CIVIL UNION
BILL
A RESPONSE BY HIS
HIS
His
We are
multi-racial churches which are committed to societal transformation through
the reconciliation of individuals to God and to one another. Our congregants and thus our stakeholders
represent every sector of society, including business, education, government,
the arts and the media. This submission is on behalf of His People Christian
Ministries (
A SUMMARY
OF OUR POSITION
The Civil
Union Bill has arisen as a result of the ruling of the Constitutional Court on
the Fourie Case, which stated that the definition of
marriage as previously upheld was “inconsistent with the constitution and
failed to provide the means whereby same-sex couples could enjoy the status and
the benefits coupled with the responsibilities that marriage accorded to
heterosexual couples”.
We respect
the rights of all citizens – We believe in a society that neither promotes nor
prosecutes homosexual behaviour. We support tolerance
of homosexual behaviour by the State and the
protection of the rights of those who regard themselves as homosexuals like any
other citizens. However, we believe that
the consistent testimony of Scripture is that homosexual behaviour
is a violation of our Created anatomical design and is sinful.[1]
Flawed
constitution - We believe that our constitution, as interpreted by the above
ruling of the Court, is fundamentally flawed in that it does not represent the
will and view of the majority of the people of South Africa who object strongly
to homosexual unions being accorded equal legitimacy as marriage. This is amply demonstrated, for example, by
their opposition to homosexual couples being permitted to adopt children or homosexual
unions being accorded equal legitimacy in what is taught in our schools. We
would therefore call for a constitutional amendment to protect the traditional
definition of Marriage.
Protection
of the Family and true Marriage – We call for a constitutional amendment to
protect the definition of Marriage as a legal covenant between one man and one
woman, and its recognition as a key building block of our society, which
requires special protection and promotion by the State for the welfare of all
its citizens. In support of this, we present in section 3 a sociological
argument for the special recognition, protection and promotion of Marriage by
the State as a result of the critical role that Marriage plays in the creation
of a healthy society. We further call on the State to develop a comprehensive
strategy for the protection and promotion of Marriage as a foundation for the
Moral Regeneration Movement for the betterment of our society.
Civil Union
Bill flawed – There may be some benefits in the State recognizing and rewarding
other forms of domestic partnerships besides Marriage. It is critical, however, that:
These are
not confused with Marriage in their legal establishment;
The
benefits associated with these relationships do not compete with Marriage;
That these
are not perceived by the public to compete with the ideal of Marriage;
That these
do not promote the rampant sexual immorality that contributes to the spread of
HIV, family breakdown and the attendant social ills; and
The
benefits conferred by setting up this new legal framework exceed the costs of
administering the new bureaucracy.
We remain
highly skeptical that this can be achieved and it is certainly not achieved by
the Bill in its current form.
Disservice
to youth - It is in the interests of our youth and of those struggling with
homosexual desires that the State does not give homosexual relationships any
State-sanctioned legitimacy. This factor outweighs the argument of some that
legitimizing same–sex relationships might reduce homosexual promiscuity.
Call for
accountability to the electorate - We believe that the ruling of the
Constitutional Court is out of step with the wishes of the electorate and would
therefore, failing the constitutional amendment in 2.2, call for a referendum
so that the wishes of the majority of South Africans can be respected.
THE NEED
FOR THE SPECIAL PROTECTION OF MARRIAGE
Marriage,
as traditionally defined, is an institution conceived for the good of everyone
Marriage is
a public institution which brings together a man and a woman in a legal
covenant for the purpose of reproducing the human race and keeping a mother and
father together in an equitable and cooperative relationship, to raise the
children they produce to maturity. Its key components are (1) life-long
commitment, (2) love and (3) a man and a woman.
The public
interest in this institution is great because thousands of years of human
experience and a vast body of contemporary social science research both
demonstrate that when a man and woman commit themselves to each other in a
lifelong commitment before they have children, the children that they conceive
and raise, are in general healthier, happier, more prosperous and better
contributors to society than children raised in other contexts.
The point
of narrowly centering the definition of marriage on one man and one woman is
that the heterosexual union is where we all come from, and where we all come
from is key to the welfare therefore of all South African citizens.
While other
family units can provide a degree of love for children, the State’s protection
and promotion of Marriage as a social institution harnesses the powerful
natural bond that tends to exist between biological parents and their children,
giving all of us, when we are children, our best hope.
