|
LETTER
Debate: Same-sex marriages
16/10/2006 11:56 - (SA)
In December 2005 the Constitutional Court ruled that section 30 (1) of the Marriage Act was unconstitutional because the wording only allowed for marriages between men and women and gave parliament 12 months to include the words "or spouse" after the words wife or husband.
If not done in time, the relevant section of the act would automatically be read to include those words, which take away the legal requirement that a marriage be between a man and a woman.
The home affairs portfolio committee has proposed a Civil Unions Bill that would complement the existing Marriage Act. According to the proposed Bill the union cannot be called a "marriage", is open only to same-sex couples and marriage officers can refuse to perform the ceremony.
MPs will vote on the legislation on October 20.
News24 invited Glenn de Swardt of the gay and lesbian association Triangle Project and a proponent of same-sex marriage, and Pastor Errol Naidoo, spokesperson for the For Marriage Alliance, to debate the issue. Their exchange, carried out by e-mail, is below.
The Debate
Glenn de Swardt
The Constitution of post-apartheid South Africa includes three significant values: human dignity, the achievement of equality and the advancement of human rights and freedoms.
Our Constitution prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race, gender, religion and sexual orientation, amongst others.
The Constitutional Court has declared that excluding same-sex couples from marriage is unconstitutional in that it unfairly discriminates against gay and lesbian people.
Our quest for civil marriage is a legal issue. We want the legal status, benefits and responsibilities afforded by marriage.
We have not asked the church to approve our relationships.
Since this is a human rights issue I fail to see why some religious groups are protesting. The South African Council of Churches, for example, has stated that parliament needs to interpret the Constitution and not the bible.
I remember your being present, years ago, when I convened a seminar on homophobia and prejudice in South Africa. In his presentation, Archbishop Desmond Tutu metaphorically compared religion to a knife: you can use it to do good (to butter your bread, for example) or you can use it to stab someone. Wouldn't it be great if everyone used religion to challenge prejudice, and not to feed it?
Pastor Errol Naidoo
The Church's defence of the institution of marriage has nothing to do with prejudice or discrimination.
Monogamous heterosexual marriage and the family have always been recognised, 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 to found a family". Section 3 of article 16 goes on to state: "The family is the natural and the fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State".
God, the Creator of the universe, revealed His divine blueprint for marriage and the family at the very beginning of time.
Significantly, the Creators masterplan for the family predates the State, the Church, or religion. In the beginning God created them male and female. And to His creation He stated; "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh" Gen: 2:24.
Consequently, God defined and ordained the most enduring of society's institutions - marriage and the family. Five thousand years of recorded history have come and gone, yet every civilization in the history of the world has been built upon it.
Marriage, therefore, is a fundamental social institution. It is central to the nurture and raising of children. It is the "social glue" that reliably attaches fathers to children. It contributes to the physical, emotional, and economic health of men, women and children, and thus to the nation as a whole. With same-sex 'marriage' none of this is possible.
Glenn de Swardt
Since humankind evolved, people have lived in various groupings, inevitably male dominated, for purposes of safety and competition for scarce resources. These included clans, groups, communities and extended families. Industrialisation and urbanisation resulted in significant social changes and families tended to become smaller.
Such social systems have continued to change as society evolved. The advent of the contraceptive pill resulted in even smaller families, divorce has become acceptable and children born out of wedlock are no longer cruelly shamed. Thankfully women have attained increased social influence.
Many people recognise that the traditional concept of a family unit is beset by problems including emotional and physical abuse, domestic violence, incest, child abuse, teenage pregnancy, substance abuse and infidelity.
Consequently they're searching for alternate family structures that meet their current needs. Today we accept single parents, people cohabiting, same-sex couples, communes, childless married couples and individuals living alone. Sadly, we also have Aids orphans.
Talking of social change, most right-minded people today consider the practice of slavery to be abhorrent. Yet slavery is frequently mentioned in the bible, often as a socially acceptable practice. I'm curious, then, how you justify your stance on slavery in the current context.
