Defend Marriage: opinion

Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts

Sunday, November 19, 2006

Human Life International comment on final civil union bill passing

Press Release

15 November 2006

Contact: Sally E. Hall 021 852-0473 or 082 255-0473

CIVIL UNIONS BILL

Human Life International deeply regrets the passage of the Civil Unions Bill yesterday, which effectively legalises same-sex “marriage” in South Africa.

Despite vehement opposition to the Civil Unions Bill, during public hearings around the country, the views of ordinary South Africans have been ignored. The large amount of time, effort and resources expended by the Department of Home Affairs on conducting public hearings have been largely wasted.

We not only oppose this legislation itself, but we also deplore the undemocratic way in which it was passed. In the name of granting constitutional rights, the ruling party has ignored the constitutional rights of their own MP’s to exercise their freedom of conscience and belief, by forcing them, on pain of penalty, to vote in favour of this bill. Despite much opposition from within the party, MP’s toed the party line and voted in favour of the bill.

The Freedom Charter of 1955 proclaims, ‘No government can justly claim authority unless it is based on the will of all the people’. This piece of legislation expressly contravenes the will of most South Africans, as well as the overwhelming majority of Churches, and the House of Traditional Leaders.

Homosexual persons have the same rights and privileges as all South Africans. Certainly we do not support unjust discrimination against those with a homosexual orientation, and believe that all of us are entitled to the same respect and dignity that is due to us as human persons. However, we believe that this law grants homosexual persons ‘special rights’ to which they are not entitled.

Marriage is an institution that predates the notion of the nation state, and certainly the Constitution of our Republic. This institution is something that exists in it’s own truth. It is the union of a man and a woman, a lifelong partnership, ordered towards the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of children. The law of any parliament cannot alter this reality. It is a truth, which exists, willed by God and unchangeable. It is simply not possible to have a marriage between two persons of the same sex.

We reiterate the position of the Church, expressed in the document: “Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons”, released by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself”

We therefore lament the passage of this Bill and continue to call for a Constitutional Amendment to defend the true definition of marriage.

Human Life International comment on final civil union bill passing

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Christian Lawyers Association comment on Final Civil Union Bill

S T A T E M E N T
Christian Lawyers Association
CIVIL UNION BILL CONTROVERSY
- A NATIONAL CRISIS
The Christian Lawyers Association is deeply disappointed at the final outcome of the
process leading up to Parliament’s decision to pass the highly controversial Civil Union
Bill.
The Association is of the view that the Bill falls far short of being a fair and equitable
piece of legislation. It appears that the legislature has gone far beyond what the Court
required in an effort to make the Bill constitutional and at the same time meet the one
year deadline of December 1. Furthermore, it has failed to achieve the objective that
Judge Sachs set out in the judgment when he stated that “the hallmark of an open and
democratic society is its capacity to accommodate and manage difference of intensely held
worldviews and lifestyles in a reasonable and fair manner.” Hence, the demand on
government to divide the public space fairly, giving due consideration to the rights of all
South Africans. The interests of the overwhelming majority of South Africans have not
been taken into account, despite the unprecedented engagement of individuals and
interest groups from different cultures, religious faiths and denominations in the public
hearings that were held around the country.

We believe that Government has failed the people of South Africa.
It took the Minister of Home Affairs a full eight months to act on the judgment that was
passed down on 1 December 2005. The first draft of the Bill was only introduced to
Parliament and made available to the public late in August 2006. This gave only two
months for civil society organizations and other stakeholders to study it and engage with
Parliament on the matter. This simply was not enough time to do justice to assessing the
bill and give proper consideration to the input made by the public. The Association is of
the view that passing the bill amounts to an abuse of legislative power, given the
importance of the issue, the significant public outcry against the bill and the unmitigated
bungle at the last minute in efforts to make ill-advised amendments that will most
certainly have devastating implications in the future. We are of the view that this raises
questions of legitimacy, both of the Bill as well as the process, and we do not believe that
it serves the interests of the country.
In it’s submission to Parliament the Christian Lawyers Association proposed that
government make an urgent application to have the order of the Constitutional Court
suspended in order that more time be given to properly evaluate the draft bill. This would
also have provided for the required participation of the public to be properly assimilated.
Concerns about the impact of the draft bill on other legislation, in particular the
Children’s Act of 2005, were also highlighted in the submission.

There is little doubt that the full consequences of the Civil Union Bill will only become
evident once it has been adopted onto the statute books. The Christian Lawyers
Association anticipates that the Bill in its present form will lead to an unprecedented
wave of litigation in which the rights to freedom of conscience and belief and religious
freedom will be challenged by those wanting to impose the equality rights of the gay and
lesbian minority onto the greater populace. This has been the trend elsewhere in the
world, particularly in Canada, where similar legislation has led to ongoing conflict and
the polarization of society. There is no reason to believe that South Africa will escape this
trend. Questions have already been raised as to the rights of private individuals who, on
grounds of conscience, do not want to make their business premises available for gay
marriage ceremonies. This will no doubt also be the case for civil marriage officers who
object to solemnizing gay marriages. We predict that the cost to the country in the long
term will be immense.
End/.
Released by:
Christian Lawyers Association
P O Box 4665
PRETORIA
0001
Enquiries - Denise Woods (National Director)
Telephone 012-424-9400
Email cla@motcon.co.za

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Civil Union Bill vote: A day of shame insulting marriage and trashing democracy

14 November 2006

Civil Union Bill vote: A day of shame insulting marriage and trashing democracy

Today, 14 November 2006, the National Assembly debated and voted to pass the Civil Union Bill. ChristianView Network director, Philip Rosenthal said “The Bill is an insult to marriage and a trashing of democracy. It will open the door for more attacks on morality, religious freedom and children’s rights. This is a day of shame for South Africa.”.

The revised Civil Union Bill, is a confusing piece of legislation which uses the term ‘civil union’ and ‘marriage’ interchangeably. It thus insults and undermines true marriage more seriously than the previous version of the Bill.

The African National Congress (ANC) took the unprecedented step of not only denying their MPs the right to conscientiously object and vote against the Bill, but also abstain or be absent from the vote. Thus the will of the democratic majority of South Africans has been trampled in favour of the views of eleven unelected and unaccountable judges on the Constitutional Court. A structure set up to protect democracy has been abused to undermine it. Despite the ANC instruction, many MPs did not attend the vote. The IFP and ACDP opposed the Bill, while the DA allowed a free vote.

