|
| |
When "sexual orientation" was put into
the equality clause few people, if any, anticipated that this would lead
to so called 'same-sex marriage'.
The 1st of December marked another attack on morality and
family values in South when the constitutional court's
judges unanimously agreed that South Africa's 1996 constitution, which
prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, guarantees the
right of persons of the same sex to marry.
In the ruling, the
Constitutional Court ordered that the definition of marriage
be changed from a “union between a man and a woman to a “union between two
persons".
This Court decision has been condemned by church leaders, traditional
leaders and leaders elsewhere in Africa.
The only option remaining is for the democratically elected legislature
to
take up its role as representative of the people and amend the
Constitution.
The South African parliament is thus strongly requested to follow the
Ugandan example in passing a Constitutional Amendment to uphold respect
for
marriage.
Nigeria has passed legislation to this effect, which is strongly
indicative of Africas opposition to "same sex marriage".
Is it So
Hard to Change the Constitution to Protect Marriage?
More than three quarters of South Africans believe sexual relations between two
people of the same gender are always wrong, with disapproval highest amongst
black South Africans (HSRC poll, 2004). Nobody, when the Constitution was
passed in 1996, suggested that the equality clause (section 9) meant that
marriage between a man and a woman only was discriminatory (not even the
homosexual lobby). Most people understood the inclusion of 'sexual orientation'
in the Bill of Rights to mean that homosexuals would not be denied basic rights
like the right to vote (not given special privileges). The intent of the
Constitution and the new dispensation was to give real rights and opportunities
for social upliftment to those who had previously been denied them. Homosexuals
were never an impoverished or politically disempowered group.
But now certain homosexual activists are trying to twist the Constitution to try
to gain special privileges and social recognition for their sexually deviant
behaviour. Only an insignificant minority believe relations between two people
of the same sex can be called marriage. Sadly, this insignificant minority
includes the unelected judges on the Constitutional Court. Now, overruling the
majority and the democratically elected government and the Department of Home
Affairs, the Constitutional Court have instructed parliament to pass a law
allowing 'same-sex marriages' within a year or otherwise it will automatically
become legal.
This ruling undermines respect for marriage, confuses the line between moral and
immoral sexual conduct, and makes moral people more vulnerable to lawsuits from
homosexual activists. By damaging respect for marriage, it will reduce the
security of mothers and children to have a caring father at home. In this way
the governments social upliftment goals would be undermined. With homosexuality
equated with marriage, many more youth may be seduced into this unhealthy
lifestyle. Many trapped in it may lose hope of overcoming this deviancy and
returning to a straight lifestyle. The judges have made an error and been
seriously disrespectful to God in declaring God's creation design for marriage
as discriminatory.
What happened to democracy? Do a handful of judges have the right to impose
their will on everyone including parliament, with an idea never intended in the
original writing of the Constitution? Are we returning to the age of absolute
monarchs whose word cannot be questioned? Is there any other alternative? Yes
there is. We can change the Constitution!
Some people are claiming it is too hard to change the Constitution. This is not
true. The government has a two-thirds majority, which they can use to change
the Constitution any time they want to. They have already done so
twelve times since 1996 for comparatively minor issues such as: Floor crossing
(National Parliament and Municipal Councillors); Provincial
boundaries and municipalities crossing provincial boundaries; Integration of MK
and Apla; Extending the cut off date for granting amnesty; Changing names and
powers of some government commissions and the terms of municipal councils;
Allowing change in procedure for setting the times for elections; Changing the
titles of judicial office bearers; powers of municipalities to borrow money and
regulations for the appointment of deputy ministers.
In fact, the Constitution has been changed on average more than once a year
since it was promulgated (not counting numerous changes between the 1996
Constitution and the earlier Interim Constitution). In contrast, marriage has
stayed between a man and a woman since creation. If the judges say there is a
conflict between marriage and the Constitution, then, which should change?
Marriage is sacred. The Constitution is not.
Changing the South African Constitution doesn't need a referendum or a petition
or the passing of big majorities in each province as it does in
some other countries. It just needs a two-thirds majority and that the
government already has. If the government can change the Constitution for the
above issues, why can't the government change it also to protect the definition
of marriage as one man and one woman? One ruling party MP commenting the on the
'Same-Sex Marriage' ruling said, 'If the source of the problem is the
Constitution, then the Constitution must be fixed.'
In fact, it would be much more complicated and difficult for the government to
comply with the requirements of the Constitutional Court than to change the
Constitution. If they want to do so they will need to go through a
nightmarishly complex process to change a multitude of pieces of legislation,
which relate to marriage and children's rights - and try to sort out all the
problems that arise from this. They will need to have
public participation and draw up new legislation. The legislation currently
proposed would have two Marriage Acts - one type that would be exclusively
heterosexual and the other type, which can accommodate homosexuals. If the new
legislation is passed, then it is likely to give rise to lots of new litigation
that will keep the courts tied up for a long time. It will also be socially
divisive for decades to come.
|