Pastor Errol Naidoo
The fact that marriage and the family is beset by a host of challenges and problems is precisely why government and civil society need to strengthen and protect these vital institutions. Many of the disfunctionalities currently being experienced by the family, is as a direct result of certain sectors of our society's rejection of God's law.
We have laws against murder, rape and theft on our statute books, none of which are adhered to. Does that mean we do away with these laws? Most right thinking people will agree that we need to strengthen and better enforce our laws if they are failing society. Redefining ancient cornerstone institutions like marriage and the family, to accommodate mankind's disfunctionality and depravity, is a sure-fire recipe for social disaster.
Nowhere in the Bible is slavery condoned. However, it does acknowledge man's propensity to vile and sinful behaviour.
History records that some of the greatest emancipators of slavery such as America's 16 president, Abraham Lincoln and British parliamentarian, William Wilberforce who fought a long and protracted battle to abolish slavery in Britain, did so on the basis of their sincere Christian beliefs that "All mankind are created equal in the sight of God".
Furthermore, wherever the Christian message has penetrated the deepest is where you will find the freest nations on earth today. For example, homosexual lobby groups would not be able to demand special rights and privileges in countries like China, Iran, Libya, Syria and Sudan amongst others. Contrary to popular opinion, Christians fully support all the constitutional rights, protections, and benefits afforded to homosexual persons - except those which expressly legitimises their sexual behaviour.
Glenn de Swardt
Laws evolve to reflect and protect the interests of society. We discarded prejudiced and discriminatory laws enforced during the apartheid period. I remind you that many prominent church groups in South Africa actively supported apartheid on the basis of actual biblical texts - a warning against using selected texts to disguise prejudice in the wrapping of religious dogma.
Some fundamentalists use the bible to subjugate women, for example; see 1Timothy 2:11f: "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent".
That is contrary to our current understanding of human rights and our fundamental belief in equality. The following verses refer to slavery: Titus 2.9; Eph 6.5 ("Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ"); Col 3.22 ("Slaves, give entire obedience to your earthly masters...") and 1Peter 2.18 ("Slaves must submit to your masters and show them complete respect...").
You mention a few far-off countries. Closer home, Robert Mugabe speaks as a Christian and yet Zimbabwe has a dismal history of human rights. But this isn't about religion or the bible. It's a human rights issue.
Pastor Errol Naidoo
I agree that a few church groups misused and misquoted the Scriptures to support their prejudice.
However, there is nothing in the Bible that can be rightly used to support apartheid ideology. The Scriptures quoted below ostensibly in support of slavery is used out of context.
Both Paul and Peter are addressing Christians in their letters. The context therefore of their encouragement to their brothers living under the yoke of slavery is to maintain their Christian character despite their suffering - following the Lord's example.
Slavery at that time was a fact of life. However, Christian slaves were exhorted not to "return evil for evil"
It logically follows that if the New Testament condoned slavery, Christians today would be the major slave owners.
History however, proves the exact opposite. In addition, wherever Christianity is the predominant religion, that is where women enjoy the most liberty.
The suggestion therefore that the Scriptures encourage the inequality of the sexes is without basis. As to Robert Mugabe speaking as a Christian, that idea is so ridiculous that it doesn't deserve a response. Nevertheless, since this debate is about same-sex marriage I digress.
Homosexuality is a sexual behaviour and not an inherent characteristic like skin colour or ethnicity. Many homosexuals have made the transition to heterosexuality but no black person has ever become a white person. The claim therefore by homosexuals that their demand for equal status with heterosexual marriage is a human rights issue is erroneous. The Bible confirms in both the Old and New Testaments that God created two genders - male and female.
Since we are quoting Scripture to make a point, allow me the liberty to quote some of my own. 1 Timothy 1:9 - 10, "Knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless....For fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine". 1 Corinthians 6:9 - 11 "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites...And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God".
My prayer is that instead of justifying sinful behaviour, homosexuals will receive God's love, mercy and grace, repent of their sin and turn to Him.
|
Letters
