Evangelical Alliance submission

SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE TO THE CIVIL UNION BILL
AGAINST LEGAL RECOGNITION OF
SEXUAL UNIONS OUTSIDE TRUE MARRIAGE

Prepared for: The ChairpersonPortfolio Committee on Home AffairsNational AssemblyParliament

Prepared by: The Evangelical Alliance of South Africa

Date: 6 October 2006

Contact: Rev Moss NtlhaGeneral SecretaryThe Evangelical Alliance of South Africa
Tel: 011-403 1228
Fax: 011-403 1077
Email: teasa@mweb.co.za
PO Box 1751
Johannesburg
2000

Executive summary

The Civil Union Bill sets out radical proposals to legally recognise sexual relationships outside true marriage in such a manner as to treat them similarly to legally recognised marriages.

Issues that are traversed in this submission include evidence that homosexual relationships are unnatural; reasons not to promote sexual partnerships outside marriage; the status of women; and answering the arguments presented against the Judeo-Christian idealmoral consensus of most major religions regarding the of marriage.

Possible impacts on society such as the institution of marriage; women, children, the elderly, the church and public morality are outlined, although these are not examined in detail. It is suggested that a full Social Impact Assessment be undertaken on the proposals.

The Civil Union Bill’s proposals are discussed: creating a marriage like alternative called 'civil unions' for same-sex couples; and accommodating normal couples living together outside marriage through 'registered partnerships' (concubinage) and 'unregistered partnerships'. All of these alternatives are rejected, as they would promote immoralitybehaviour considered by many to be unacceptable and immoral and undermine the fabric of society.
society. It is neither wise nor proper for the sate to take upon itself the liberty to fundamentally alter the worldview of morality espoused by the majority of the people, while it is still struggling to find a formula for moral
It appears that the homosexual lobby has been abusing the Bill of Rights to advance their agenda in a manner not intended by the framers of the constitution. It is recommended therefore that the Bill of Rights be amended to remove the words 'sexual orientation'. After this, other legislation such as the 'Promotion of equality and prevention of unfair discrimination Act', 2000 should also be amended to remove promotion of the homosexual agenda. Homosexuals should be encouraged to seek help to overcome their unnatural desires for one another so that they can enter normal relationships. Unmarried heterosexual couples living as if they were married should be encouraged to get married.
regeneration
The alternative of a Constitutional Amendment to protect marriage should be considered in parallel with the Civil Union Bill. We urge Parliament to reject the Civil Union Bill and request that Parliament support the alternative of a Constitutional Amendment with the words ‘We recommend adding to section 39 (Interpretation) the clause: "'The Constitution shall be interpreted to mean that a marriage is the voluntary union between a man and a woman."
Table of contents
Executive summary ii
Table of contents iii
Abbreviations and glossary iii
1. Introduction 4
Background 4
Referencing and use of terms 4
Outline of document 4
2 Questioning the needmotivation for the Civil Union Bill 6
Motivation for the Civil Union Bill 6
Legal issues 7
3 Issues 10
Evidence that homosexual relationships are unnatural 10
Reasons not to promote sexual unions outside true marriage 10
The status of women 10
4 Impacts on society 12
Impacts on the institution of marriage 12
Impacts on women 12
Impacts on children 12
Impacts on the elderly 12
Impacts on pro-family 12
Impacts on public morality 12
Uncertainty on social consequences 13
5 Response to specific proposals 14
Registered domestic partnerships 14
Unregistered domestic partnerships 14
6 Conclusions and recommendations 16

Abbreviations and glossary

TEASA The Evangelical Alliance of South Africa


SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE TO THE CIVIL UNION BILL
AGAINST LEGAL RECOGNITION OF
SEXUAL UNIONS OUTSIDE TRUE MARRIAGE

1. Introduction

Background

The Civil Union Bill sets out radical proposals to legally recognise sexual relationships outside true marriage in such a manner as to treat them similarly to legally recognised marriages.

These proposals include the recognition of 'same-sex civil unions'; registered partnerships; and unregistered partnerships. The latter means recognising and granting legal rights to registered and unregistered partners living together in a sexual relationship outside marriage.

