WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE CIVIL UNIONS BILL?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE CIVIL UNIONS BILL?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH CIVIL UNIONS?

In response to the constitutional Court ruling of December 2005, the government have tabled a draft bill know as the “Civil Unions bill.”

There is a temptation to be placated by the name of this bill. “Civil Unions’ are perceived to be much less harmful than same sex marriage. The reality of this bill is that so called ‘civil unions’ will have ALL the legal consequences of marriage. In fact, it is left up to the individual whether such a union is called a ‘marriage’ or a ‘civil union’.

Other nations have passed legislation which allow civil unions, however these unions do not have identical legal consequences to marriage, nor can the word ‘marriage’ be substituted for civil union.

The draft civil unions bills does not seem to be a genuine attempt to find an alternative to legalising same sex marriage. Instead it appears to be a stealth tactic, using language that will be more acceptable, whilst the content remains the same. Calling something another name does not change its nature. It is in fact dishonest to call this piece of legislation a “Civil Unions Bill”.

In addition, the bill also gives legal recognition to ‘domestic partnerships’. Which will further undermine marriage. Regulating domestic partnerships is not a requirement of the constitutional Court decision, and therefore totally unnecessary in this bill. The South African Law Reform Commission prepared a discussion paper on domestic partnerships in 2003 that was released for comment. It seems that the substance of this proposal is now being tacked onto the end of the civil unions bill.

Considering the time constraints, adding this section seems extremely ill advised. We suggest that the entire Chapter Three of the draft bill is removed. If parliament wants to consider Domestic partnerships it should do so at another time, using the proper procedures, with due consultation with the public, and not use the constitutional court decision as a platform for slipping in and pushing through highly controversial and unpopular legislation.

WHO CAN WRITE A SUBMISSION?

Any group or individual who is concerned about this legislation can write a submission. Your submission does not have to be long and detailed, but it must refer to the Civil Unions bill and give reasons why you oppose this bill.

Making a submission is part of your right and duty as a citizen.

Public hearings are being held across the country. Any interested person can apply to present their submission orally at the public hearing, or just attend as a spectator.

It is essential that as many people as possible make submissions and attend the public hearings. In this way, we can demonstrate our opposition to this legislation.

Send your submission to:
The Chairperson, Home
Affairs Portfolio Committee,
National Assembly, P O Box 15, Cape Town, 8000,
referring to the Civil Union Bill B 26 - 2006.
Fax 021 403 2808 (MrMankge - mmankge@parliament.gov.za)
or fax 021 403 2854 (Ms Martin -dmartin@parliament.gov.za).

A GUIDE FOR WRITING YOUR SUBMISSION

Criticisms of the Bill:
The bill creates a right to so called “civil Partnership” which has the identical rights and benefits of marriage

Legalising ‘civil unions’ instead of ‘marriage’ does not change the substance of what is happening. The only legal difference between a ‘civil union’ and a ‘marriage’ is their name. We object to the legalisation of civil unions therefore for the same reasons we object to the legalisation of same sex marriage, which are, amongst others:

· For the sake of children

The ideal environment for the raising of children is in a family with a mother and a father. Studies have proved that Children who grow up in such an environment have a distinct advantage.

· For the sake of a health society

It is not true that all personal domestic relationships have equal social value and the law should not favour one over another. Marriage is not just merely a religious, sentimental or emotional relationship; it provides society with social benefits. Studies have proved that marriage contributes to a healthier, wealthier, happier society.

Laws should encourage behaviours that are beneficial to society, and people who engage in those behaviours should be rewarded. The government gives incentives for example to first time homeowners, whilst levying high taxes on tobacco and alcohol. The government is not ‘discriminating’ against smokers, but society benefits when smoking is kept to a minimum.

Marriage benefits society like no other relationship. That is why, historically, it has been promoted by all societies over all other domestic relationships.

Therefore it is ultimately for the benefit of society that marriage, between a man and a woman only, should be extended benefits that are withheld from other couples, whose relationships do not benefit society as marriage does

DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS

Additionally, the bill gives legal rights to those living in ‘domestic partnerships’, which should not be included in this bill. Chapter 3 in its entirety should be removed.

THE TIME FACTOR:

In the light of recent constitutional Court rulings, we also suggest that you request a time extension in your submission, so that proper public consultation can be held.

This bill is highly controversial and should not be rushed through parliament.

Parliament is not just a rubber stamp for the Judiciary. It deserves more time to consult and debate this issue.

WE CALL FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BECAUSE:

It was not the intention of the framers of the constitution to rediefine marriage. The constitutional Court has ruled that marriage discriminates against certain people on the grounds of their sexual orientation. This is not true. Marriage does not discriminate against anyone; it is simply necessary to fulfil certain criteria.

For instance one is not permitted to marry one’s sibling or parent. Is this discrimination? If someone who is blind is refused a job as a bus driver, is he being discriminated against because he is disabled? No, having good eyesight is simply a non-negotiable criterion for being a bus driver. Likewise, marriage, in its very essence, is the union between a man and a woman only.

We call therefore for the addition of an interpretive clause to section 39 of the constitution, to read:

"The Constitution shall be interpreted to mean that a marriage is the voluntary union between a man and a woman only."

This will clarify the intention of the framers of the constitution and protect marriage, for the common good.