September/October 2003

The SA Law Reform Commission wants to allow homosexuals to marry. Miss America is for Biblical morality.

Dear Friends,

In October 2003 the South African Law Reform Commission held countrywide "Workshops on Domestic Partnerships" to present to interested parties their proposed changes to the South African marriage laws. One of these workshops took place at the Breakwater Lodge, Cape Town, on 14 October. It was run by Judge CT Howie and Prof. Cora Hoexter. They dealt with the "legal recognition and regulation of domestic partnerships - that is, established relationships between people of the same or opposite sex." Marriage, they said, "is currently the only legally recognized form of intimate partnership. Domestic partnerships are virtually unrecognized and partners are excluded from the rights and obligations which attach automatically to marriage." Cohabiting couples, they said, needed legal protection. Homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Both homo- and heterosexual couples should be able to enter into a secular civil union. Mistresses and their children should enjoy similar legal rights to wives. - They told us not to get alarmed. The discussion papers were only a "starting point of gathering public opinion." The intention of the new laws was not to break down "but to extend family life." This family life needed to be viewed "in the enlightenment of constitutional provisions." Since the South African Constitution demanded equality, they said, it was unavoidable that the law be brought into line with this. - The Constitution, in fact, states (Point 9, 3-4) that there may not be unfair discrimination on the grounds of "race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, con-science, belief, culture, language and birth," (emphasis mine - DS) and that "national legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination." - The present legal disparity between marriage and cohabitation is obviously seen as "unfair discrimination" and must thereore be "prohibited."

Striking at the Root of Civilized Society and Religion.
At the "workshop" it soon became evident that the Law Commission's proposals strike at the root of civilized society and all religion. The participants were mainly Christians, NGO workers, and lawyers, but they were given little opportunity of speaking about the principles of the new laws, namely that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and that God forbids fornication and adultery. They were divided up into four groups to discuss only technical questions, such as: What should be the duration of an intimate relationship (2 years?) before parting partners are entitled to compensation? Throughout the discussions the focus was on the "victims", the "suffering", the "destitute", the "disadvantaged" by apartheid, the "oppressed" by tribal law. Though there was considerable resistance against the proposed new laws, participants could voice this only in their own small group, and their comments were lost through the report-backs to the plenum. Two Christian "group scribes", however, did give a good witness as did another Christian who spoke up for Biblical marriage and warned against Secular Humanism. He was treated with dignified somewhat impatient indulgence.

The first proposed "Acts" on the agenda were the "Ex post facto Unregistered Partnerships Act" and the "De facto Unregistered Partnerships Act" for same- and opposite-sex relationships. The State wants to give family rights to couples who have chosen to cohabit. At break-up the partners can claim "equal division of partnership property." The "Act" also makes provision for (non-conjugal) "care partnerships" in which one partner cares for a dying mate. The question was: Should the care-giver be entitled to a child's portion of the estate of the cared-for? This provision makes sense only if applied to same-sex couples of whom one is dying of AIDS while the surviving partner wants his share of the estate.

In the proposed "Acts" the concept of "family" is redefined to mean either "partners in an unregistered partnership and their dependants" or "partners in a registered partnership and their dependants". The long-standing (2 years+) mistress and her children are also covered by this definition. It was said, that she/they should enjoy the same maintenance and inheritance rights as the wife and her legitimate children. - Because divorce is so prevalent and its stigma so great, we were told, there should be an easy way in and out of relationships. Same- and opposite-sex couples should be able to register in terms of a "Registered Partnerships Act". Homosexuals should marry in terms of a "Civil Unions Act." This "provides for persons of the same sex to conclude a civil union." with "all the consequences of a marriage." It is a sort of "registration" carried out by a secular "Registration Officer". However, since such unions are still not called "marriage" they might be in violation of the equality principle inherent in the SA Constitution. The SA Law Reform Commission therefore offers the option of making the "Civil Unions Act" applicable to all marriages. This means that Ministers of Religion will no longer be the chief marriage authority for young brides and bridegrooms. Their powers as Marriage Officers will cease. All they can do is to administer God's blessing if the couple so desire. However, if such a comprehensive "Civil Unions Act" is unacceptable to Parliament, then the existing Marriage Act will have to be changed. The whole concept of "marriage" will have to be redefined. In order " to provide for the conclusion of a marriage between persons of the same sex," "marriage" will no longer mean "the union of one man and one woman", but "the voluntary union of two persons concluded in terms of this Act to the exclusion of any other marriage union or partnership."- Can one honestly expect these new laws to improve partnership stability? No. They will simply legalize sin and reward irresponsibility - with disastrous social results! Has the State conside-red the liabilities? Who will bear the cost of implementing these laws, and who will cover the enormous expenditure needed to deal with the social disorder which will result from them?

