and the family is something sacred and important
to most of our people.
Patrick Chauke should not dismiss the alternative before listening to the
many good arguments in favour of a Constitutional Amendment.
At the same time, Defend Marriage thanks Patrick Chauke for his actions in
closing a 'sex-shop' near parliament and calling ETV and The Voice newspaper
to account for making pornography too easily available.
Changing the constitution, rather than infringing on the rights of the
individual, safeguards the intentions of the framers of the constitution. If
one allows the original intentions of the framers of the constitution to be
reinterpreted by activist judges, then the rights of the individual are
really in trouble. Who is to say what the next re-interpretation will be?
We will continue to fight for an amendment to the constitution to define
marriage as a union between a man and a woman only. A constitutional
amendment is the only option acceptable to the majority of South Africans.
Media Enquiries: Philip Rosenthal
info@defendmarriage.co.za
082 6768966
021-6854500
Patrick Chauke's original media statement on 16 August 06:
http://www.sabcnews.com/politics/parliament/0,2172,133123,00.html
'rubber stamp' for the Court" says Defend Marriage responding to Patrick
Chauke.
Responding today (18 August 2006), to Patrick Chauke's comment on 16 August
saying a
constitutional amendment was not being considered, Philip Rosenthal
spokesperson for Defend Marriage, said: "Parliament must consider the
alternative of a Constitutional Amendment to protect the definition of
marriage as between a man and a woman".
Defend Marriage, is a coalition of organisations lobbying for a
Constitutional Marriage Amendment. The current proposal is to add to
section 39 Interpretation of the Bill of Rights: "The Constitution shall be
interpreted to mean that a marriage is the voluntary union between a man and
a woman only." Patrick Chauke is chairperson on the Portfolio Committee on
Home Affairs in Parliament, which is considering proposals to recognise
'Same-Sex Marriage'.
Some reasons why a Constitutional Amendment must be seriously considered:
1. The Constitutional Marriage Amendment is not only being supported by
some opposition parties, as stated in Chauke's media statement, but also by
many in his own political party. The proposal has received letters of
support for the amendment from MP's in six different political parties.
2. On 1 August 2006, before Home Affairs presented their proposed Bill
in parliament, Philip Rosenthal of Defend Marriage asked Patrick Chauke for
the opportunity to present an alternative proposal of a Constitutional
Amendment. Patrick Chauke said that there would be opportunity to do this
during the public hearings the following month. Chauke must therefore keep
his word and hear the alternative.
3. The 1st December 05 Constitutional Court judgement does not allow
space for any meaningful legal alternatives to be considered During the 1st
August Portfolio Committee meeting, a parliamentarian voiced concern that
parliament was being expected to just 'rubber stamp' the decision of the
court. If this was allowed to happen, it would infringe on the democratic
decision making process. A Constitutional Amendment is the only way that
the current definition of marriage can be protected, and this should not be
rejected without serious consideration.
4. Yesterday's 17 August 06 Constitutional Court judgement emphasised
the need for public participation in legislation. The court found
parliament and the NCOP negligent in facilitating public hearings with
regard to two other pieces of legislation, we hope that parliament will not
shirk their constitutional obligation to consult with the public on this
issue, instead of rushing through legislation simply to comply with a time
limit set by the Constitutional Court. This would not be properly fulfilled
if other alternatives were not properly considered. There is widespread
concern over the proposals to change the definition of marriage and MPs had
expressed the need for comprehensive public consultation including that of
rural communities. Defend Marriage calls on parliament to request a time
extension from the Constitutional Court so that the voices of all South
Africans can be heard, not just those with access to the halls of power. Our
Nation's rich culture of imbizo, lekgotla, bosberaad and indaba referred to
by Judge Albie Sachs in yesterday's Constitutional Court ruling must be
respected, because marriage and the family is something sacred and important
to most of our people.
Patrick Chauke should not dismiss the alternative before listening to the
many good arguments in favour of a Constitutional Amendment.
At the same time, Defend Marriage thanks Patrick Chauke for his actions in
closing a 'sex-shop' near parliament and calling ETV and The Voice newspaper
to account for making pornography too easily available.
Changing the constitution, rather than infringing on the rights of the
individual, safeguards the intentions of the framers of the constitution. If
one allows the original intentions of the framers of the constitution to be
reinterpreted by activist judges, then the rights of the individual are
really in trouble. Who is to say what the next re-interpretation will be?
We will continue to fight for an amendment to the constitution to define
marriage as a union between a man and a woman only. A constitutional
amendment is the only option acceptable to the majority of South Africans.
Media Enquiries: Philip Rosenthal
info@defendmarriage.co.za
082 6768966
021-6854500
Patrick Chauke's original media statement on 16 August 06:
http://www.sabcnews.com/politics/parliament/0,2172,133123,00.html
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Is same-sex marriage good for children?