The fight on this issue is not over. To be implemented, the Bill will still need to go to the National Council of Provinces and be signed by the president. An alternative Constitutional Marriage Amendment by ACDP MP Steve Swart, is currently being considered by the Portfolio Committee on Private Members Bills. Thousands of people have signed petitions in support of this amendment. The campaign will continue.

If ‘same-sex marriage’ is legalised as planned by 1 December 2006, this is likely to unleash a wave of homosexual persecution against Christians and other pro-moral South Africans, as they attempt to force others to recognise their immoral unions and silence opposition through lawsuits and intimidation.

A positive aspect of the Civil Union Bill is that the parts dealing with ‘domestic partnerships’ for unmarried immoral couples living together has been removed. This may possibly be introduced as a separate Bill in future.

All state marriage officers are advised to urgently notify the Minister of Home Affairs in writing that they conscientiously object to solemnising same-sex unions at fax (012) 810 7312. This will entitle them to legal protection in terms of section six of the Civil Union Bill. The Bill fails to protect others who may be forced to obliged to recognise or assist with ‘same-sex marriages’, such as wedding venue owners, catering staff or those in the hospitality industry and other government employees.

As with abortion, the fight against so called ‘same-sex marriage’ will continue however long it takes to put an end to this evil.

Friday, October 20, 2006

Couples for Christ submission

Submission to Parliamentary Committee on 17/10/06 re homosexual “marriage”/unions:

My name is Fr. Gregory Charnock, the spiritual director for the Cape of Couples for Christ, one of the new movements in the Catholic Church renewing individuals and families in the power of the Holy Spirit – restoring sanity and normality – bringing healing and light. We have already endeavoured to serve our country South Africa and you who are appointed by the people, for the people, to be the servants and protectors of the people. This we have done by writing to you and sending you books, videos and DVD’s.

You have already listened to many words. I shall be brief. I give you instead an African picture.

Summer is almost here and so in the country areas all over we encounter snakes in the bush and sometimes we see them on the roads. Imagine I now pick up a snake, behind its head, so I am not bitten. I hold it here before you. More about this snake shortly.

I don’t want to speak about religion. I want to talk about wisdom. We all wish to be wise, we do not like to be stupid.

Now, love of wisdom is a science. It is called philosophy, philo (love) & sophia (wisdom). A basic principle of this science of philosophy is that two opposite points of view which are diametrically opposed can, obviously, not both be true. One is true, one is false. They cannot both be right, one position is right & one is wrong.

So, you must, if you wish to be wise, and not stupid, ask yourself which proposition is the truth. Then you must act in accordance with that truth. So, now, homosexual marriages/unions are either right or they are wrong. You either, in truth, give them legal recognition or you do not. Love of wisdom – philosophy.

Now, secondly, a word about an open society, such as our new South Africa. Yes to tolerance, from the State’s point of view. Yes to compassion and mercy, from the Church’s point of view. Respect for the dignity of every human being. We say: buckets of love. No insults. Jesus came to save, not to condemn. The Church exists for the forgiveness of sins. Her sacraments, received with the right dispositions, bring new life, in Christ.

However, there seems to be a fanaticism, which will not listen to reason, seeking not just tolerance, but also to impose this new ideology on the entire country, so that vulnerable children are taught that such things are normal. Christians – Catholics – are already being vilified and abused for holding that the basic unit of every civilized society throughout history until now has been, & will always be, the family based on self – giving love between a man and a woman with the stability that gives to children. We are attacked even more viciously for the celibacy & virginity of our Priests and Religious, yet Jesus was an unmarried man and His mother, Mary, was ever virgin. We recall the martyrdom of so many of the early Christians, indeed Christians through the ages, who witnessed to Christ in virginity & celibacy.

Reason and the common good require a wise Government to safeguard national integrity and stability. This is done by nurturing the key social institution, the traditional family, which is under such pressure already; this key basic unit of stability in every village, town and city in our land.

The expense to the taxpayer of alternative arrangements for the proper formation and care of children, and care of the elderly (our senior citizens), will increase substantially, if the stability of the traditional family is further eroded. And no Government can ever substitute for the genuine community and authentic care available in that place of love and life, which is the family as we have always known it.

So, an open society cannot close itself to wisdom, to reason, and, obviously, to life.

Let us see now how this applies to Law.

It is obvious that Law should always be seen to be wise, reasonable and life giving. Otherwise, the law itself is brought into disrepute.

“Human law is law inasmuch as it is in conformity with right reason and thus derives from the eternal law. But when a law is contrary to reason, it is called an unjust law; but in this case it ceases to be a law and becomes instead an act of violence.” “Every law made by man can be called a law in so far as it derives from the natural law. But if it is somehow opposed to the natural law, then it is not really a law, but rather a corruption of the law.” (St. Thomas Aquinas quoted by Pope John Paul II in EVANGELIUM VITAE – the Gospel of Life – dated 25/03/95, paragraph 72. St. Augustine also quoted St. Thomas Aquinas. “ Non videtur esse lex, quae iusta non fuerit.”)

Government should not send a wrong message to the people, by passing such a law, especially to impressionable and to young people, and children, that something which is not good, is in fact so.

Finally, as with everything else I have said here, a word of TRUTH spoken in love.

Honourable Members of Parliament, we have made available to you, with our letters and submissions, evidence of the testimonies of countless homosexuals who have, with great courage, turned their backs on a lifestyle which has eventually brought them nothing but deep sadness and instability. They testify how they have now found peace in the incredible grace, love and mercy of God – not in a false concept of mercy. You see, healing, wholeness and authentic love, which are life-giving, cannot be separated from Truth & right reason.

Even Dr. Robert L Spitzer, who led the campaign inside the American Psychiatric Association to discontinue listing homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder, changed his view: “Like most psychiatrists, I thought that homosexual behaviour could be resisted, but sexual orientation could not be changed. I now believe that’s untrue – some people can and do change.” (See www.narth.com/docs/spitzer2.html.) (See also www.dad.org)

A couple of concluding points must be made.

In terms of United Nations documents, children have the right to proper formation and nurturing in stable families, the right to fathering and mothering, which is necessary for what psychologists/psychiatrists term psychosexual individuation.

