Letter to parliamentarians 18 September 2006 by ChristianView Network

18 September 2006

Dear Member of Parliament

Comments by Members of Parliament on a Constitutional Amendment to protect Marriage

We sent a proposal with a response form to consult you on the idea of a Constitutional Amendment to protect the definition of marriage on 14 June 2006. The following are the written responses we received from Members of Parliament in six different political parties:

· “It is inconceivable that either the serving lawmakers or the sitting judges would contemplate a marriage between themselves and persons of the same sex, nor do I think that the constituent assembly intended to imply same-sex marriages.”
· “If the majority of Christians in this country are sincerely Christian they will have to make a choice between God and man made law. They will have to take a stand to the glory of God. There is no middle way. Those who want to obey God and need God for protection, blessing and success should come together in solidarity against all evil and this bill.”
· “I don’t support same-sex marriage because it is against God’s law. If you adopt a child in that situation, it will affect the child’s mind. The child won’t even distinguish between mother and father and the roles they have to play as parents.”
· “It is a pity that leaders of some religious institutions are also confused and allowed themselves to be co-opted to drive the ‘same-sex marriage’ agenda.”
· “I am totally against same-sex marriage.”
· “As a Christian I believe that marriage was created by God when he gave Eve to Adam as a wife. He said to them: ‘multiply and replenish the earth’.”
· “Same-sex marriage is not recognised by the Holy Book, hence not negotiable”
· “I agree fully with reasons put forward in your circular letter. These reasons should form the basis for elaborate discussion on this matter. As a result the majority of parliamentarians and the general public should be convinced of the undesirability of the ‘recognition’.”
· “Leviticus 18:22, 20:13”
· ‘I consider myself a married man because my wife and I constitute a family.”
· “You will be pleasantly surprised that the leader of our party, Kgosi L. M. Mangope put it categorically as a matter of policy that he and the party will not accept ‘same-sex marriages’. My Church has come up with a policy position that same-sex marriages/unions should not be recognised and that should a pastor officiate over such marriage, such a pastor will be struck off the roll. I therefore fully subscribe to these two positions.”
· “Thanks for your good work. May God bless your work and give us the victory in His time.”

One parliamentarian phoned to promise she would vote for the constitutional amendment and against ‘same-sex marriage’ even if it cost her seat.

What you can do to defend the sanctity of marriage:

· Please oppose the proposed ‘Civil Unions Bill’.
- It is misleadingly named, since it gives same-sex couples almost all the same legal rights as married people and even allows the word ‘marriage’ to be used in the ceremony vows.
- It also includes the legalisation of ‘partnership rights’ for opposite sex couples who live together outside of marriage, whether registered or unregistered. This is radical and highly controversial legislation for which there is no need or urgency to consider and which needs to be separated from the proposed Civil Unions Bill or scrapped. It impacts the rights of spouses and children of those legitimately married under customary law. Nevertheless the bill is not planned to go to the House of Traditional Leaders. Many unmarried couples may chose this instead of marriage, thus giving their children less security than those with married parents.
- Most legal experts including Christians, state advisers and homosexual militants agree the Bill does not comply with the requirements of the 1 December 2005 Constitutional Court ruling. We therefore don’t understand the purpose of the bill and suggest it be scrapped.

· There has been an attempt to justify the short time for public consultation based on claimed consultation by government with the SA Law Reform Commission (SALRC), which had a prior public consultation process. Reality is that there has been very little communication between government and the SALRC and government has not accepted the recommendations of the SALRC process on ‘same-sex marriage’ or civil unions or even allowed them to be published. The process thus needs much more time. Please encourage the Department of Home Affairs to apply to the Constitutional Court for an extension of time in order to avoid parliament rushing through a poorly considered piece of legislation.

· To keep up to date with this issue, please visit http://defendmarriage.blogspot.com/

· A private members bill seeking a Constitutional Amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage has been tabled by ACDP MP Steve Swart. The bill reads “Amendment of section 39 of Act 108 of 1996 1. Section 39 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, is hereby amended by the addition of the following subsection: “(4) The Constitution shall be interpreted to mean that a marriage is a voluntary union of a man and a woman.” It will be referred to the committee on private members bills and petitions. This is the same proposal we consulted you on in our previous letter of 14 June 2006, and which those above supported. Please urgently support the speedy passage of this Constitutional Amendment bill before 1 December 2006 cut off date. If this bill is passed before 1 December 2006, then the legal definition of marriage will not change.

· Please support the call by many Members of Parliament for a free conscience vote on this important issue.

Yours sincerely,





Philip Rosenthal