Eleanor Poulter submission

The Chairperson,
Home Affairs Portfolio Committee,
National Assembly.
P.O. Box 15,
CAPE TOWN. 8000

5 October 2006

Dear Sir,

Re Civil Union Bill B 26 – 2006

With regard to the above Civil Union Bill, I wish to submit the following comments:

1. The Bill is an attempt to forge a compromise between the dictatorial, undemocratic ruling of the Constitutional Court and the view of most South African citizens that marriage is a heterosexual union. The Bill also includes legislation (not required by the Constitutional Court) regarding “domestic partnerships” which will also contribute to the undermining and devaluing of marriage.

The attempt to satisfy both parties has resulted in a Bill that is in fact unsatisfactory.

On one hand, the proposed civil partnerships claims not to be marriage, yet it carries the benefits, consequences and obligations of marriage law. It is simply marriage by another name, which makes one ask what marriage is. The section of the Bill on civil partnerships is confused and contradictory in this regard, chopping and changing between calling it a civil partnership and marriage, with the solemnization ceremony being conducted by a “marriage officer”.

Historically, marriage has always been a heterosexual union, with variations such as monogamy, polygamy and, very rarely, polyandry. Marriage has never before been an option for same-sex couples and it is only in recent years that a demand has arisen for homosexuals and lesbians to have the “right” to marry. There is no legitimate “right” for two people of the same gender to marry, and never has been, nor is it “unjust” for them not to be allowed to “marry”. The demand for the “right” to marry is a modern invention to “normalize” what is abnormal. Biologically, same-sex pairs are physically incapable of consummating the union in the manner ordained by nature, an act that is primarily procreative.

Sexual perversion is an inherent feature of same-sex relationships. The politically- correct gay activist agenda one of compelling society to accept their lifestyle and therefore such acts as “normal”, “natural” and even “moral” rather than abnormal, unnatural and immoral. Sexual perversion is sexual perversion regardless of whether heterosexuals or homosexuals indulge in it. There has been an inversion of moral values whereby sexual perversion is condoned and endorsed in the media, while those who take a stand for sound moral values are ridiculed, denounced and marginalised. Therefore the entire issue is a moral one, i.e. of right and wrong, and is not about human rights which are tending to be misused to promote various immoral agenda. All law has some moral basis. When the law is used to legislate an immoral or unjust agenda, this is also a perversion of law. The Government is being compelled to legislate in favour of something which is morally wrong, and society is being told to condone it.

Homosexuals and lesbians certainly have the same basic rights as any citizen, e.g. to vote, to work and earn a living, to have freedom of movement (within legal limits that apply to all citizens), etc. While the oppression and persecution of homosexuals in the past was legalistic and lacking in compassion, in contemporary society they have licence to indulge openly in the gay lifestyle. However, human rights (which are intended to protect people from exploitation, such as slave labour, and political or economic oppression), do not include a right to engage or participate in something to which they are not legitimately or morally entitled.

At the time that the National Constitution and the Bill of Rights was being publicly debated, many people warned in their submissions that the inclusion of “sexual orientation” in the Bill of Rights would result in demands for special privileges which would be termed “rights” by gay activists, and that one of these would be the demand for the legalisation of “same-sex marriage” as a “right”. This view was rejected by the Government who believed the denials of the gay activists.

Much has been made of the need for same-sex couples to secure relational benefits. Many of these have already been achieved, in the form of employee and pension benefits. Also, there are existing legal avenues for same-sex partners to draw up legal documents such as a Will or a legal contract that defines the obligations and limitations they want to apply to their relationship or its dissolution.

Marriage is a unique and exclusively heterosexual union designed for procreation and the raising of the next generation. That some married couples are unable to bear children is no reason to use this as a justification for sterile same-sex marriage. Furthermore, the fact there has been increasing marital and family dysfunction and breakdown in recent decades is no reason to promote same-sex marriage. Rather, this is a sign that action needs to be taken to restore morality, bring healing to individuals, marriages and families, and to equip people to build strong, healthy marriages and families. Mothers and (intriguingly) especially fathers have distinctive roles to fulfil in the raising of children, and it is a tragedy that the breakdown of marriage and the family has resulted in so many children growing up without their fathers. In fact paternal alienation is one of the contributory factors in boys variously developing a same-sex compulsion, being drawn into gangs, engaging in substance abuse, etc. Two “mothers” or two “fathers” cannot fulfil the roles that heterosexual parents are supposed to effect in children’s lives, apart from which there are questions regarding the impact that such an arrangement will have on the child’s life and moral upbringing.

It is furthermore a disgrace that in the 12 years since 1994, Hindu and Muslim marriages, which are real (heterosexual) marriages, still have no proper recognition in South African law, while homosexuals and lesbians, who have no legitimate, moral basis to “marry”, are being granted this recognition. This is a sign that there is something seriously amiss regarding social priorities and morality in South Africa.