Sadly, it is also necessary to say something to you, of those who call themselves Christians and yet support this attempt to persuade Government to describe something as marriage which it can never be, to call something good which is not in fact so. We say they are sincerely wrong. Indeed they should be careful that they do not find a great millstone round their necks as they deform the conscience of our beloved New South Africa. TRUTH is a person. His name is JESUS CHRIST, who is SAVIOUR and LORD. The Catholic Bishops around the world are unanimously in agreement with Pope Benedict in opposing homosexual marriages/unions. So too you will find, are a huge majority of the Anglican Bishops of Africa. Committed Christians are committed to TRUTH.

Look at this snake! It is poisonous. It is not African. It is a foreign import. It is deadly, especially to children. And all of us are precious children of God!!!

Please, dear representatives of the people, protectors of the people, servants of the people, for the sake of the children, do not let this thing happen. Please. In the name of Almighty God, who is our loving Creator and Redeemer, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. May God bless you all.

Notes:

1. In response to questions form Members of Parliament, I read paragraphs 2357 to 2359 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Year of publication 1995, revised edition 2001) to the Committee.
2. I also expressed my alarm at reports that the new Government in Spain, having introduced homosexual “marriage”, now proposed including this in school curricula for children as young as 10.
3. Having listened to the Parliamentary Liaison officers of the South African Council of Churches and the Dutch Reformed Church repeatedly attempt to reassure the Committee that they had a mandate to represent millions of Christians in South Africa, which is not the case, in saying yes to homosexual marriages, I have been reflecting anew on Our Lord’s words in Matthew 7:15. What we are seeing is – “the darkness of the lack of faith and of apostasy, which has spread everywhere. It is the darkness of evil and sin, which has now obscured hearts and souls. It is the darkness of faithlessness and impiety, of egoism and pride, of hardness of heart and impurity.” (MMP 484, l, m & n).

4. I have also been thanking God again for the infallible teaching in Faith and Morals by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church on the subject of homosexuality, at a time in which clarity and compassion are much needed.

National House of Traditional Leaders submission

COMMENTS BY THE NATIONAL HOUSE OF TRADITIONAL LEADERS ON THE CIVIL UNION BILL [B 26 - 06]

The National House of Traditional Leaders has received a copy of the Bill which was introduced in the National Assembly on 12 September 2006, and has been classified as a section 75 Bill and a Bill falling within the ambit of section 18(1) of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act, 2003 (Act no. 41 of 2003).

We have considered the provisions of the Bill and our comments are as follows:

INTRODUCTION

The National House of Traditional Leaders derives its mandate from section 212 of Chapter 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. It is established in terms of the National House of Traditional Leaders Act, 1997 ( Act No. 10 of 1997) , as amended.

The Constitution, 1996 does not allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, the NHTL has a position with regard to the civil Union Bill, it recognizes that in terms of African culture, marriage is a union that brings together families and not only two persons.

The NHTL took a decision in 2005, after the Supreme Court of Appeal took a decision to have a Lesbian couple marriage legally recognized and registered, to hear the views of rural people on same sex marriages by conducting public hearings in provinces where there are traditional leaders, and that is, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, Kwazulu-Natal, North West, Eastern Cape and Free State. The communities were unanimous in their opposition to the legislation of same sex marriages based on the reasons that it is against the religious beliefs, customs, traditions and morality and that the government will be violating their beliefs and it will lead to the eradication of the human species, as same sex marriages would not produce any offspring. The communities made it clear that they would always respect their own culture and that they will make sure that wrong practices do not occur in their community.

The NHTL finds that the practice of same –sex marriages is against most African beliefs, cultures, customs and traditions and it also goes against the mandate of the NHTL which is to promote and protect the customs of communities observing a system of customary law.

COMMENTS

The purpose of the Civil Union Bill is to provide for the solemnization and registration of civil partnerships and the legal recognition of domestic partnerships.

We are opposed to this type of legislation based on the following:
· Religious beliefs
The Bible provides that a marriage is a union between two people of the opposite sex.
· Customs, traditions and morality.
The African Custom and Tradition dictates that lobola must be paid before people can live together. It further dictates that families must approve the relationship and be willing to assist the new couples to build and sustain their relationship in a marriage. Therefore the Bill in question encourages what is normally called “vat en sit” which is not acceptable in African culture. This arrangement will discourage people to marry and people will just enter into domestic partnerships.
· Constitution
The National House of Traditional Leaders recommends that the Constitution be amended to define a marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This amendment will guarantee the production of children and also ensures that the moral values remains intact. The above Constitutional amendment is in line with custom, tradition and religious dictates.

The Civil Union Bill grants all rights of marriage to same sex couples and allows the use of the word “marriage” in the ceremony. Again, the Bill deals with registered and unregistered domestic partnerships for opposite sex couples which creates a marriage alternative and rights for unmarried couples. These rights compete with the rights of those in customary marriages, which is a concern for traditional leaders. It impacts on the rights of spouses and children of those legitimately married under customary law. Many unmarried couples may choose to enter into a domestic partnership instead of marriage and that will give children less security than those with married parents.

CONCLUSION

The NHTL does not support the Civil Union Bill as it finds the gay and lesbian’s practices to be against African beliefs, cultures, custom and traditions

We trust that our comments will be acceptable to Parliament.

KHOSI PF KUTAMA
CHAIRPERSON
NATIONAL HOUSE OF TRADITIONAL LEADERS

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Anglican Mainstream Submission