Today, on radio SAFM interview on Same-Sex Marriage, a caller asked for evidence that 'same sex marriage' is harmful to children.Studies show that children with both a mother and a father are on average the most successful. Those with a single parent come next and those with two parents of the same sex are the least successful.Most academic writings on the subject are only available hard copy (not on the internet), but here is a web link with a helpful summary of information: http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/ssuap/
Same-Sex Marriage was never considered at the Codesa negotiations
SAME SEX MARRIAGE WAS NEVER CONSIDERED AT THE CODESA NEGOTIATIONS
The following 'Charter' indicates the list of demands of the homosexual lobby at the time of the CODESA negotiations. It is not endorsed by the Constitutional Marriage Amendment Campaign (CMAC), but it is reproduced here to show that 'Same-Sex Marriage' was never considered at this stage even by the most radical homosexual organisations. Activist judges seek now to read-in new meanings to the 'sexual orientation' right that were never previously considered by anyone. If they can do this for 'same-sex marriage', are they going to invent new rights on all sorts of other issues also? If the intent of the Constitutional Assembly is ignored, then they are abusing their authority.
The 'Charter' outlines the alarming and comprehensive agenda of the homosexual extremists in 1992, which if accepted would harm the rights of moral people who oppose homosexuality.
Philip Rosenthal
----------------------------------------------
Draft Lesbian and Gay Rights Charter
(Published in 'Lesbian and Gay Rights, Derek Fine, Developing Justice Series Volume 8, Published by the Social Justice Resource Project and Legal Education Action Project at the Institute of Criminology, University of Cape Town, September 1992)
Introduction 1
A. The Law 1
B. Privacy 2
C. Public expression, speech and association 2
D. Relationships and registered partnerships 2
E. Children 2
F. Schools, youth and public education 3
G. Employment 3
H. Housing 4
I. Health and welfare 4
J. Immigration 4
K. Media 5
L. Prisons 5
M. Religion 5
N. Policing, the courts and enforcement of rights 5
Introduction
Note: This is a draft Lesbian and Gay Rights Charter drawn up by the organization for Lesbian and Gay Action (OLGA) after collecting the demands of many lesbians and gay men.
“As lesbians and gay men, we commit ourselves to building a non-racial, non-sexist, non-homophobic and democratic South Africa.
Together with all other South Africans, we say that we should no longer be oppressed and exploited because of our race, colour, class, gender, sexual orientation, political beliefs, language, religion, culture or physical ability.
We believe we are entitled to the following rights to give effect to the principle of non-discrimination against us as lesbians and gay men:
A. The Law
1. Homosexuality and lesbianism shall be decriminalised.
2. Where Acts of Parliament make lesbian/gay behaviour a crime, or discriminate against lesbians and gay men, they shall be repealed or amended.
3. Where the common law criminalizes or discriminates against lesbians and gay men, it shall no longer be applied.
4. A future Bill of Rights shall include the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
5. All laws shall be reviewed to ensure that they follow the principle of non-discrimination and equality before the law, as enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
6. In changing the law relating to sexual acts, the focus shall be on whether there was actively-given consent, and not on the gender and sexual orientation of the participants.
7. The law relating to sexual acts shall deal with sexual violence and abuse regardless of the gender and sexual orientation of the participants.
8. The age of consent shall be the same for heterosexual and lesbian/gay sexual acts.
9. Positive anti-discrimination laws shall be introduced to reinforce the broad commitment to lesbian and gay rights, and all other human rights contained in the Bill of Rights.
10. The law shall be drafted and interpreted free of heterosexism so as to include rather than exclude lesbians and gay men, and lesbian and gay relationships/partnerships.
B. Privacy
1. Lesbians and gay men shall enjoy the same rights to privacy as all other people.
2. This includes the right to engage in sexual conduct between consenting people, to host social events, and to write and receive correspondence without interference.
C. Public expression, speech and association
1. Lesbians and gay men shall enjoy the same rights as all other people to express affection in public, to speak freely, to produce and receive media, to hold meetings and have access to public facilities and resources.
2. Lesbian and gay men shall enjoy the same rights to personal dignity and respect as all other people.
D. Relationships and registered partnerships
1. People of the same gender shall have the right to form relationships and live together.
2. Two people of the same gender shall have the right to formalise their relationship as a registered partnership.
3. Registered partners shall have similar rights as in marriage, including the right to cohabitation, to share property and wealth, to inheritance, and to next-of-kin status.
4. Registered partners shall also have the right to insurance, pension, taxation, medical aid, housing and other social and economic benefits.
5. A registered partnership can be ended by deregistration, which will have a similar effect as divorce after marriage.
E. Children
1. Lesbians and gay men shall enjoy the same rights in respect of children as all other people, regardless of whether they are in a registered partnership or not.
2. This includes the right to produce children through sexual intercourse or alternative insemination, to adopt, foster and take custody of children, to raise and support children, and to be a natural/legal guardian.
F. Schools, youth and public education
1. Positive education about gender and sexuality, including sexual orientation and homosexuality/lesbianism, shall be included in the curricula of schools, all tertiary institutions and youth/community programmes.
2. This shall include the combating of prejudice and the presenting of lesbian/gay relationships and lifestyles as a valid expression of sexuality.
3. It shall be unlawful to teach negative and homophobic attitudes towards homosexuality and lesbianism.
4. Teachers and counsellors should be suitably trained and qualified to provide balanced and positive education on gender and sexuality.
5. Lesbian/gay organisations shall have access to schools, all tertiary institutions and youth/community centres to supplement or provide such education.
6. Students shall not be discriminated against or harassed because of being lesbian or gay, or because their parent(s)/guardian(s) are lesbian or gay.