Marriage has come increasingly under assault as a progressive breakdown in moral values has led to the social acceptance of sexual licence and cohabitation, due largely to the influence of the mass media in recent decades. In South Africa, the negative impact of the Nationalist Government’s apartheid policies is seen in fractured families, with men having a wife by tribal marriage in the rural area, and a wife, girlfriend or a series of sexual partners in the city. Sexual mores have disintegrated, with cohabitation becoming the norm as many young people have become “detribalised”. Young men are often unable to pay the lobola demanded by their girlfriend’s family, so they cohabit or have a series of casual sexual relationships, fathering children along the way and often the child’s mother has to fend for herself.

2. This brings me to the middle section of the Civil Union Bill, which deals with Registered Domestic Partnerships. This is an attempt to give legal recognition to cohabitation through the signing of a legal document, but apparently can also include any arrangement whereby two people share accommodation. Why such an arrangement should require a registration of domestic partnership is a mystery, since there are legal contracts which can be drawn up to cover responsibilities, obligations and limitations in an arrangement where people share a home, as well as where either one or both parties own the home.

For heterosexual couples who choose to cohabit (“live in sin” as it used to be known), rather than committing themselves to marriage, again there are legal contracts that can be drawn up to specify any legal obligations or limitations regarding the arrangement. The proposed legal conditions regarding Registered Domestic Partnerships will only devalue marriage by equating such partnerships with marriage and its legal consequences.

With the legal implications of Registered Domestic Partnerships delineated in the Bill, people who are reluctant to commit themselves to marriage are unlikely to commit themselves to a Registered Domestic Partnership, unless one party sees an opportunity to gain materially from the partnership. The fact that a Domestic Partnership agreement can be overturned raises questions about the whole concept.

Furthermore, certain clauses in the Bill, e.g. clauses 31, 32 and 33, specifically equate Registered Domestic Partnerships with marriage and its legal implications. This devalues the unique concept and institution of marriage.

3. With regard to Unregistered Domestic Partnerships, the Bill effectively equates cohabitation with marriage. It is unlikely that indigent people, especially women, will benefit from the supposed protections that this proposed legislation is intended to provide, mostly because they will be unaware of these avenues, or else the partner is not in a position to provide financial maintenance.

I suspect it is contrary to the original intentions of this provision for unregistered domestic partnerships, that as people find out to their cost that there are legal and financial consequences to cohabitation (i.e. not just moral and emotional ones), this may discourage couples from cohabiting.

The Unregistered Domestic Partnerships provision should be scrapped because it will not benefit the indigent and, for those who are better informed and more well off, there are legal contracts that can be drawn up. Unregistered Domestic Partnerships will legitimise and equate what is not true marriage with marriage. The Government should rather be encouraging commitment to marriage amongst heterosexual couples and providing those who do not belong to religious communities with guidelines for building a stable marriage and family. I have read that in places where good pre-marital counselling has been provided to couples contemplating marriage, the divorce rate has dropped radically.

The provision for Unregistered Domestic Partnerships devalues marriage and makes it meaningless. After all, if any relationship, whether same-sex or heterosexual cohabitation, with or without registration or solemnization, can be equated with marriage, where does that leave marriage?

Conclusion
The only solution for avoid the redefining, undermining and devaluing of the institution of marriage through allowing same-sex “marriage”, would be to ensure that marriage is preserved through the insertion of a clause in the National Constitution defining it as a heterosexual union.

As a mother I am very concerned about the implications of the endorsing and protection of same-sex relationships as far as morality is concerned. It is one thing to raise children to exercise tolerance and to respect all people, but it is quite another to undermine moral values that contribute to establishing and maintaining a healthy society. The condoning of immorality can only have increasingly negative repercussions in society because this leads to moral anarchy where “anything goes”.

Furthermore, rather than passing legislation that enables claims to made against partners in illicit and immoral heterosexual relationships which should have no standing in law, there should rather be the implementation of programmes to help rebuild values, marriages and families that will enable South Africa to change from being a country with a high rate of familial and social dysfunction and crime to one with healthy marriages and families and therefore a lower crime rate.

Finally, I question whether the whole process of public consultation in this matter is really democratic, since the Constitutional Court has dictated a specific outcome which Parliament has been deprived of the right to veto. This is rendering the whole process a charade, as it seems that public input will make no difference to the outcome since our public representatives have no power to vote against the ruling of the Constitutional Court. Can this be called democracy where an unelected judiciary is dictating that immoral and illicit sexual pairings should be formally legalised?

Therefore the only recourse to prevent future legal assaults on the institution of marriage would be to include in the National Constitution a definition of marriage as a heterosexual union.


Yours sincerely




E.C. POULTER (Mrs)

52 Candella Road,
Sherwood
4091 Durban.

Tel. (031) 2073503
e-mail: ecpoulter@telkomsa.net



cc 1 Mrs Brigitte Mabandla,
Ministry of Justice & Constitutional Development
Private Bag X276,
PRETORIA. 0001

cc 2 Mr Steve Swart