The assumptions about sexuality, behind the Civil Union Bill go against the deeply held beliefs of the majority of South Africans who know that marriage has been the bedrock of stable societies for thousands of years. The Evangelical Alliance of South Africa starts from the assumption that the institution of marriage is one ordained by God, which other social institutions such as the church and state are supposed to uphold.

For purposes of this submission, the term 'marriage' refers to a marriage between an adult man and an adult woman. So-called 'same-sex marriage' is not recognised as true marriage.

This document responds to the arguments and proposals presented in the discussion paper.

Referencing and use of terms

Quotations from the Bible are all from the New International Version, referenced (Book Chapter: Verse).

The term 'marriage' in this submission refers to the traditional definition 'Marriage is the recognised voluntary union of a man and a woman for life to the exclusion of all others'. It does not include so-called 'same-sex marriage', which is a misuse of the word.
Outline of document

Section one introduces the issues, proposal and this document.

Section two questions the need for the Civil Union Bill

Section three analyses key issues raised in the document.

Section four discusses the possible impacts on society and the uncertainties about those impacts.

Section five gives responses to specific proposals.

Section six makes conclusions and recommendations on the proposals.



2 Questioning the need for the Civil Union Bill
Motivation for the Civil Union Bill
The proposed changes to the law, have been motivated amongst other things by:
1 The prohibition on unfair discrimination on grounds of 'sexual orientation' and 'marital status' in clause 9(3) of the Bill of Rights. It is however acknowledged that these rights are limited in terms of section 36 of the constitution.
2 Perceived changes in public mores
3 Court judgements in favour of homosexuality, opposite sex couples living together outside of marriage and so called ‘same-sex marriage’
4 Media articles
5 Homosexual lobby groups.

It is submitted that the above motivations are false, because:

1 Homosexuals are not being unfairly discriminated against.

· If they wish to marry someone of the opposite sex and the other person agrees, there is no law to stop them doing so. The conventional definition and practice of marriage has always been and still remains a union between persons of the opposite sex. A casual and cursory glance at human institutions bears this practice out, whether or not the institutions be “civilised” or “backward”, “western” or “third world”, Judaeo-Christian” or “non-Christian”. It stands to reason therefore that persons of the same sex who have a sexual relationship cannot, strictly speaking, marry, the question is “who is the male and who is the female in a same sex relationship so that that relationship can properly be brought within the purview of the conventional definition?”. If this question cannot be answered authoritatively in such a way as to discard the conventional definition, the same sex relationship should be declared unconventional and therefore deviant social behaviour. Two men having a sexual relationship cannot marry, in the same way that a man cannot marry a dog, a cow or a sheep. The current law simply acknowledges the reality that two people of the same sex cannot physically marry.

· It is regrettable that the Constitutional Court has called on parliament to recognise ‘same-sex marriage’. To call such deviant relationships by the name 'marriage' is a fiction and degrading to the institution of marriage. The solution to this problem is a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

· There is no indication that the legislators who agreed to the term 'sexual orientation' in the Bill of Rights ever intended it to imply a need to redefine the institution of marriage to include homosexual couples. One of the basic tenets of the interpretation of a statute stipulates that in a bid to properly interpret a statute, the interpretation should not lead to the result that the boni mores of the community is undermined or circumvented by the interpretation. It would thus be untenable for activists and activist-judges to now try and impose an unintended meaning to the words. Had the Constitutional Assembly intended to make any change to existing law as major as the re-definition of the nature of marriage, they would have stated this explicitly in the text.

· Many homosexuals are found amongst the high-income group and in senior positions in many professions. There is no real evidence of unfair discrimination.

2 Contrary to popular belief, the rising tide of immoral behaviour in the country does not have the support of the majority of population. The Moral Regeneration movement is an instance of the state trying to re-build morality rather than undermine it. Likewise the human and financial cost of the AIDS plague is strongmotivation for the state to promote true marriage, as opposed to accommodating sexual relationships outside of marriage. Despite this increase in immorality, the majority of South Africans still believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong. Almost all South Africans agree that sex between two people of the same sex is wrong.