The fact
that a man and a woman have conceived a life, and together raise the child to
adulthood releases unfathomable power simply because of the very nature of
things. Thus protecting this unique family environment through the traditional
definition of Marriage is critical to the well-being of our nation’s children
and hence the future generations.
As a
consequence, the family has always been recognized across cultures as
fundamental to a healthy society. In the modern era the world community has
acknowledged the importance of the family in its foundational human rights
document, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 16 declares: “Men
and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or
religion, have the right to marry and found a family”. Section 3 of article 16
goes on to state: “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of
society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”. Article 16
thus expresses the universal consensus regarding the importance of the natural
family as well as the obligations of the government to respect it.
Restricting
marriage to its traditional definition is not unfair discrimination
Defining
marriage as the union of one man and one woman does not deny homosexuals the
basic civil rights accorded to other South African citizens. There is no
legislation that excludes any citizen from the right to marry someone of the
opposite sex (within the ambits of the Marriage Act) should he or she so
choose. However, no citizen has the
unrestricted right to marry whomever they want. A parent cannot marry their
child nor can a man marry the wife of someone else.
To regard
the denial of access to Marriage for same-sex unions as discriminatory is to
overlook the key purpose for protecting and celebrating Marriage and the
weighty responsibility usually associated with it – i.e. the children who are
yet to be born and raised in our society.
All of the
laws that give special benefits and status to Marriage need to be seen in this
light. Our commitment to Marriage is our commitment to the next generation, a
commitment from which all of us will benefit.
In this regard, if there is discrimination, it is not the State that is discriminating, it is the biological fact that it takes one
man and one woman to produce a child. This certainly should not be regarded
therefore as unfair discrimination.
Extending
the definition of Marriage is unfair discrimination against our children
It is
symptomatic of the selfishness of our current moral climate that we are
proposing to amend the marriage laws for those who choose not to marry (in the
traditional sense), which would as a direct result weaken Marriage in society
(see below) and hence discriminate against the children yet to be born by
reducing their chances of being born (or adopted) into a stable heterosexual
family. This is their best hope.
We would be
advised to take note of other international decisions on this matter,
particularly the outcome of a French National Assembly Report on the Family and
the Rights of Children released in January 2006.[2]
After investigations in numerous countries, the French Commission reported that
since children represent the future of society, “they must not suffer from
conditions imposed upon them by adults … The best interests of the child must
prevail over adult freedoms … even including the life-style choices of
parents.” They stressed the need to
preserve the male-female
nature of marriage noting that: “This corresponds to a biological reality, that
same-sex couples are naturally infertile, and to an imperative, that of helping
the child develop his/her identity as necessarily coming from the union of a
man and a woman.”
To extend
the definition of Marriage is to undermine its effectiveness
The Civil
Union Bill allows for same-sex relationships to use the term Marriage to
characterize their union. In this way it
extends the definition of Marriage to include same-sex relationships. Although this is a positive sounding concept,
it cannot be done without in fact destroying the meaning that marriage
originally possessed and hence our ability to give it special protection and
promotion.
It can be
likened to incorporating all people who live in
Marriage
has a specific meaning in law because it has a specific function. We promote Marriage because in general, it
provides the best possible environment in which children can be raised, namely
by their biological parents in a lifelong, loving union. To the extent that we change or water down
the meaning by recognizing other kinds of union or domestic partnership as
equivalent, we blunt its effectiveness as a tool for the welfare of children,
and hence us all.
The
undermining of Marriage in the context of the expressed need for “Moral
Regeneration”
Government
has over the last while placed a strong emphasis on the need for moral
regeneration in our nation. The Moral Regeneration Movement
and the national discussion on values (eg. Heartlines) have been prime examples of this concern.
Indeed, the crisis we face in this nation, including HIV/AIDS, corruption,
crime and violence all arise (in part) from a lack of moral foundations.
It
therefore seems ironic that the government is actively seeking (through the
Civil Union Bill) to undermine the very institution that is most critical to
the formation of a healthy society, whereas in fact it is the government’s duty
to protect the social well-being of its citizens.
A holistic
strategy for the protection, celebration and promotion of Marriage is required
As a
nation, we purposefully need to give even greater incentives to people to
commit to each other in lifelong, faithful heterosexual unions before
conceiving children, so as to give our next generation its best chance of
success.