6 October, 2006
CIVIL UNIONS BILL: SUBMISSION TO PARLIAMENT BY ANGLICAN MAINSTREAM SOUTHERN AFRICA
Introduction
Anglican Mainstream is a community of Anglican clergy and laity within the Anglican Communion internationally, teaching and preserving the Scriptural truths on which the Anglican Church was based, particularly in the context of the various social and moral issues that confront us.
This submission outlines the message that Anglican Mainstream Southern Africa wishes to present orally to the Portfolio Committee in the Stakeholders Hearings to take place at Parliament on October 16 and 17, 2006.
We wish to examine some aspects of the impact that legal recognition of same-sex marriages will have on marriage as a whole, to make observations about the content and logic of the Civil Unions Bill and to pose certain ideas relating to the decisions that need to be made concerning the Bill and beyond.
It is most important to take a step back, and look at the situation holistically. We stand on the brink of the most radical social experiment in our history, and so we need to weigh up everything before we take the leap, as a nation. Taken in isolation, some perspectives may indeed seem compelling, and one does not take lightly a judgment of the Constitutional Court, but this matter goes to the heart of who we are as a nation, and what values will guide us into the future.
Consequences for Marriage and Family as a Whole
It has been pointed out by many people that marriage is not in a good state as it is (and hence why should we be worrying about others who actually want to get married?). This is a sad reality, but it is worth examining a little the reasons for this before leaping into the unknown with a dramatic change to a foundational social institution.
Although a full sociological treatise is not possible here, we can make two particular observations pertaining to the state of marriage in South Africa today.
Factors Affecting the State of Marriage
It is an understatement to say that the migrant labour system had (and continues to have) a serious negative effect on family life in South Africa. For so many children to grow up without regular interaction with their fathers or mothers, and for spouses to be separated for long periods of time must inevitably bring much personal and social instability. But the unseen effects relating to people’s perceptions about the nature of marriage and family may endure even longer. The home and the family centred around a husband and a wife is not the only, or even the dominant model.
In our own time, we see also the devastation of HIV/AIDS and the rise of child-headed households, or the gogo struggling to support a number of grandchildren.
The problem with all of this is that the model of family life that is so important for children growing up is often absent or distorted.
Another trend is the individualization of marital relationships, where marriage comes to be seen primarily for the benefit of the spouses, with children and the broader family being incidental. In this context, an essentially selfish view prevails. This view of marriage can be termed, the companionate view, where the desire for companionship overrides other considerations. Selfishness can never be a healthy foundation for society, or upon which nation-building can be undertaken successfully.
At issue here is what is normative. Marriage is for the benefit of the couple marrying, but is also the most appropriate context in which children can be born and raised. The fact that some marriages are childless does not mean that the norm or standard should be altered. The many people who do not “measure up” to the norm should not be condemned, but neither should the norm be altered because so many are currently outside of it.
If same-sex marriage is recognized in law, then this companionate view of marriage is receiving the “blessing” of the state. It is one thing for a trend to exist in society, but an entirely different thing for that to be made concrete in law. Trends can shift and alter, but law will have the effect of entrenching a pattern that can be viewed as unhealthy at best.
Future Generations
It has been argued that the marriage of a relatively small number of same-sex couples cannot affect the marriage relationships that opposite-sex couples enjoy today. This may or may not be true, but the fact is that we do not live only for now, or for ourselves. Will we be the society and the generation that is judged for forgetting both its history and its future?
The people that will feel the greatest effects of this most fundamental shift will be our children, and then their children. It was correctly observed by the Court that the law is a good teacher, and we must not underestimate the power that this has to affect how succeeding generations will think and live. Legal recognition of marriage between same-sex couples will be a declaration by the State that these relationships are normal, and are equivalent to opposite-sex relationships. What started out as a protection for those choosing to live a different lifestyle is ending up
Children learn by copying and modelling what they see around them. Children under the age of ten, in particular, need stable, clear-cut values and examples to live by. The legalisation of same-sex marriage would inevitably result in our five-, six- and seven-year old children being taught that marriage is any one of a number of combinations, chosen according to the wishes of the individual at the time. The only outcome of this can be confusion, and conflict with the values taught in most homes. Children of this age are not equipped to deal with this.
We are contemplating this sweeping change on the basis of a currently fashionable interpretation of our Constitution, but it seems that we do not care about the implications for future generations. So long as we feel good about it, nothing else matters it seems. We have laws that require environmental impact studies before undertaking significant construction or mining projects, by why do we think that we can engage in this social engineering with no data?
The Bill Itself
There are various technical issues relating to the Bill, but two fundamental observations stand out:
Domestic Partnerships are not Required by the Constitutional Court Decision
The introduction of Domestic Partnerships creates a second-class form of marriage. Added to the fact of same-sex marriage being a distinct category, we have here the recipe for much confusion.
The extent to which the law should explicitly make provision to “tidy up” after people who have made unwise or (socially) unhealthy personal decisions is questionable. However, instead of making sense of muddled circumstances, the introduction of Domestic Partnerships may prove to create an even greater breakdown of marriage and family life in society. Instead of having this single, unambiguous social institution called marriage, we have three different “choices”. As I have said, the most likely result is confusion, and a lack of social and moral cohesion... Marriage could end up being destroyed, rather than bolstered.
But perhaps the most confusing fact about this provision is that it is not required in any sense by the Constitutional Court. Although it may seem to make sense to put all such “partnerships” under one roof, so to speak, and it is true that the subject was discussed a few years ago, the fact remains that discussion of Domestic Partnerships is naturally overshadowed by the marriage question, and so this will not have enjoyed the attention it deserves.
The Civil Unions Bill Does Create Same-Sex Marriage
By the term “marriage”, do we mean a name, or do we mean the social institution that the name refers to? Clearly, marriage is an institution, and not merely a name. The Civil Unions Bill therefore does create same-sex marriage, but it then calls it a “civil partnership”. As William Shakespeare observed, “A rose is a rose by any other name”. Calling it something else does not change what it is.
Sections 11 and 13 make it abundantly clear that there is no difference in fact between a marriage and a civil partnership, as defined.
Any distinction that exists is semantic in nature (although it seems clear that many same-sex couples are not satisfied with even this differentiation).
What this means is that what many may refer to as the “sanctity” of marriage has not been retained! It cannot be said with any shred of honesty that marriage has been kept as marriage, while same-sex couples have some other legal arrangement.
Any attempt to portray this Bill, therefore, as satisfying both the requirements of the Constitutional Court and the concerns of those that wish to preserve the distinctiveness of marriage must therefore be doomed to failure from the start. Only those that wish to be deceived would be persuaded by this argument. And self-deception is hard the basis upon which to grow a healthy society.
The Decision that Lies before Us
I say “us” in referring to this decision in that Parliament is exercising its power and its duty on behalf of all of the people of South Africa. If ever there was a decision that affected every person in an intimate manner, then this is it. It is therefore appropriate and gratifying that Parliament is offering the people this opportunity to put forward their views, albeit that there have been time and administrative constraints.
· Withdrawing or defeating the Bill is merely delaying the fundamental decision. We all know that the Marriage Act will simply be altered if Parliament does not directly address the Court’s view that traditional marriage stands in Contradiction to our Constitution. It is also so that a Constitutional Amendment has been tabled to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, the effect of which would remove the stated contradiction.