7. There shall be procedures for complaints by students regarding such discrimination or harassment.
8. Rules regarding relationships and harassment/abuse between teachers and students shall be the same, regardless of whether the relationships/conduct are of a heterosexual or lesbian/gay nature.
9. Youth and students shall have access to counselling to give them support with discovering their sexuality and ‘coming out’, and when experiencing problems related to discrimination or harassment.
10. Young people shall have the right to sex education and information, even if this is opposed by their parent(s) or guardian(s).
11. Lesbian and gay youth/adults shall have the right not to be discriminated against in getting access to education and training for future employment.
G. Employment
1. Discrimination against lesbians and gay men in the workplace shall be unlawful with regard to recruitment, working conditions, promotion and dismissal.
2. Lesbians and gay men shall have equal access to employment and service in the armed forces, and being lesbian/gay shall not be considered to be a risk to national security.
3. It shall be unlawful for employers to harass, abuse or blackmail employees because of their sexual orientation.
4. It shall be an ‘unfair labour practice’ for employers to harass to discriminate against employees because of their sexual orientation.
5. Lesbian and gay employees shall have the right to be ‘out of the closet’ (open about their sexual orientation) in the workplace. This right shall apply equally to schoolteachers and those who work with young people.
6. Disciplinary action shall be taken against employees who harass or victimise co-workers because they are known to be lesbian or gay.
7. Lesbian/gay registered partnerships shall be recognised for the purposes of all employment benefits, including compassionate and co-parenting leave.
8. Single lesbians/gay men shall have equal access to maternity/paternity leave benefits.
H. Housing
1. It shall be unlawful to discriminate against lesbian/gay individuals or couples with regard to access to housing or accommodation because of their sexual orientation.
I. Health and welfare
1. It shall be unlawful for insurance companies, building societies, pension offices and other government departments, or other institutions dealing with health and welfare, to discriminate against lesbians or gay men in providing their services.
2. Health and welfare workers shall be educated with regard to the particular problems experienced by lesbians and gay men owing to the homophobic nature of our society.
3. Health and welfare workers shall be trained to combat such homophobia and to present lesbian/gay lifestyles as a normal and natural variation of human sexuality.
4. Homosexuality and lesbianism shall no longer be considered to be medical or psychological conditions requiring corrective or curative treatment.
5. Mental health problems in lesbians and gay men shall not automatically be assumed to be a result of their sexual orientation.
6. Lesbians and gay men shall have the right of access to visit partners/lovers in hospitals and other places of care.
7. Lesbians and gay men shall have the same right of access to all other people to counselling, social and advice networks, and health care, including value-free access to services/medicines to prevent or treat HIV/AIDS or other sexually transmissible conditions.
J. Immigration
1. Sexual orientation shall not be factor in decision-making regarding applications for immigration.
2. Lesbian and gay men shall have the right to share the nationality of their registered partner.
3. The government shall grant asylum status to lesbians and gay men who flee from, or fear returning to, countries where homosexuality/lesbianism is persecuted.
K. Media
1. It shall be unlawful to promote homophobia and the negative stereotyping of lesbians and gay men in the media.
2. Lesbians and gay men shall have the same access as all other people to publish and speak in the press and on radio and television.
3. The same standards shall be applied with respect to censoring exploitative or violent heterosexual or lesbian/gay sexual acts.
4. Lesbians and gay men shall have the right to sue the media for promoting hate and violence against people because of their sexual orientation.
L. Prisons
1. There shall be protection for lesbians and gay men in prison in respect of rape and other forms of victimisation and violence.
2. Lesbian/gay prisoners shall have the right of access to psychologists and social workers of their choice.
3. Lesbians and gay men shall have the right of access to visit partners/lovers in prison.
M. Religion
1. It shall be unlawful to discriminate against lesbians and gay men in churches, mosques, temples, synagogues or other places of worship. This includes the right to worship in a place of their choice, and the right to be a member of, or a minister of religion in, a religious institution, regardless of sexual orientation.
2. Lesbian and gay issues shall be openly raised and discussed in religious institutions as a normal and natural variation of human sexuality.
3. It shall be unlawful to promote homophobia and teachings that present the notion of lesbian/gay behaviour as being sinful.
N. Policing, the courts and enforcement of rights
1. The police, magistrates, prosecutors and other staff of law/human rights enforcement bodies shall undergo thorough training/retraining on issues relating to gender and sexual orientation, including education on the new protective rights and laws concerning lesbians and gay men.
2. An affirmative action approach should be followed regarding employment in the police, administration of justice and public service to ensure that lesbians and gay men are represented in institutions.
3. Harassment and entrapment of lesbians and gay men by the police and any other law enforcement bodes shall be unlawful.
4. It shall be the duty of the police to protect lesbians and gay men from harassment, victimisation and ‘bashing’.
5. The approach to policing and the regulation of sexual acts/conduct shall focus on preventing abuse, and not on certain kinds of sexual acts or the gender and sexual orientation of participants.
6. There shall be quick and accessible channels to report and follow up cases of abuse, harassment and victimisation on the grounds of sexual orientation. Police liaison officers shall be adequately trained to assist with such cases.
