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