Therefore, the actual effect of withdrawing or failing to pass the Civil Unions Bill is that the decision as to whether same-sex marriage should be recognized in law is deferred to consideration of the proposed Constitutional Amendment.

At that point, parliament will still have the capacity to decide whether same-sex marriage should be passed into South African law or not. To state the obvious, passing that Amendment would preserve the traditional view of marriage, while failing to pass it would amount to an acceptance of same-sex marriage.

Passing the Civil Unions Bill makes that decision now. But if it is so that both the proponents and the opponents of same-sex marriage do not find the Civil Unions Bill to be palatable, then we submit that deferring this decision (and allowing more time for debate), is both logical and sensible.
· The human rights perspective. There is not time here to develop this argument, but it has been put forward that the “rights” of same-sex couples, and their struggle for ‘equality” are akin to the struggle against apartheid. This is a convenient means to brush aside all dissenting views because nobody wants to be seen to speak against human rights. Thus, a large body of people who probably do not concur with the notion of recognizing same-sex marriage is silenced.

But, this position is based on an unsubstantiated assumption or comparison. Homosexuality is not something recognized at birth, or at some predictable point in a person’s life, and so it is a little disingenuous to equate it with attributes such as race, gender or age. It is something, but it is not these things.

In attempting to raise the “status” of the quest of same-sex couples to marry to be equivalent to the struggle against apartheid, it could be that this position is actually reducing the status of that struggle that defines so much of our history.
· The validity of hearing the Christian viewpoint. There are some that dismiss a Christian, or biblically-based perspective on social issues, or law, on the grounds that, “you can’t impose your religion on me”. This is a fallacy or misnomer in that an important distinction is ignored. There is a fundamental logical difference between the practice or observance of a religion on one hand, and the use of principles and values in social debate on the other. It is perfectly true that nobody can or should impose a personal observance of religion on another. However, there can be nothing wrong with conducting a debate where one’s ideas and philosophy are drawn from a biblical perspective, for example. These ideas are put forward on merit. And while it is true that those speaking from a religious perspective may be advancing a particular worldview, the fact is that all of us approach these matters from a particular perspective.

And in the matter at hand, there can be no denying that most of human history, and most religions stand in agreement with the Bible’s view on marriage. This cannot be lightly brushed aside as just one perspective among many.
· Parliament really does have a choice. The Constitutional Court judgment did not leave much room for manoeuvre. Although Parliament was given the task of removing the inconsistency, it is not clear what actual choice the Court intended to give to Parliament. Even the Bill, as it stands, has been questioned in terms of its compliance with the Court ruling, despite according full legal status to same-sex marriages.

We submit that the Court is focusing on a narrow, individualistic perspective of rights, and has not properly considered the collective view of society, or of future consequences. And while we are not here to thrash out the Constitutional arguments, we can observe that this is probably not what Parliament intended when it passed the Constitution ten years ago.

The choice open to Parliament, therefore, is what many have pointed out. In being required to resolve the seeming conflict between the Constitution and our definition of marriage, the obvious option remains of accepting what we might term the “Marriage Amendment” to the Constitution. This is a valid and logical course of action for a Parliament representing the sovereign will of the people, and in no way conflicts with the constitutional order. This does not even represent any substantive deviation or change, but is rather a clarification of the original intent of this same body ten years on.

That there should be these debates and questions can be seen as a healthy sign of a maturing democracy, but it is equally so that not every suggestion or interpretation, just because it is made, must be slavishly followed.
Conclusion
We therefore request either the withdrawal of the Civil Unions Bill or, failing that, a decision by Parliament to reject the Bill.
Further to this, we request that the proposed Constitutional Amendment Bill defining marriage as, “a voluntary union of a man and a woman” be duly addressed and voted on by Parliament, and that honourable Members support this in sufficient numbers to protect the traditional definition of marriage.

Mike Atkins Submission

Michael Atkins
8 Weymouth Ave
Westridge
Durban
4091
031-261 8000
6 October, 2006

Ms Dineo Martin
Home Affairs Portfolio Committee
Parliament of South Africa
CIVIL UNIONS BILL: SUBMISSION
This submission arises from a detailed scrutiny of the text of the Bill, and outlines certain observations, questions and critiques relating to the logical structure of the Bill.
I presume that defects that may be outlined here arise from oversights, and I submit and request that, should the Bill be presented to Parliament for debate and decision, then any such of these observations that are valid should be corrected.
Domestic Partnerships
· There does not appear to be any mention of the age of persons that may conduct a domestic partnership. Presumably it is not the intention of Parliament to allow the registration of domestic partnerships involving persons that have not reached the age of majority.
· S 16(4) of the Bill seems to prohibit the registration of domestic partnerships by persons that are too closely “related” (the term, “consanguinity” relates to having a common ancestor). In making reference to, “Persons who would be prohibited by law from concluding a marriage on the basis of consanguinity”, it is not clear to me whether any such restrictions would, strictly speaking, extend to same-sex couples (would a reading of the existing texts linguistically or semantically be broad enough to include same-sex siblings, for example?).

It is therefore not clear to me whether the Bill prohibits the registration of domestic partnerships between siblings or other close relatives of the same sex.

I am under the impression that an adopted child may not legally marry his or her adoptive siblings. However, the current wording of the Bill would allow the registration of domestic partnerships between adoptive siblings. It is not clear whether this is intended.
· There is no provision for registration officers to decline, on grounds of conscience, to register domestic partnerships between couples of the same sex. If such provision exists either constitutionally, or in this Bill for marriage officers dealing with civil partnerships, then it would seem impossible to deny this ‘right” to registration officers. However, if the right is mentioned explicitly for marriage officers, and is not mentioned for registration officers, then the Bill may be interpreted as meaning that registration officers indeed were compelled to register same-sex domestic partnerships. Indeed, there seems to be no provision for any “officer or employee in the public service or the diplomatic or consular service” to decline designation as a registration officer (on grounds that domestic partnerships may be viewed as the partners “living in sin” by virtue of not being married).
· s 27(1) refers to, “minor children from the registered domestic partnership” (emphasis mine), while s 1 refers to a, “child of a domestic partnership”. Do these terms have the same meaning, or does s 27(1) refer to children born within the duration of the registered domestic partnership?