7. Lesbians and gay men shall, together with all other people, have access to Human Rights Commission, Ombud’s offices, the Constitutional court and other relevant bodies to make complaints and seek redress where lesbian and gay rights under the Bill of Rights and new anti-discrimination laws have been violated.
8. People affected by anti-lesbian/gay violence shall be entitled to fair and impartial hearings by courts and other relevant bodies.
9. Homophobia shall not be permissible as the basis for a legal defence on charges of violence and abuse against lesbians and gay men.
10. The same standards shall apply in sentencing in criminal cases involving heterosexual or lesbian/gay harassment, abuse or violence.”
The following 'Charter' indicates the list of demands of the homosexual lobby at the time of the CODESA negotiations. It is not endorsed by the Constitutional Marriage Amendment Campaign (CMAC), but it is reproduced here to show that 'Same-Sex Marriage' was never considered at this stage even by the most radical homosexual organisations. Activist judges seek now to read-in new meanings to the 'sexual orientation' right that were never previously considered by anyone. If they can do this for 'same-sex marriage', are they going to invent new rights on all sorts of other issues also? If the intent of the Constitutional Assembly is ignored, then they are abusing their authority.
The 'Charter' outlines the alarming and comprehensive agenda of the homosexual extremists in 1992, which if accepted would harm the rights of moral people who oppose homosexuality.
Philip Rosenthal
----------------------------------------------
Draft Lesbian and Gay Rights Charter
(Published in 'Lesbian and Gay Rights, Derek Fine, Developing Justice Series Volume 8, Published by the Social Justice Resource Project and Legal Education Action Project at the Institute of Criminology, University of Cape Town, September 1992)
Introduction 1
A. The Law 1
B. Privacy 2
C. Public expression, speech and association 2
D. Relationships and registered partnerships 2
E. Children 2
F. Schools, youth and public education 3
G. Employment 3
H. Housing 4
I. Health and welfare 4
J. Immigration 4
K. Media 5
L. Prisons 5
M. Religion 5
N. Policing, the courts and enforcement of rights 5
Introduction
Note: This is a draft Lesbian and Gay Rights Charter drawn up by the organization for Lesbian and Gay Action (OLGA) after collecting the demands of many lesbians and gay men.
“As lesbians and gay men, we commit ourselves to building a non-racial, non-sexist, non-homophobic and democratic South Africa.
Together with all other South Africans, we say that we should no longer be oppressed and exploited because of our race, colour, class, gender, sexual orientation, political beliefs, language, religion, culture or physical ability.
We believe we are entitled to the following rights to give effect to the principle of non-discrimination against us as lesbians and gay men:
A. The Law
1. Homosexuality and lesbianism shall be decriminalised.
2. Where Acts of Parliament make lesbian/gay behaviour a crime, or discriminate against lesbians and gay men, they shall be repealed or amended.
3. Where the common law criminalizes or discriminates against lesbians and gay men, it shall no longer be applied.
4. A future Bill of Rights shall include the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
5. All laws shall be reviewed to ensure that they follow the principle of non-discrimination and equality before the law, as enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
6. In changing the law relating to sexual acts, the focus shall be on whether there was actively-given consent, and not on the gender and sexual orientation of the participants.
7. The law relating to sexual acts shall deal with sexual violence and abuse regardless of the gender and sexual orientation of the participants.
8. The age of consent shall be the same for heterosexual and lesbian/gay sexual acts.
9. Positive anti-discrimination laws shall be introduced to reinforce the broad commitment to lesbian and gay rights, and all other human rights contained in the Bill of Rights.
10. The law shall be drafted and interpreted free of heterosexism so as to include rather than exclude lesbians and gay men, and lesbian and gay relationships/partnerships.
B. Privacy
1. Lesbians and gay men shall enjoy the same rights to privacy as all other people.
2. This includes the right to engage in sexual conduct between consenting people, to host social events, and to write and receive correspondence without interference.
C. Public expression, speech and association
1. Lesbians and gay men shall enjoy the same rights as all other people to express affection in public, to speak freely, to produce and receive media, to hold meetings and have access to public facilities and resources.
2. Lesbian and gay men shall enjoy the same rights to personal dignity and respect as all other people.
D. Relationships and registered partnerships
1. People of the same gender shall have the right to form relationships and live together.
2. Two people of the same gender shall have the right to formalise their relationship as a registered partnership.
3. Registered partners shall have similar rights as in marriage, including the right to cohabitation, to share property and wealth, to inheritance, and to next-of-kin status.
4. Registered partners shall also have the right to insurance, pension, taxation, medical aid, housing and other social and economic benefits.
5. A registered partnership can be ended by deregistration, which will have a similar effect as divorce after marriage.
E. Children
1. Lesbians and gay men shall enjoy the same rights in respect of children as all other people, regardless of whether they are in a registered partnership or not.
2. This includes the right to produce children through sexual intercourse or alternative insemination, to adopt, foster and take custody of children, to raise and support children, and to be a natural/legal guardian.
F. Schools, youth and public education
1. Positive education about gender and sexuality, including sexual orientation and homosexuality/lesbianism, shall be included in the curricula of schools, all tertiary institutions and youth/community programmes.
2. This shall include the combating of prejudice and the presenting of lesbian/gay relationships and lifestyles as a valid expression of sexuality.
