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