This distinction would have an important bearing on which domestic partnerships would require the securing of a court order for their termination.

Civil Partnerships
· While nobody may register a domestic partnership if that person is currently married, "civilly partnered" or "domestically partnered", the restriction on entering a civil partnership is that the person must not be married or in an existing civil partnership. Technically at least, this appears to allow domestic partners also to register a civil partnership. Given that the reverse is not allowed, this must clearly not be the intention of the Bill.
· While it is so that at least one of the persons registering a domestic partnership must be a South African citizen, the same is not said of prospective civil partners. Presumably the same rule would apply to civil partners as would to couples getting married.
· To what extent would the equivalent of civil partnerships (in whatever form) entered into in other countries be recognized in South African law? It would also seem that unless another country specifically recognized South African civil partnerships, then the civil partners would not have any legal recognition in other countries.
· The reason for allowing civil partners to refer to their union as a marriage during the solemnization (s 11) is not clear.

Marriages
· It appears that there is no prohibition on persons that have registered a domestic partnership from entering into marriages with other persons. It is true that they may not first marry and then register a domestic partnership, but the wording of the Bill does not prevent this from happening the other way round. Clearly this is untenable.
· If a couple, on the other hand, had registered a domestic partnership, what would the procedure be for the same couple to enter into a marriage or a civil partnership?

Marriage Officers
· Section 6 expresses the constitutional right of marriage officers to decline to solemnise civil partnerships. However, in requiring that, “such marriage officer has informed the Minister in writing that he or she objects on grounds of conscience to solemnising civil partnerships in terms of this Chapter” (s 6(1)), it is not clear whether a marriage officer must already have informed the Minister in writing at the time of being confronted with a requirement to solemnize a civil partnership. Or, does this section allow the marriage officer to make such a declaration to the Minister after declining to solemnize a civil partnership. Presumably, a marriage officer that may have conducted such ceremonies will be permitted, at a later date, to submit a written objection to solemnising civil partnerships.

Catholic Church submission

Submission to the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs on the Civil Union Bill (B26-2006)

1. Introduction
The Southern African Catholic Bishops’ Conference welcomes the opportunity to make a submission on such an important piece of legislation. Participation in the formulation of policy and legislation is an essential part of the democratic process and we would thus like to commend Parliament and this Committee in particular, for the way in which it has encouraged public participation.

We understand that the Constitutional Court judgment in December of last year obliges Parliament to remedy what the Court deemed to be an inequality in our law, and that our comments would be most apposite in a debate on whether or not the lack of recognition of same sex unions is indeed an inequality or not. However, Parliament is the body which legislates for and on behalf of our people as a whole, and it is therefore fitting that we should address our concerns about the Court’s decision to Parliament and, thereby, also make our views on the matter more widely known.

2. The Teaching of the Church
The Catholic Church teaches that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par.2357. see also Romans 1: 24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:10; 1 Timothy 1:10) While the Church says that homosexual ACTS are intrinsically evil, it does not say this about homosexual PERSONS. On the contrary, it states clearly that “it is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in word and action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs” (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons: Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, October 1986).
Because homosexual acts are against the natural law, homosexual unions are also contrary to this same law. They undermine the very nature of marriage and the family as ordained by the Creator of all, the One to whom all of us are ultimately responsible and to whom we will have to answer for our actions.

3. The Nature of Marriage and its Unchanging Characteristics
Marriage is God’s gift to the world that he made. It can be described as “a faithful, exclusive, lifelong union of a man and a woman joined in an intimate community of life and love.” The Book of Genesis gives three fundamental elements of God’s plan for marriage:
(i) Genesis 1:27 says “God created man in the image of Himself, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them.” Because we are created in His image, “sexuality is by no means something purely biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and a woman commit themselves totally to one another until death. The total physical self-giving would be a lie if it were not the sign and fruit of a total personal self-giving” (On the Christian Family in the Modern World: Pope John Paul II, 1981: No.11)
(ii) Secondly, marriage comes from the Creator: “that is why a man leaves his father and mother and joins himself to his wife, and they become one body” (Genesis 2:24). God intended it to be an intimate partnership of life and love. Husband and wife are equal but different. They compliment each other spiritually, mentally and physically. God made them different from but at the same time for each other.
(iii) Thirdly, God gave man and woman a unique part in His creation: “God blessed them, saying to them, ‘Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth" (Genesis 1:28). This means that the mutual and total giving and sharing of husband and wife in love is, of its very nature, ordered towards the procreation and rearing of children and the continuance of the human race.

Jesus confirmed these teachings of Genesis. He said “But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female. This is why a man must leave father and mother, and the two become one body. They no longer two, therefore, but one body. So then, what God has united, man must not divide” (Mark 10: 6-8). Furthermore, the Catholic Church teaches that the valid marriage between baptised Christians is a sacrament, a visible and affective sign of God’s grace at work in the lives of husband and wife and children. Marriage becomes, for all to see, a living symbol of the total love of Christ for His Church (see Ephesians 5: 25-33) and a way to God for the couple who live in love.

The natural law, sometimes called “natural revelation”, is part of human nature as created by God and an integral component of the common heritage of the human race, of every tribe and people. Sacred Scripture is “Divine Revelation”, God revealing Himself and the mystery of His will to mankind. This revelation has been faithfully handed down to us, the men and women of today. We contend that both the law of nature and Divine Revelation (and the constant teaching of the Church) make it clear that a homosexual union is in no way similar to marriage:
q marriage was given to us by God, is expressly willed by God and is compared by St Paul to the union of Christ and His Church; homosexual acts are against the natural law and are intrinsically disordered
q marriage of its very nature is ordained to the begetting and rearing of children; homosexual acts divorce the sexual act from procreation and the homosexual couple cannot cooperate with God to give new life
q man and woman were made by God in His image and as male and female they complement each other; this unique complementarity which makes conjugal love possible is absent in homosexual unions.