3. It shall be unlawful to teach negative and homophobic attitudes towards homosexuality and lesbianism.
4. Teachers and counsellors should be suitably trained and qualified to provide balanced and positive education on gender and sexuality.
5. Lesbian/gay organisations shall have access to schools, all tertiary institutions and youth/community centres to supplement or provide such education.
6. Students shall not be discriminated against or harassed because of being lesbian or gay, or because their parent(s)/guardian(s) are lesbian or gay.
7. There shall be procedures for complaints by students regarding such discrimination or harassment.
8. Rules regarding relationships and harassment/abuse between teachers and students shall be the same, regardless of whether the relationships/conduct are of a heterosexual or lesbian/gay nature.
9. Youth and students shall have access to counselling to give them support with discovering their sexuality and ‘coming out’, and when experiencing problems related to discrimination or harassment.
10. Young people shall have the right to sex education and information, even if this is opposed by their parent(s) or guardian(s).
11. Lesbian and gay youth/adults shall have the right not to be discriminated against in getting access to education and training for future employment.
G. Employment
1. Discrimination against lesbians and gay men in the workplace shall be unlawful with regard to recruitment, working conditions, promotion and dismissal.
2. Lesbians and gay men shall have equal access to employment and service in the armed forces, and being lesbian/gay shall not be considered to be a risk to national security.
3. It shall be unlawful for employers to harass, abuse or blackmail employees because of their sexual orientation.
4. It shall be an ‘unfair labour practice’ for employers to harass to discriminate against employees because of their sexual orientation.
5. Lesbian and gay employees shall have the right to be ‘out of the closet’ (open about their sexual orientation) in the workplace. This right shall apply equally to schoolteachers and those who work with young people.
6. Disciplinary action shall be taken against employees who harass or victimise co-workers because they are known to be lesbian or gay.
7. Lesbian/gay registered partnerships shall be recognised for the purposes of all employment benefits, including compassionate and co-parenting leave.
8. Single lesbians/gay men shall have equal access to maternity/paternity leave benefits.
H. Housing
1. It shall be unlawful to discriminate against lesbian/gay individuals or couples with regard to access to housing or accommodation because of their sexual orientation.
I. Health and welfare
1. It shall be unlawful for insurance companies, building societies, pension offices and other government departments, or other institutions dealing with health and welfare, to discriminate against lesbians or gay men in providing their services.
2. Health and welfare workers shall be educated with regard to the particular problems experienced by lesbians and gay men owing to the homophobic nature of our society.
3. Health and welfare workers shall be trained to combat such homophobia and to present lesbian/gay lifestyles as a normal and natural variation of human sexuality.
4. Homosexuality and lesbianism shall no longer be considered to be medical or psychological conditions requiring corrective or curative treatment.
5. Mental health problems in lesbians and gay men shall not automatically be assumed to be a result of their sexual orientation.
6. Lesbians and gay men shall have the right of access to visit partners/lovers in hospitals and other places of care.
7. Lesbians and gay men shall have the same right of access to all other people to counselling, social and advice networks, and health care, including value-free access to services/medicines to prevent or treat HIV/AIDS or other sexually transmissible conditions.
J. Immigration
1. Sexual orientation shall not be factor in decision-making regarding applications for immigration.
2. Lesbian and gay men shall have the right to share the nationality of their registered partner.
3. The government shall grant asylum status to lesbians and gay men who flee from, or fear returning to, countries where homosexuality/lesbianism is persecuted.
K. Media
1. It shall be unlawful to promote homophobia and the negative stereotyping of lesbians and gay men in the media.
2. Lesbians and gay men shall have the same access as all other people to publish and speak in the press and on radio and television.
3. The same standards shall be applied with respect to censoring exploitative or violent heterosexual or lesbian/gay sexual acts.
4. Lesbians and gay men shall have the right to sue the media for promoting hate and violence against people because of their sexual orientation.
L. Prisons
1. There shall be protection for lesbians and gay men in prison in respect of rape and other forms of victimisation and violence.
2. Lesbian/gay prisoners shall have the right of access to psychologists and social workers of their choice.
3. Lesbians and gay men shall have the right of access to visit partners/lovers in prison.
M. Religion
1. It shall be unlawful to discriminate against lesbians and gay men in churches, mosques, temples, synagogues or other places of worship. This includes the right to worship in a place of their choice, and the right to be a member of, or a minister of religion in, a religious institution, regardless of sexual orientation.
2. Lesbian and gay issues shall be openly raised and discussed in religious institutions as a normal and natural variation of human sexuality.
3. It shall be unlawful to promote homophobia and teachings that present the notion of lesbian/gay behaviour as being sinful.
N. Policing, the courts and enforcement of rights
1. The police, magistrates, prosecutors and other staff of law/human rights enforcement bodies shall undergo thorough training/retraining on issues relating to gender and sexual orientation, including education on the new protective rights and laws concerning lesbians and gay men.
2. An affirmative action approach should be followed regarding employment in the police, administration of justice and public service to ensure that lesbians and gay men are represented in institutions.
3. Harassment and entrapment of lesbians and gay men by the police and any other law enforcement bodes shall be unlawful.
