20 June 2005 Update on Marriage Alliance

from Michael Cassidy [1]

Many of you, we know, have been following and praying for the Constitutional Court case on May 17th in which the Marriage Alliance of SA, which though not a formal project of SACLA, of course is a child of SACLA, was in the courtroom as what the lawyers call an Amicus Curiae, (Friend of the Court) as the South African government appealed against the ruling of the Supreme Court of Appeal on November 30th last year. This ruling said that marriage in South Africa should be re-defined to include same-sex couples.

We believe this was both misguided and wrong and therefore the matter should be appealed and the Marriage Alliance was formed to stand with the government in this regard.

So let us now try to bring you up to speed as to where we are in the whole matter: At the time of going to court the Marriage Alliance was representing some 70 denominations and Christian groups adding up to over 20 million people. And more were and are still coming in. There was another today. The Court Case (May 17) day was an interesting one. The courtroom was packed to capacity with the Marriage Alliance taking up 8 to 10 seats. The remaining seats were taken up by 100 or so representatives from the gay and lesbian community. Virtually all of them were young girls and all wearing sloganed T- shirts.

May we also say that prior to the Court Case there was interest from some to engage in mass action marches in cities all across South Africa. On advice from the Marriage Alliance it was decided that the action could produce counter-productive incidents and so it was not pursued. We are thankful for the cooperative and united spirit shown in seeking the best for the initiative at hand.

It is important to remember that what we were in was “a hearing” in front of nine Constitutional Court Judges. This was not a trial in which witnesses etc are cross-examined and a judge makes a verdict. We and our legal team were standing with the South African Government and a Christian advocacy group called Doctors for Life. The Gay and Lesbian Equality Project was on the other side. Each of the legal teams presented their case midst interrupting endless questions from the judges. We gather this is normal and how it works. To comment on impressions of the procedure would be neither appropriate nor necessary. We were very thankful to be standing in this instance with the South African Government and our Minister of Home Affairs and President, all of whom know basically where the vast majority of the country stands on this issue.

It was not surprising of course that the issues of discrimination and rights were much to the fore. Also religious freedom. Our Constitution has a good Bill of Rights and also an appropriate clause forbidding “unfair discrimination,” of any sort, including against gays. So the issue is whether not granting same-sex marriage to gay people is a denial of rights or “unfair discrimination.”

In a lot of ways we find this extraordinary, as marriage has always had appropriate discrimination or differentiation or parameters of appropriateness around it. Thus a man cannot marry his sister, daughter or mother. A grown woman may not marry a boy of seven or claim her right to do so. One may not marry a person who is already married. Nor may one marry a person of the same gender. It is simply a definitional issue, because marriage since creation is self-defined, and God-defined, as being a heterosexual institution. Likewise, a man may not enter a nunnery, not because the Mother Superior thinks he is a bad guy or is a discriminator, or denying his rights, but because he is male and nunneries are self- definitionally female! A man may not likewise attend St Hilda s School for Girls, and cannot claim a right to do so, because St Hilda s School for Girls is by definition for females and he male! So neither St Hilda s nor the Nunnery are unfair discriminators or suppressors of human rights! Besides which, rights always have to be balanced out by other rights. A woman claiming her rights may not go into a male ward in a hospital without violating the “right to privacy” of the men in the said ward, however much they might find the experience novel or interesting!!

So, in a nutshell, it is a definitional issue and one relating to qualification for entry into a particular institution.

We believe also that religious freedom will be imperilled if same-sex marriages were sanctioned, as illustrated now in Scandinavia, Holland and Canada, where in spite of conscience clauses, in which some of our local denominations without doing their homework are self-deceivingly taking refuge, there is developing a new era of church-state collision and litigation. And exegeting certain biblical texts addressing this issue will be construed as “hate-speech” and contrary to both the law and the new state norm defining marriage.

Now of course we have to await the verdict of the judges. This could take anything from two weeks to twelve months.

It would seem that there are several different scenarios. In Scenario One the court could either set aside and overrule the November 30th ruling of the Supreme Court of Appeal which said it was unconstitutional to deny marriage rights to gays and that marriage should be redefined to being between any two people, regardless of gender.

Scenario Two would be to uphold and approve the November 30th verdict of the Supreme Court of Appeal. Parliament would then have to bring Statutory Law into line with that and marriage and the family would be redefined forever and a day and for generations in South Africa. And as with Scandinavia and Holland, the consequences would almost certainly be catastrophic. Scenario Three could be that the Constitutional Court Judges might set aside and overrule the Supreme Court ruling but then refer the matter to Parliament, possibly with some strong prescriptive instructions to look again at the 1961 Marriage Act of South Africa which never defined marriage, but only assumed it, (like all other constitutions in the world), to be heterosexual. The battle of the Marriage Alliance would then have to be carried to Parliament and in a new way to the nation. After all, with an institution so foundational and fundamental, there is no way it should be changed by nine unelected legal officials. It should be democratically driven and a democratic mandate from the whole country be presented to Parliament to bring in a new definition and then be ready to face all the attendant consequences, not least relating to children, adoption rights, reproduction rights and mechanisms, triumvirates, polyamory, etc. Said one leader: “It s both a minefield and a nightmare.”

Obviously, from where we sit, we would like you to pray for the Lord s wisdom to prevail in the minds of these judges and for the final outcome to be that which firmly preserves marriage in its traditional understanding, albeit with appropriate provisos protecting appropriate rights within the gay community. DO PLEASE JOIN US IN SERIOUS AND COMMITTED PRAYER TO THAT END.

The days since the court case have been involved mainly with media opportunities, here there and everywhere, and for these too much wisdom and grace is needed. At no point do we want to come across unlovingly or without proper understanding and compassion for people in the gay community. But by the same token we cannot be compromising of the Word of God and of the full convictions of religions worldwide from the beginning of time. That is not something one dare hand over willingly to a minuscule minority for redefinition.

*** *** For more information you could visit the Marriage Alliance SA website at http://www.marriagealliancesa.com . Various other informative documents are available at your request e.g. an informative brochure titled ‘Why should we care about Marriage law?’

Lastly, an SMS campaign has been launched to raise awareness and to generate support for the initiatives of the Marriage Alliance. To show your support of the initiative we would love to encourage you to do the following: SMS the words MA YES to 38810. (SMS charge R10.00.)

[1] Michael Cassidy is the leader of African Enterprise, an evangelistic organisation based in Pietermaritzburg, KwaZulu/Natal, South Africa