4. Reasons to Safeguard Marriage an Exclusive Union of Man and Woman
What follows flows from what has been said above. It is a summary of the reasons for the Catholic Church’s opposition to the legalizing of same-sex unions.
(i) It is against the Natural Law
We agree that civil law and moral law are two different things but we also say that man-made laws cannot legitimize what is against the natural moral law. Civil law cannot make what is wrong right.
(ii) It undermines the Family
Across cultures and different religious beliefs, marriage is the foundation of the family and these cultures and religions see marriage as a loving and lasting relationship between a man and a woman, a relationship that is open to new life and the future of the human race.
(iii) It undermines the Foundations of Society and is against the Common Good
Again, across different religious beliefs and cultures, the family is seen as the basic unit of society. Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. Giving legal recognition to same sex unions would in effect redefine marriage. The very concept of marriage and family would undergo radical transformation. The basic institution of the family has already been weakened by a multiplicity of factors. The cost to society of recognizing same-sex unions as in any way equivalent to marriage would be very high indeed. Legislation bearing on moral issues must be assessed in the light of the way in which they contribute to the common good of society. Marriage as we know it is recognized by the State because it contributes to this common good. Homosexual unions do not exercise this function for the common good and so should not be so recognized.
(iv) It is against the Good of Children
The family provides the best conditions for rearing children, the family being the stable, loving relationship between a married father and mother. Children who might be placed in the care of a same-sex couple would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. This would be a grave injustice to these children who would be compelled to grow up in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development.
(v) It gives the Wrong Message
Laws play an educational role. When is permitted by law, socially patterns of thought and behaviour change. What is “legal” becomes permissible and acceptable. Legalising same-sex unions would give public approval to homosexual activity and this activity would then become morally neutral.

5. Response to some Objections
(i) The Question of Discrimination
We stated in our introduction that the Catholic Church deplores homophobia. Homosexual persons have a right to be treated with respect by individuals and by society. In fact they may have even a greater right because they are more vulnerable. Here, however, we are speaking about giving legal status to homosexual unions which, we maintain, are not marital and do not contribute to the common good of society. The legal recognition of marriage, including the benefits associated with it, is not only about personal commitment that husband and wife make to the well-being of society. Justice itself demands that it would be wrong to redefine marriage for the sake of providing benefits to those who cannot rightly enter into marriage. Some of these benefits can be obtained in other ways. For example, any two individuals can agree to own property jointly or to choose a beneficiary for their will. These benefits could be extended by provisions that would not amount to a re-definition of marriage.
(ii) The Autonomy and Freedom of the Individual
It is true that each individual has basic human rights and can engage in those activities that interest them. But individual men and women live in society and the exercise of individual freedoms has to be balanced against the common good of that society. Moreover, it is one thing to say that the state should not put unnecessary limits on individual freedom; it is something very different to say that the state should give legal recognition to a relationship that does not make a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society.
(iii) Society has Changed
People who argue in favour of legalizing same-sex unions say that society has changed since biblical times and that it has changed radically in recent years, and that the law should take these changes into account. It is true that society has changed radically, but it is equally true that nothing can change the natural law or the revealed law of God. “No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists between a man and a woman who, by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend towards the communion of their persons. In this way they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human life” (Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Union between Homosexual Persons: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 2003, par.2).
As said already, a law cannot make what is wrong right. It is also true that there has been a change in society’s attitude to marriage and the family, and even to homosexual activity in society. But it is equally true that the high esteem in which marriage and family are held has not diminished. Marriage is still seen as the best context in which to raise a family and, in spite of a high divorce rate, couples still sincerely pledge their love “until death do them part”.

6. Conclusion
We conclude with the words of the document already quoted, Considerations regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons, a document that was signed by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) with the explicit approval of the late Pope John Paul II. The Conclusion reads:
The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unity of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

Wilfrid Cardinal Napier
President: Southern African Catholic Bishops’ Conference

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

Young South Africans for a Christian Civilisation submission

Young South Africans for a Christian Civilisation

The Chairperson,
Home Affairs Portfolio Committee,
National Assembly,
P O Box 15,
Cape Town,
8000

Submission re: Civil Unions Bill

Young South Africans for a Christian Civilisation vehemently opposes the proposed Civil Unions Bill 26 - 2006 that will effectively grant marriage rights to same-sex couples, as well as any legislation that seeks to grant same-sex unions legal recognition of any sort.

We also oppose “civil unions” legislation that favour cohabitation, or in any other way undermines the traditional understanding of marriage as being a union exclusively between a man and a woman, within the sacred bonds of what is currently understood to be Marriage properly speaking.

It is self evident that such legislation would inevitably replace the traditional concept of marriage with a definition that contradicts and opposes the currently-held definition of Marriage, and in so doing, necessarily destroy it completely, as two opposing definitions of marriage cannot endure side by side.

This being the case, it then also becomes evident that such legislation, and any supporting legislation, would cause a clash in society between those in the vast majority who hold as sacred that union between a man and a woman that is Marriage, and those in the tiny minority who are the protagonists of this new pro-homosexual legislation so opposed to the institution of Marriage and traditional family.

Some might argue that it is not in the intention of either the pro same-sex “marriage” lobby or the legislators to weaken or destroy marriage, or cause any such clash, or that such an analysis or prognosis is too pessimistic. Regardless of such intentions or their absence, it is an undeniable reality that these consequences are inevitable, despite any such party’s best intentions, which can only be based on ignorance or extreme naïveté, as the facts that are unfolding internationally around this issue prove otherwise.

Indeed, with daily, growing evidence from events in countries and regions where pro-homosexual legislation has been enacted, it is becoming ever more clear, with penalties and even arrests, that the result of such legislation increasingly prejudices those who strive to uphold traditional morals in society, including those morals that govern sexuality and its proper place within the bonds of Marriage.

Not least among those prejudiced and persecuted is the Church, whose position comes increasingly into conflict with such illegitimate laws, as the State creates conditions that can only, and will inevitably, lead to a real persecution of all individuals and institutions whose consciences do not allow them to accept such legislation in any form.

Will we see the beginning of an open persecution against an institution that, in spite of some failings of a small percentage of its human members over time, has nevertheless provided society universally for centuries with self-sacrificing souls that have laboured with charity to care for the sick, the dying, and the orphaned, and has educated and formed young minds to be good, upright and moral members of that society? (Need we mention that the greatest caregiver to Aids patients, after the State, is the Catholic Church?)

These laws could, and probably will, quickly begin to encroach on present rights now enjoyed and presumed sacrosanct – even those of parents over their children, such as when, for instance, schools begin to implement educational policies that expose children to the homosexual lifestyle - in conformity with laws like the proposed bill – and parents are denied the right to keep their children from such influences or classes in the school. This type of thing is already happening in other countries. Who can say it will not happen in South Africa?