3 The argument that courts have ruled often in favour of 'homosexual rights' is a circular argument. Rather this should be seen as a problem, which should be remedied by rectifying legislation and the Bill of Rights to discourage this. The simplest way to do this is a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

4 Media articles promoting so called 'same-sex marriage' are likely solicited by homosexual lobby groups and should therefore be ignored.

5A tiny minority of homosexual lobbyists funded from overseas should not be empowered to force the majority to change the legally recognised structure for family relationships.

Other possible unstated motivations promoting legal recognition of same-sex relationships may include that homosexuals tend to have difficulty with self-acceptance and blame this on the lack of acceptance of the world around them. Radical homosexual activists are seeking social approval for what many South Africans know of their immoral relationships.to be unacceptable behaviour. They believe that somehow if the state were to recognise these relationships, they would somehow become moral. Nevertheless, this hope is futile, since the immorality of homosexual relationships is decreed by God and the state can do nothing to change this. Most South Africans strongly disapprove of homosexual relationships and become moral. It would be an abuse of state power to foist on the public a morality that on a deviant few embrace.
would even more so disapprove of recognition of such unions. If homosexual unions were recognised in law, that would not make the public accept them. Since the purpose motivating the activists is futile, it is recommended that the law not be changed to try to satisfy it. This article has argued that same sex relationships are unnatural; it goes without saying that parties involved in such relationships must not be discarded and rejected by society. To the contrary, it is suggested that such parties should be encouraged to seek counselling and help with regard to their unnatural behaviour.

Legal issues

The preamble of the Civil Union Bill cites Sections 9(1), 9(3) and 10 of the Bill of Rights. We believe that the Constitutional Court made an error in their interpretation of the Bill.

Equality (Clause 9)
1 Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.
2 Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms. To promote the achievement of equality, legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken.
3 The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language, and birth.
4 No person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds in terms of subsection (3). National legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination.
5 Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in subsection (3) is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair.

Nevertheless, the above rights may be limited in terms of the following criteria:

Limitation of rights (Clause 36)
1 The rights in the Bill of Rights may be limited only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors including-
(a) the nature of the right;
(b) the importance of the purpose of the limitation;
(c) the nature and extent of the limitation;
(d) the relation between the limitation and its purpose; and
(e) less restrictive means to achieve the purpose.
Except as provided in subsection (1) or in any other provision of the Constitution, no law may limit any right entrenched in the Bill of Rights.

(b) Limitation to prevent undermining of the definition of marriage has a high importance because of its social and religious impacts and the way that the proposals would affect other rights. Social impacts could include:
· Undermining the dignity and meaning of true marriage;
· Promoting acceptance of homosexuality and thus the number of people indulging in such behaviour;
· The alternative so-called 'domestic partnership' proposals available to heterosexual couples living together outside marriage would have even greater social impacts.
(c) The extent of the existing limitation is narrow in that it is not preventing homosexuals in any way from conducting normal lives. It is simply limiting their right to:
· indulge in a fantasy of so called 'same-sex' marriage.
· have their immoral unions recognised, acknowledged and legally supported by the rest of society.
(e) There are no less restrictive means that would achieve the same purpose.

It is further submitted that the homosexual lobby has persistently abused the two words that they lobbied for insertion into the constitution 'sexual orientation' to encroach on the rights of other citizens in the process of creating special rights for themselves. The constitution was framed to protect legitimate rights, which the homosexual lobby is not respecting. For example they threatened to take a Christian singer Danie Botha to the Human Rights Commission for expounding various biblical texts citing homosexual as sinful. Rather than forcing pro-family citizens to argue each and every new issue that the homosexual lobby wishes to dispute, it would be much simpler to remove these two words and terminate the debate.

