Nearly a year ago, the Constitutional Court of South Africa (this country's highest court) ordered the government to change the country's constitution.  The constitution prohibits any form of discrimination, on any basis - including gender, race, language, religion or sexual orientation.  However, the current Constitution restricts marriage to a union of a male and female.  This excludes homosexuals wishing to be married.  It is this provision that has been deemed unconstitutional, and must be amended by the end of this year.

In an attempt to represent a "Christian" voice, a number of prominent church leaders, headed by Michael Cassidy of AE, formed a "marriage Alliance" (MA) and have been quite vocal in opposing the proposed amendments.

So far, so good.  This is just democracy in action.  But I really, really don't understand the Marriage Alliance's position.

The bottom line is that the amendment must and will be made - that's our country's constitution and highest court.  In addition, the MA has not wanted to be accused of homophobia, and has therefore not come out against homosexuality per se.  Their baffling argument is that "the definition of marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and we want the constitution to keep this definition in tact."  In other words, they suggest that the government create a separate law (proposed name:  "The Civil Unions Act") for homosexuals, and that these not be allowed to be called marriages.

Now, even if this were to happen, what do you think homosexuals will say after being "united in civil union"?  Do you think they will say, "here is my civil union partner", or "here is my husband"?  Do you think they will say, "we are joined in civil union", or "we are married"?  Clearly the latter in each case.  So, the only outcome possible for the MA is that the legal system will see "marriage" and "civil union" as different, but no-one else will (except those who are part of the MA, of course).

I really don't understand this request.  Surely, the MA should be focusing on the following:

• ensuring that churches have the right to be true to their own consciences.  Just like doctors and nurses have the right to refuse to perform abortions, so, too churches (and mosques and synagogues) should not be forced to perform homosexual marriages if they don't want to).  This right is paramount for a free country.
• focusing media attention on the positive values of lifelong, monogomous soul-connected relationships (which we call marriage).

And finally, if they are against homosexual marriage, the MA needs to just say so.  Their current stance is ludicrous.  And even if they succeed, what will they have gained?

If someone understands their position better than I do, please help me understand it.

PS - I think my concern about the MA makes sense regardless of your stance on homosexuality.  Even if you are against homosexuality, I still can't see how you can support the MA's illogical stance.

Hi Graham

Firstly, I think the foundation of your argument, the constitution, should be recognised as a flawed document. It does not recognise God as the giver of authority (as Michael Cassidy had originally proposed) and therefore constitutes an entirely humanistic "we can sort out our own problems" approach. I believe that a nation should submit itself to God. Especially when God was the one who enabled us to achieve a peaceful transisiton from Apartheid in the first place. The truth is, we could not have done this without His grace. Your argument does not seem to recognise that the constitution ignores God's authority.

Secondly, I think the marriage alliance's stance is fairly simple to understand. The idea is to ensure that gay people, regardless of how you feel about their lifestyle, enjoy the same protection under the law as straight people, but without watering down the Judaeo-Christian concept of what marriage is. I think this is crucial. It is important that, in love, we ensure that nobody is unfairly discriminated against in law. This becomes important when gay people "divorce", are bereaved etc etc. However, to water down the sanctity of the concept of marriage smacks of luke-warm compromise. It says that we do not mind that marriage, in the form that God gave it to us, is essentially raped.

Posted by: Charlieboy 04 Dec, 2006 - 11:08:12

Graeme - Apologies, by the way...I got your name wrong! Charles

Posted by: Charlieboy 04 Dec, 2006 - 13:16:01

Charles,

Thanks for your reply. Let me clarify my position, and pose another question or two.

Firstly, I do not rely on the Constitution to help me understand truth. However, neither do I wish the Constitution to prescribe a "Christian state". Remember that South Africa had a "Christian" Constitution from 1949 to 1994 - and look what good THAT did us!

But the Constitutional issue is a red herring. Mainly because even if our Constitution DID prescribe a strict Biblical/Christian framework, we would not necessarily agree on all issues (not all Christians support the death penalty, not all are opposed to certain types of abortion, and not all Christian are opposed to homosexuality, just to give a few of the more headline grabbing issues. For more subtle ones, would a "Christian" Constitution allow a female State President? And the list could go on).

Personally, I prefer to live in a peaceful, liberal, secular democracy, than any form of religious State. But that's a personal preference. Whatever our Constitution mandated, I'd probably still have an issue with the Marriage Alliance.

So, to your second point.

I fully understand your brief outline of the position of the MA.

But, here's my question: Is the MA (and supporters such as yourself) happy with what has happened? Basically, you've "won". The Marriage Bill and Civil Union Bill are seperate. But, now homosexuals can still get married. Surely, the MA should have stood in full opposition to the whole concept of gay union?

So, again, is the MA satisfied with what has happened? Are they back slapping and high fiving, and saying "yeah, we did it"? Somehow, I don't think so. I have a feeling that we're going to hear more from the MA, and that its going to go something like, "what we *really* meant was...".

We're both making subtle points on this issue, but I hope you understand mine (I get yours).

:-)

Posted by: Graeme 04 Dec, 2006 - 19:39:25

Yes, I get your point, too. :) Of course, I don't necessarily agree.

If you will forgive me, I think I will refrain from speculating on what the MA is going to do next, and stick with my own opinions from here on in - which I am comfortable to defend or to alter if that becomes necessary or prudent. I should probably have stuck with my own view in the first place.

I don't think that your argument for a secular state on the one hand is compatible with your position that the MA, or someone like me, should stand in outright (legal) opposition to gay unions, on the other. It is precisely because I agree with you on the separation of church and state that I believe a separate bill for gay unions should be instituted. To have a secular state where gay unions are completely forbidden on religious grounds would be a contradiction in terms. A separate bill allows for the protection of the marriage concept. This does not mean I support gay unions. I do not believe that homosexuality, as a *lifestyle* (I do not believe the orientation is sinful in itself), is right in terms of my Christian faith. Neither do I believe that those who practice the lifestyle should be discriminated against in terms of the law.

In terms of the constitutional issue, I'm not sure I was advocating everything you assumed me to be. Does an overall statement of submission to God at the beginning of the constitution, or even a president who acknowledges God as the giver of his authority, really constitute a "church state"? That was all I was suggesting. Perhaps I was unclear on this point.

I would probably lean towards a social democracy if I had my choice of systems - but they're all rotten, really. I think democracy with its empty "by the people, for the people" promises and its rough-hewn capitalism that puts profits before social justice has created an evil stink that the Muslim world is right to be critical of, even if hypocritically.

I agree with you that freedom of conscientious objection (without the need to apply for this permission, as the state is expecting), and a focus on the positive aspects of marriage are important. I'd have added a heterosexual qualifier to your definition of marriage, for the sake of clarity.

Posted by: Charlieboy 18 Jan, 2007 - 10:54:30

This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it