The SA Law Reform Commission is inviting comment only up till 1.12.2003.
We urge all Christians to defend Marriage and to vigorously oppose these coming destructive laws.
Contact: The Secretary, SA Law Reform Commission, Private Bag X668, 0001 Pretoria, Tel 012 322-6440, Fax 012 320-0936; e-mail cpienaar@salawcom.org.za. The "Issue Papers" are available on request (free of charge); or on the Internet at www.law.wits.ac.za/salc/salc.html.

Focus on the Family
Dr James Dobson of Focus on the Family recently sent out a letter calling American Christians to action against the self-same laws threatening the USA. He wrote: "The institution of marriage is about to descend into a state of turmoil unlike any other in human history. The homosexual activist movement, which has achieved virtually every goal and objective it set out to accomplish more than 50 years ago, is poised to administer a devastating and potentially fatal blow to the traditional family… A handful of power-obsessed judges is determined to impose the homosexual agenda on the nation and thereby change forever the legal definition of marriage… For millen-nia, traditional marriage has been celebrated by every culture on earth as the cornerstone of society. But in the late 1960s and early 1970s, no-fault divorce laws, radical feminism and a sweeping sexual revolution combined here in the United States to rip open the fabric of the family… Now the institution of marriage is on the ropes and western civilization itself appears to hang in the balance… The legalization of homosexual marriage is for gay activists merely a stepping stone on the road to eliminating all societal restrictions on marriage and sexuality." 1)

Western Christian civilization has long held that "marriage is ordained of God as the sacrament of human society, for the comfort and help of His children, and that families may be trained in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. It has been consecrated by the faithful keeping of good men and good women in every generation." 2) It is legalized through a ceremony under God and before witnesses, reflected in the formula: "Will you take this man/woman to be your lawful wedded husband/wife to live together after God's ordinance…?" Marriage entails responsibilities which are found in no other "partnership." The couple "are entering upon new duties and responsibilities," which have a direct bearing on society. They "are setting up a home, establishing new social relationships, and in new ways influencing the spirit of the present and of the future." With the responsi-bility, which they are taking together, they are "making the moment of marriage one of spiritual and moral renewal, of remembrance of God, His law, His Kingdom and His helpfulness." - No matter how many people move away from this pattern, traditional marriage is a necessary foundation of civilized life. Marriage is not an option. It is a precondition for social survival. No civil authority has the right to denigrate it by giving equal status (in whole or in part) to non-marriage partnerships, especially same sex marriages which are against God, nature and man. To grant legal protection to persons who refuse to undertake accepted marital duties is to undermine the social foundation of the nation. Marriage is a divine ordinance for the establishment of families, and healthy families are the foundation of a healthy nation.

South Africa has the most liberal Constitution in the world. Homosexuals enjoy special Constitutional protection through the Bill of Rights of 1996, through the Labour Relations Act of 1995, through the abolition of the sodo-my laws in 1998, through the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act of 2000, and through the Estate Duties Act of 2000. 3) With these and more privileges their "liberation struggle" should be accomplished. But let Dr Dobson have the last word: "The intention here is to destroy marriage altogether," he says. With this in mind, the Church must make the strongest objection to the "broadening" of the concepts of Marriage and Family. With the Family being in such disarray already, the civil authorities are duty bound to protect it with legal rights which (in whole or in part) may not be given to any other partnership.

May God give you courage for the battle for the Family and bless all your efforts with success.

D. Scarborough.

Footnotes:
1. Dr Dobson's letter is obtainable from "Christianview" mail@christianview.org; his own website is www.citizenlink.org.
2. A Manual of Ministers, Independent Press Ltd. Memorial Hall, London, 1955.
3. Christine McCafferty and Peter Hammond, "The Pink Agenda" - the Ruin of the Family, Ch. 5: The History and Advances of 'Gay Rights' in SA. This book is a Must-Read. It is obtainable from Africa Christian Action, PO Box 36129, Glosderry, 7702, South Africa. Tel 021-689-4481; Fax 021-685-5884; e-mail acaction@intekom.co.za.