10. Human dignity
Everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and protected.

We submit that the non-recognition of same-sex sexual relationships by the state does not in any way undermine the dignity of the persons concerned. Rather unnatural sexual behaviour undermines their own dignity and the law can do nothing to rectifythis.

this.
Issues
Evidence that homosexual relationships are unnatural
The fact that homosexual relationships cannot be considered morally equivalent similar to heterosexual relationships is proven from:based on:
· The Bible, as well asmoral consensus of most major religions, definesdefining marriage as between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:24);
· The design of the human body indicates that male and female are meant for each other:
- They physically fit together without harm;
- Sexual acts can produce children.
· Adults in stable married relationships indicate greater social contentment and health than those who are not.
· Children are most successfully brought up by a father and mother in a stable relationship. Men and women have complementary abilities which together help bring up good children.

In contrast, homosexual relationships:
· The Bible condemns homosexual relationships are condemned as unnatural (Romans 1:26-27);by major religions.
· Sexual acts between two men using the anal orifice tend to result in serious health problems including:
- damage to the anal sphincter;
- cancers;
- rapid spread of many diseases;
- damage to the lining of the rectum.
indicating they were not designed to fit together.
· Social relationships between homosexual couples tend to be unstable, short-lived and in the long term unfulfilling.
· Homosexual parenting of children has not proved successful.
Reasons not to promote sexual unions outside true marriage
The state should promote institutions beneficial to society. Marriage between a man and a woman is an institution that promotes mutual caring and respect and the responsible upbringing of children.
The status of women

The ‘domestic partnerships’ proposed in the Civil Union Bill would lower the status of women by encouraging more women to agree to concubinage (domestic partnerships) as an alternative to marriage. It is submitted that the interests and status of women are much more strongly protected within a marriage relationship than by an insecure 'concubinage' relationship. In the event of separation, the woman is the one who has to carry the responsibility of the caring for the children, while at the same time having the stress of earning and income. Separation is much more likely in the case of a limited commitment 'domestic partnership' than with marriage. If the 'domestic partnership/concubinage' relationship was given legal recognition, it would make it much more popular, thus reducing the number of people getting married.

Christian teaching on homosexuality

The teaching of the scriptures on homosexuality is clear, for example: Romans 1:27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

The Bible commands churches to excommunicate people who unrepentantly practice sexually immoral behaviour including homosexuality and what the Civil Union Bill 'domestic partnerships' (1 Corinthians 5:11; 6:9).

This view was consistently applied by the early Church. Sodomy was made illegal when the legal system of the Roman Empire was Christianised, and this policy applied in other Christianised countries. It was in fact considered so unacceptable, that the crime of sodomy was usually referred to by a euphemism rather than directly. Christianity has its roots in Judaism, which also condemns same-sex sexual relations (Leviticus 20:13).


3 Impacts on society

The Civil Union Bill would have severe social impacts, which have not been properly considered by Parliament, the South African Law Reform Commission process or any other state investigation.
Impacts on the institution of marriage
The proposals to change the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples would undermine the respect and dignity accorded to marriage by allowing a mockery of it.

Proposals to create alternatives to marriage would discourage people from getting married, thus increasing the number of couples living together outside marriage and illegitimate children resulting from them.
Impacts on women
Proposals to re-legalise concubinage (domestic partnerships) would reduce the status of women who agree to this option rather than getting marriage.married. In a conjugal relationship, most of the responsibility to care for children usually falls to the woman, while the man concentrates on earning money. With less protection in the event of separation, and separation even easier than in the case of divorce, women will be hurt more than men.
Impacts on children
With less people getting married, more illegitimate children will be born. With more separations resulting from people living together outside of marriage, more children will grow up without a father in the home. Such children are much more likely to grow up disadvantaged and with behavioural problems.

The Bible promotes faithfulness in marriage as the way to ensure children are brought up in a godly way (Malachi 2:15-16). The implication is that childrenChildren brought up outside of marriage have more chance of growing up with behavioural problems. Sociology has confirmed this.
Impacts on the elderly

The elderly are best cared for and supported by the extended family. However with the weakening of the extended family through marriage like alternatives such as 'domestic partnership', there is going to be less of an obligation to care for old people not related by blood. This diminishing social support network will mean more people grow old lonely and uncared for.
Impacts on pro-family
Granting new rights to homosexuals has usually been used to try to persecute pro-family people who disagree with such behaviour. For example, a bed & breakfast in Canada that refused to allow a homosexual couple to share a room was forced to close down. Homosexual radicals have tried to introduce their ideology to schools. France has also reviewed same sex relationships
Impacts on public morality

The legal recognition of immoral homosexual unions and/or couples living together outside marriage would encourage more people to choose such relationships, thus undermining public morals. The undermining of public morals has a major impact on society.
Uncertainty on social consequences
Previous major changes to social laws have had major unforeseen social consequences. The legislation of homosexual unions and domestic partnerships has only occurred in a few places on other continents and for a few years. One does not know what long-term effects it will have on society.