4. It shall be the duty of the police to protect lesbians and gay men from harassment, victimisation and ‘bashing’.
5. The approach to policing and the regulation of sexual acts/conduct shall focus on preventing abuse, and not on certain kinds of sexual acts or the gender and sexual orientation of participants.
6. There shall be quick and accessible channels to report and follow up cases of abuse, harassment and victimisation on the grounds of sexual orientation. Police liaison officers shall be adequately trained to assist with such cases.
7. Lesbians and gay men shall, together with all other people, have access to Human Rights Commission, Ombud’s offices, the Constitutional court and other relevant bodies to make complaints and seek redress where lesbian and gay rights under the Bill of Rights and new anti-discrimination laws have been violated.
8. People affected by anti-lesbian/gay violence shall be entitled to fair and impartial hearings by courts and other relevant bodies.
9. Homophobia shall not be permissible as the basis for a legal defence on charges of violence and abuse against lesbians and gay men.
10. The same standards shall apply in sentencing in criminal cases involving heterosexual or lesbian/gay harassment, abuse or violence.”
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Home Affairs Draft Marriage Amendment Bill at 1 August 06
Constitutional Marriage Amendment Campaign
The draft proposals below were presented by the Department of Home Affairs at parliament on 1 August 2006.
Please send comments to:
Advocate Dion Erasmus
Email: deon.erasmus@dha.gov.za
Phone: 012-8108032
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
MARRIAGE AMENDMENT BILL, 2006
GENERAL EXPLANATORY NOTE:
[ ] Words in bold type square brackets indicate omission from existing enactments.
__________ Words underlined with a solid line indicate insertions in existing enactments.
BILL
To amend the Marriage Act, 1961 so as to insert certain definitions; and to provide for matters connected therewith.
BE IT ENACTED by the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa, as follows:—
Amendment of section 1 of Act 25 of 1961
1. Section 1 of the Marriage Act, 1961 (Act No. 25 of 1961), hereinafter referred to as “the principal Act”, is hereby amended by—
(a) the insertion after the definition of “magistrate” of the following definition:
“‘marriage’ means the voluntary union of two persons concluded in terms of this Act to the exclusion of all others;”; and
(b) the insertion after the definition of “prior law” of the following definition:
“‘spouse’ means the lawful partner of a person in a valid marriage concluded in terms of this Act and any reference to spouse in any other law shall have the same meaning;”.
Amendment of section 3 of Act 25 of 1961
2. Section 3 of the principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution for subsection (1) of the following subsection:
“(1) The Minister and any officer in the public service authorised thereto by him may designate any minister of religion of, or any person holding a responsible position in, any religious denomination or organization to be, so long as he is such a minister or occupies such position, a marriage officer for the purpose of solemnizing marriages according to [Christian, Jewish or Mohammedan rites or the rites of any Indian religion] the rites of the religious denomination or organization concerned.”.
Amendment of section 12 of Act 25 of 1961, as amended by section 1 of Act No. 112 of 1990 and section 1(2) of Act No. 114 of 1991
3. Section 12 of the principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution for paragraph (a) of the following paragraph:
“(a) each of the parties in question produces to the marriage officer his or her identity document issued under the provisions of the [Identification Act, 1986 (Act No. 72 of 1986)] Identification Act, 1997 (Act No. 68 of 1997); or”.
Amendment of section 29A of Act 25 of 1961, as inserted by section 33 of Act No. 51 of 1992
4. Section 29A of the principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution for subsection (2) of the following subsection:
“(2) The marriage officer shall forthwith transmit the marriage register and records concerned, as the case may be, to a regional or district representative designated as such under [section 21(1)] section 4 of the [Identification Act, 1986 (Act No. 72 of 1986)] Identification Act, 1997 (Act No. 68 of 1997); or”.
Amendment of section 30 of Act 25 of 1961, as amended by section 1 of Act No. 12 of 1973
5. Section 30 of the principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution for subsection (1) of the following subsection:
“(1) In solemnizing any marriage any marriage officer designated under section 3 may follow the marriage formula usually observed by his religious denomination or organization if such marriage formula has been approved by the Minister, but if such marriage formula has not been approved by the Minister, or in the case of any other marriage officer, the marriage officer concerned shall put the following questions to each of the parties separately, each of whom shall reply thereto in the affirmative:
“Do you, A.B., declare that as far as you know there is no lawful impediment to your proposed marriage with C.D here present, and that you call all here present to witness that you take C.D. as your lawful wife (or husband) or spouse?”,
and thereupon the parties shall give each other the right hand and the marriage officer concerned shall declare the marriage solemnized in the following words:
“I declare that A.B. and C.D. here present have been lawfully married.”.”.
Substitution of word in Act 25 of 1961
6. The principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution for the word “Union”, wherever it occurs, of the word “Republic”.
Transitional provisions
7. The provisions of this Act shall not affect—
(a) anything done or omitted in terms of the principal Act before the date of commencement of this Act; and
(b) anything done under the provisions of the principal Act prior to the commencement of this Act, which can be done under the principal Act as amended by this Act, shall be deemed to have been done under the principal Act as amended by this Act.
Short title and commencement
8. This Act is called the Marriage Amendment Act, 2006, and comes into operation on a date determined by the President by proclamation in the Gazette.
The draft proposals below were presented by the Department of Home Affairs at parliament on 1 August 2006.