While we
oppose the watering down of Marriage as proposed through domestic partnerships
and civil unions, at the same time our desperate need is to promote, protect
and celebrate the institution of Marriage. Urgent attention needs to be given
to identifying the factors causing the break down of marriages in our
society.
A holistic
strategy is needed to address these, which might include for example:
Making the
public aware of the benefits and responsibilities of Marriage;
Practical
public education and counseling on how to make marriages last;
An emphasis
on Marriage in our schools;
Enhanced
tax incentives for married couples;
The
tightening of censorship of the depiction of sex and nudity in the media; and
the
Tightening of ‘no fault’ divorce legislation.
For the
above-mentioned reasons, we find the Civil Union Bill fundamentally flawed and
we call on Parliament instead to amend the constitution in order to protect and
promote Marriage.
SPECIFIC
OBJECTIONS TO THE CIVIL UNION BILL
With the
understanding that a constitutional amendment would take significant time, we
propose the following specific objections to the Civil Union Bill. In general our objections to the Civil Union
Bill all relate to the fact that the Bill equates civil partnerships to the
union of Marriage and grants all of the rights and responsibilities to a civil
partnership that should be the domain of the institution of Marriage
alone.
Chapter 1:
Definitions
We would
dispute the definition of ‘family’ as given in this Bill as “include[ing] partners in a domestic partnership and their
dependants” and would instead define ‘family’ to “include one man and one woman
in a domestic partnership and their dependants”.
Chapter 2:
Civil Partnerships
Point 4 as
a whole equates civil partnerships with the institution of Marriage, by
authorizing marriage officers to solemnise these
unions. This directly impinges upon the definition of Marriage and blurs the
lines between civil partnerships and traditional marriages.
Point 6
obliges marriage officers to provide written objection to the Minister if their
conscience prohibits them from solemnizing a civil partnership. There should be
no onus on the marriage officer to object formally to solemnizing a civil
partnership.
Point 11
directly equates the institution of Marriage and civil partnerships by stating
in 11(1) that “A marriage officer must inquire whether the parties appearing
before him or her would prefer their civil partnership to be referred to as a
civil partnership or a marriage during the solemnization ceremony”. The use of Marriage in the context of a
same-sex civil partnership will result in the loss of its inherent meaning and
thus value . Additionally, the civil partnership
formula in 11(2) itself similarly equates civil
partnerships with Marriage with the end result that civil partnerships become
just another term for Marriage.
Point 13
again equates civil partnerships with the institution of Marriage by ascribing
the same legal consequences of a Marriage to a civil partnership.
Chapter 3:
Domestic Partnerships
The
Domestic Partnerships section by legally protecting domestic partnerships
further undermines the institution of Marriage. The covenant of a Marriage
relationship seeks to ensure its longevity whereas domestic partnerships
legitimize and in fact legally protect short-term relationships. Government
policies should favor institutions like Marriage that require long-term
commitments, instead of creating unnecessary bureaucracies and administration to
sustain short-term partnerships. We are
therefore very skeptical that this aspect of the Bill will benefit our
society. In the event, however, that a
potential benefit can be demonstrated, we would in any event recommend that
this part of the Bill be separated and tabled as a separate piece of
legislation.
SUMMARY
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In light of
the moral and health crisis we face in our country, we believe that history
will judge us strongly if we do not uphold with all vigilance the wishes of the
people of
As such we
urgently call on government to:
Apply for
an extension to the 1 December deadline from the
Protect the
definition of Marriage as a legal covenant between one man and one woman, and
its recognition as a key building block of our society.
Provide for
the special recognition, protection and promotion of Marriage by the State as a
result of the critical role that Marriage plays in the creation of a healthy
society.
Reflect the
wishes of the people of our country with regards to the protection of the
institution of Marriage by amending the Constitution, failing which we believe
that a referendum on this issue is warranted.
Comprehensively
review the Civil Union Bill in light of all of the above. We would call for the
Chapter on Domestic Partnerships to be removed and dealt with as a separate
Bill.
Thank you
in advance for giving your serious consideration to the issues that we have
raised. We look forward to the opportunity to present a verbal presentation in
Parliament or to answer any questions you may have.
[1]
Gagnon, R. A. J. 2001. The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and
Hermeneutics. Abingdon Press:
[2] Quotes from an English executive summary of the French Report on the Family and the Rights of Children (http://www.preservemarriage.ca/eng/links.htm). The entire report in French can also be downloaded at this website.