It is suggested that before introducing such legislation, a Social Impact Assessment be undertaken.


4 Response to specific proposals
Civil Unions

Civil Unions, as proposed in the Civil Unions Bill is a social institution granting the same legal consequences as marriage. The Bill leaves the issue of whether Civil Unions constitute marriage somewhat ambiguous. Mostly in the Bill the relationship is referred to as a ‘Civil Union’. Nevertheless section 11 allows the word ‘marriage’ to be used in the ceremony and the term civil partnership is used interchangeably with the word marriage as if the two had the same meaning.

While calling homosexual unions something different to 'marriage' would remove the impact on degrading true marriage, explained above, the proposal is still objected to for other reasons:
· It would give homosexual relationships more legitimacy, thus encouraging more people to enter such relationships;
· It would likely be used by the homosexual lobby to leverage the next in the list of issues on their agenda to try to promote their behaviour and restrict the freedom of pro-family people.

The proposal to allow 'same sex couples' to use the term ‘marriage’ in their exchange of vows (Section 11 of the Civil Union Bill) would undermine and insult the true definition of marriage. Such action would be like printing counterfeit money - it undermines the value of real money.

The state does not have authority to re-define the institution of marriage, but only to recognise and promote a real institution that really exists. If the state were to issue car licences for bicycles, that would not turn the bicycles into cars. Neither can the state by issuing a piece of paper make two men married. A man cannot marry a chimpanzee or a horse or another man even if the state were to say that ithe can do so. The whole idea is just very silly and likely to cause problems.

Registered domestic partnerships

The Civil Union Bill provides for Registered Domestic Partnerships that would give some of the benefits of a civil marriage, but reduces the right to maintenance for children after separation. It would be available to both homosexual and normal couples.

This option is effectively a re-legalisation of 'concubinage', a form of union that has thankfully vanished from our legal system for over 1000 years. It would encourage more couples to 'live in sin', as it has in countries such as France which have chosen this option. Such action would severely undermine the fabric of society and mean that less couples would get married.
Unregistered domestic partnerships

The proposal for unregistered partnerships would mean that couples living in a sinful sexual relationship, whether homosexual or heterosexual would have certain automatic legal rights and obligations even without actively registering such a partnership.

Again, such actions would encourage more people to 'live in sin' and are thus discouraged.

It is suggested that society has survived for a long time without such institutions and to introduce them now would simply complicate matters.


5 Conclusions and recommendations

The sexual relationships recognised by the state in terms of the Civil Union Bill include: civil unions for same-sex couples; registered partnerships for same and opposite sex couples; and unregistered partnerships for same and opposite sex couples, are all unacceptable and should be rejected.

Since the arguments used in favour of the legal recognition of homosexual unions are based primarily on the two words 'sexual orientation' in clause 9(3) of the Bill of Rights, the simple solution would be to amend the constitution to remove these words. After this, other laws promoting acceptance of homosexuality such as the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, 2000 should be amended to remove such words. Other statements already protect legitimate rights and these words are not needed, and just encourage the abuse of the Bill of Rights to promote the homosexual agenda.

The simplest immediate method of avoiding the needfor to pass the Civil Union Bill is the alternative of a Constitutional Amendment to protect marriage. We urge Parliament to reject the Civil Union Bill and request that Parliament support the alternative of a Constitutional Amendment with the words ‘We recommend adding to section 39 (Interpretation) the clause: "'The Constitution shall be interpreted to mean that a marriage is the voluntary union between a man and a woman."