Please send comments to:
Advocate Dion Erasmus
Email: deon.erasmus@dha.gov.za
Phone: 012-8108032
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
MARRIAGE AMENDMENT BILL, 2006
GENERAL EXPLANATORY NOTE:
[ ] Words in bold type square brackets indicate omission from existing enactments.
__________ Words underlined with a solid line indicate insertions in existing enactments.
BILL
To amend the Marriage Act, 1961 so as to insert certain definitions; and to provide for matters connected therewith.
BE IT ENACTED by the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa, as follows:—
Amendment of section 1 of Act 25 of 1961
1. Section 1 of the Marriage Act, 1961 (Act No. 25 of 1961), hereinafter referred to as “the principal Act”, is hereby amended by—
(a) the insertion after the definition of “magistrate” of the following definition:
“‘marriage’ means the voluntary union of two persons concluded in terms of this Act to the exclusion of all others;”; and
(b) the insertion after the definition of “prior law” of the following definition:
“‘spouse’ means the lawful partner of a person in a valid marriage concluded in terms of this Act and any reference to spouse in any other law shall have the same meaning;”.
Amendment of section 3 of Act 25 of 1961
2. Section 3 of the principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution for subsection (1) of the following subsection:
“(1) The Minister and any officer in the public service authorised thereto by him may designate any minister of religion of, or any person holding a responsible position in, any religious denomination or organization to be, so long as he is such a minister or occupies such position, a marriage officer for the purpose of solemnizing marriages according to [Christian, Jewish or Mohammedan rites or the rites of any Indian religion] the rites of the religious denomination or organization concerned.”.
Amendment of section 12 of Act 25 of 1961, as amended by section 1 of Act No. 112 of 1990 and section 1(2) of Act No. 114 of 1991
3. Section 12 of the principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution for paragraph (a) of the following paragraph:
“(a) each of the parties in question produces to the marriage officer his or her identity document issued under the provisions of the [Identification Act, 1986 (Act No. 72 of 1986)] Identification Act, 1997 (Act No. 68 of 1997); or”.
Amendment of section 29A of Act 25 of 1961, as inserted by section 33 of Act No. 51 of 1992
4. Section 29A of the principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution for subsection (2) of the following subsection:
“(2) The marriage officer shall forthwith transmit the marriage register and records concerned, as the case may be, to a regional or district representative designated as such under [section 21(1)] section 4 of the [Identification Act, 1986 (Act No. 72 of 1986)] Identification Act, 1997 (Act No. 68 of 1997); or”.
Amendment of section 30 of Act 25 of 1961, as amended by section 1 of Act No. 12 of 1973
5. Section 30 of the principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution for subsection (1) of the following subsection:
“(1) In solemnizing any marriage any marriage officer designated under section 3 may follow the marriage formula usually observed by his religious denomination or organization if such marriage formula has been approved by the Minister, but if such marriage formula has not been approved by the Minister, or in the case of any other marriage officer, the marriage officer concerned shall put the following questions to each of the parties separately, each of whom shall reply thereto in the affirmative:
“Do you, A.B., declare that as far as you know there is no lawful impediment to your proposed marriage with C.D here present, and that you call all here present to witness that you take C.D. as your lawful wife (or husband) or spouse?”,
and thereupon the parties shall give each other the right hand and the marriage officer concerned shall declare the marriage solemnized in the following words:
“I declare that A.B. and C.D. here present have been lawfully married.”.”.
Substitution of word in Act 25 of 1961
6. The principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution for the word “Union”, wherever it occurs, of the word “Republic”.
Transitional provisions
7. The provisions of this Act shall not affect—
(a) anything done or omitted in terms of the principal Act before the date of commencement of this Act; and
(b) anything done under the provisions of the principal Act prior to the commencement of this Act, which can be done under the principal Act as amended by this Act, shall be deemed to have been done under the principal Act as amended by this Act.
Short title and commencement
8. This Act is called the Marriage Amendment Act, 2006, and comes into operation on a date determined by the President by proclamation in the Gazette.
Home Affairs reports back on 'Same-Sex Marriage'
Constitutional Marriage Amendment Campaign
1 August 2006
Home Affairs reports back on 'Same-Sex Marriage'
Today, 1 August 2006, Mr Dion Erasmus and Mrs Naidoo of Home Affairs
reported back to parliament on their progress on the issue of 'Same-Sex
Marriage'.
The Home Affairs presentation recommended amending the Marriage Act to
comply with the Constitutional Court ruling. An alternative proposal from
the Department of Justice echoed those of the South African Law Reform
Commission of a second parallel Marriage Act called the 'Reformed Marriage
Act', which would run in parallel with the existing Marriage Act, but would
accommodate Same-Sex 'marriages'. The Home Affairs presentation quoted
input from the 'SA Pagan Rights Alliance' and the Commission on Gender
Equality, in trying to accommodate concerns of non-Christian religions at
the same time as 'Same-Sex Marriage'.
Parliament aims to introduce a bill for discussion on 1 September 06 in
order to meet the Constitutional Courts deadline of passing new legislation
by 1 December 06. In order to meet this deadline, they proposed bill needs
to go to the cabinet on 23 August 06. There would be a parliamentary
recess from mid-September to mid-October.
The Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs apparently met this morning to try
resolve their differences on this issue, but we did not hear the outcome of
this discussion.
The Home Affairs portfolio committee chairman, Patrick Chauke, expressed
concern that the issue was emotive and needed much public consultation,
which may last for over a month. He said that thousands of letters had
landed in his office. There was a need to go down to villages and consult
churches and traditional leaders and find a solution that was acceptable to
everyone.
The Justice and Constitutional Development chairperson, Ms Fatima
Chohan-Kota expressed concern to discuss options other than those presented
by the Constitutional Court and felt that other countries legislation also
needed to be looked at. She wanted to find a way to conform with the court
without alienating important sectors of society. It would be necessary to
speak to the presiding officer of parliament to discuss time frames for
public consultation.
Mr Steve Swart of the ACDP said he was concerned that parliament was even
considering changing the definition of marriage and called rather for a
Constitutional Amendment. He was concerned that something so important was
being rushed through and that the proposals of the Marriage Alliance to the
Constitutional Review Committee were being ignored.
Mr Tertius Delport of the Democratic Alliance (DA) said that the committee
had not been presented will all the options. Religious groups were a
cornerstone of a stable society. A solution needed to be found that
satisfied the convictions and emotions of all. He was disappointed to see
only one option presented. Research was needed on the solutions of other
countries.
One MP said that what was being suggested was totally against parliamentary
procedure. Parliament was just being a rubber stamp for the Constitutional
Court.
Mrs Sandy Kalyan of the DA said that what was proposed was just 'band-aid
therapy' to meet the deadline and doesn't come across as scientific.
Another member of parliament said that it was important to consult people in
rural areas. Community radio stations should be asked to ask their
listeners to make comments. The committee chair said that parliament had
limited resources for this purpose.
Those who wish to submit comments for the process should write to: Patrick
Chauke, Home Affairs Committee Portfolio Committee Chairperson, PO Box 15,
Cape Town, 8000 or email at his constituency address 406@ancpco.org.za and
his secretary at parliament ncmagazi@parliament.gov.za
1 August 2006
Home Affairs reports back on 'Same-Sex Marriage'
Today, 1 August 2006, Mr Dion Erasmus and Mrs Naidoo of Home Affairs
reported back to parliament on their progress on the issue of 'Same-Sex
Marriage'.
The Home Affairs presentation recommended amending the Marriage Act to
comply with the Constitutional Court ruling. An alternative proposal from
the Department of Justice echoed those of the South African Law Reform
Commission of a second parallel Marriage Act called the 'Reformed Marriage
Act', which would run in parallel with the existing Marriage Act, but would
accommodate Same-Sex 'marriages'. The Home Affairs presentation quoted
input from the 'SA Pagan Rights Alliance' and the Commission on Gender
Equality, in trying to accommodate concerns of non-Christian religions at
the same time as 'Same-Sex Marriage'.
Parliament aims to introduce a bill for discussion on 1 September 06 in
order to meet the Constitutional Courts deadline of passing new legislation
by 1 December 06. In order to meet this deadline, they proposed bill needs
to go to the cabinet on 23 August 06. There would be a parliamentary
recess from mid-September to mid-October.
The Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs apparently met this morning to try
resolve their differences on this issue, but we did not hear the outcome of
this discussion.
The Home Affairs portfolio committee chairman, Patrick Chauke, expressed
concern that the issue was emotive and needed much public consultation,
which may last for over a month. He said that thousands of letters had
landed in his office. There was a need to go down to villages and consult
churches and traditional leaders and find a solution that was acceptable to
everyone.
The Justice and Constitutional Development chairperson, Ms Fatima
Chohan-Kota expressed concern to discuss options other than those presented
by the Constitutional Court and felt that other countries legislation also
needed to be looked at. She wanted to find a way to conform with the court
without alienating important sectors of society. It would be necessary to
speak to the presiding officer of parliament to discuss time frames for
public consultation.
Mr Steve Swart of the ACDP said he was concerned that parliament was even
considering changing the definition of marriage and called rather for a
Constitutional Amendment. He was concerned that something so important was
being rushed through and that the proposals of the Marriage Alliance to the
Constitutional Review Committee were being ignored.
Mr Tertius Delport of the Democratic Alliance (DA) said that the committee
had not been presented will all the options. Religious groups were a
cornerstone of a stable society. A solution needed to be found that
satisfied the convictions and emotions of all. He was disappointed to see
only one option presented. Research was needed on the solutions of other
countries.
One MP said that what was being suggested was totally against parliamentary
procedure. Parliament was just being a rubber stamp for the Constitutional
Court.
Mrs Sandy Kalyan of the DA said that what was proposed was just 'band-aid
therapy' to meet the deadline and doesn't come across as scientific.
Another member of parliament said that it was important to consult people in
rural areas. Community radio stations should be asked to ask their
listeners to make comments. The committee chair said that parliament had
limited resources for this purpose.
Those who wish to submit comments for the process should write to: Patrick
Chauke, Home Affairs Committee Portfolio Committee Chairperson, PO Box 15,
Cape Town, 8000 or email at his constituency address 406@ancpco.org.za and
his secretary at parliament ncmagazi@parliament.gov.za
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)