This clearly demonstrates the potential, even real tendency, for these laws to create a tyranny of the homosexual culture over all of society. Those that warn against it are labelled “homophobes” or censured for “hate speech” – for merely trying to adhere to the norms and customs of 99% of humankind for 99% of our history.

Naïve efforts on the part of those who may try to curb these disastrous effects while still facilitating pro-homosexual legislation may only briefly postpone the inevitable conflict, where the conclusion of such a clash is inescapable.

It is indisputable that the promotion of the idea of homosexual marriage is part of a political agenda (“Defending a Higher Law” - American TFP), on the part of highly politicised and radical homosexual groups operating in various countries, one that has not excluded activist judges, who have circumvented the due democratic processes that they themselves would most likely have adamantly enforced had it benefited their particular ideology.

This fact has not escaped the attention of even the general public, who are increasingly perplexed at an apparent growing dictatorship of an ideology opposed to the most common and long held traditions of the peoples. Perhaps this can be most acutely observed on our own beloved continent, Africa.

It is also undeniable that, while we have no desire to see people of homosexual tendency being in any way unfairly treated or discriminated against, the common sense and natural disposition of the vast majority of the population is to completely reject the very idea of same-sex “marriage”. (We are in the process of collecting thousands of signatures supporting traditional Marriage and opposing same-sex “marriage” – to compliment thousands already collected.)

If the government or parliament of the country merely facilitates such a judicial decision, pretending to have no choice, especially when it is clearly and expressly against the will of the people they claim to represent, they could not possibly escape the very same attention of the public who will see them as either:
– lacking power and will, subjecting themselves to a judiciary which now replaces both the legislative and executive powers with their own;
– or complicit with that same ideology that is dictating to them policies the people reject with vigour.

Every organisation and individual that brings their concerns to the Public Hearings, or the attention of parliament or government, will point out that to undermine Marriage is to undermine (and eventually destroy) the very foundation of society – the FAMILY. This is so obvious it would seem ridiculous to mention it, were it not that we face the absurdity of the proposed legislation.

In the words of the most prominent philosopher of Christendom, St. Thomas Aquinas, marriage
“…consists in a certain inseparable union of souls, by which husband and wife are pledged by a bond of mutual affection that cannot be sundered. And the end of matrimony is the begetting and upbringing of children; the first of which is attained by conjugal intercourse; the second by the other duties of husband and wife, by which they help one another in rearing their offspring.

This concept has been the blueprint of marriage in the Western world since the even before the official advent of Christian Civilisation.

In recent decades, however, Marriage has suffered its most acute attacks in liberalised legislation, and as a direct consequence the family institution has suffered enormously. With divorce made easily available broken homes increased sharply. Since children from broken homes more easily cohabitate, young people are the most likely to be in live-in relationships, and there is an increased likelihood of the marriage ending in divorce if preceded by cohabitation.

Research in a number of countries have found a correlation between the falling away of the traditional Christian concept of marriage and family, and the increase of social ills: early teenage smoking, drug use, alcohol abuse, increased teenage pregnancies, abortions, youth suicide and needless to say, further along, crime.

In many places, lack of family structure is now a primary indicator for youth crime.

Countries where full homosexual marriage rights have been granted, marriage and normal family structures have suffered even further

Since there is a clear correlation between the breakdown of the family & the increase of social evils, does South Africa want to further increase our pandemic crime rate by destroying the family even further with the legalisation of same-sex “marriage”?

And yet we see the perhaps more imminent, very real danger, simultaneously within the leap toward the destruction of Marriage and the Family, as this veritable clash of civilisations that such a move will necessarily precipitate – between a Civilisation of order and structure in the traditional family that has served humankind’s survival and prosperity from its origins, – and a “civilisation” of a sort of chaos of pseudo-family and pseudo “marriage”. This is an element that cannot be ignored, and indeed, needs to immediately be weighed in the considerations before us.

Those in authority in our society, who now have to decide and act on this matter, have a tremendous responsibility. On their shoulders rests the fate of the nation facing an exceedingly grave situation – one that if ill considered will lead to consequences that for the first time in our history will cause a destruction in our society worse than could have ever been contemplated in the darkest days of the apartheid era or even the possibility of any civil war we may have faced.

Though this destruction might be slower-paced, the effect will be much more profound and much longer lasting, to the point of virtual irreversibility.

Thus, we stand at a crossroads in our nations history.

Those to whom this decision falls, will either uphold the traditional understanding of Marriage in Natural Law, as is their sacred obligation for the good of society, which we pray they do, or they will demolish Marriage, and with it Family and Society in a fulminating blow through this proposed legislation.

Deciding well or badly, they will face the judgement of God and of History, and of generations of South Africans, for decades or centuries to come.

* * *

1. The State, whose solemn duty it is to legislate and govern for the good of society, would be failing in its responsibility if it were to ignore all the evidence of human history, reason, and current international events, to not legislate in favour of traditional Marriage.
Therefore, to do their utmost to protect the society they govern and for which they are responsible, by protecting the family, through protecting the most natural and sacred institution of Marriage, we call on the authorities to take the most necessary action of changing the constitution to read, as was it’s original understanding when drafted, that:
The Constitution shall be interpreted to mean that a marriage is the voluntary union between a man and a woman only.

2. Moreover, for an issue of such seriousness and intense public interest, due to the easily demonstrable confusion with the changes and lack of proper organisation of the public hearings thus far, coupled with unreasonable time-constraints, we call for an extension on the deadline for this legislation.

* * *

Contact: DAVID NASH Tel. (021) 531-0420 Em@il: david.nash@mailbox.co.za

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."

Defend Marriage

Latest Commercial Media News on Civil Unions in South Africa

Blog Archive

Defend Marriage Links

Blog Index by subject

Contributors

Who are we?

Sunday, November 19, 2006

Human Life International comment on final civil union bill passing

Human Life International comment on final civil union bill passing

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Christian Lawyers Association comment on Final Civil Union Bill

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Civil Union Bill vote: A day of shame insulting marriage and trashing democracy

Friday, October 20, 2006

Couples for Christ submission

National House of Traditional Leaders submission

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Anglican Mainstream Submission

Mike Atkins Submission

Catholic Church submission

Eleanor Poulter submission

Young South Africans for a Christian Civilisation submission

Evangelical Alliance submission

Counter