Gay Marraiges in South Africa

I recently posted this comment to the Commentary blog on the debate that lead to the legalisation of gay marraiges in South Africa (with some changes).

The whole gay marraige thing has not been dealt with in the most appropriate context. The whole debate centred around whether or not straight people should or should not, on account of being a majority, permit homosexuals to marry. The ACDP and Freedom Front + opponents who recited hellfire and brimstone messages in parliament sorely missed the point. They argue that marraige as a social institution is an act under the whateverness of some god or the other, with the assumption that there is only one true god and that all people must be believers in this silly god and furthermore that gay marraige must be prevented on account of SA being a democracy and the majority of the population is opposed to it.

That these minority parties took this view to me represents their own long term strategic suicide. This whole issue has nothing to do with the will of the majority. This is plain and simply an issue concerning minority rights. That a minority party such as the FF+ (whom I happen to care little for) voted against minority rights will surely weaken their cause. As a minority party, they should be supportive of all minority rights. Instead they of all people used the ad hoc excuse of the will of the majority to vote against gay marraige. It is only a matter of time before they will shout out in favour of their own minority rights and they are now on record to be in support of the will of the majority. Equality before the law is a principle that protects minorities from discrimination and in this case, it is the only one that matters. Whether or not the majority of people want it is irrelevant, because we know they don't and we know that minority rights require protection for this very reason.

But above all, the - to my knowledge - unchallenged assumption by the ACDP and FF+ of the god factor in the making of laws deserves to never be tolerated. The law is meant to be as secular as possible (for it will ultimately be influenced by beliefs arrising from society) for a very good reason, namely the constitutional right to freedom of conscience. Freedom of conscience includes the right not to have to worship as much as it includes to right to worship freely. That any god should be used to justify discrimination and non-equality before the law is unacceptable in the strongest possible terms. The ACDP ought to be taken to task in the severest possible manner in this regard, yet no-one dares to speak out about it.

As far as the institution of marraige and the effect on society is concerned...This institution exists because it arose from the very same superstitious beliefs in god(s) et al and as far as the original institution of wedlock is concerned, it discriminated unbearable on a gender based role. This institution has undergone significant reform made possible by the secularity of the law for the better . If it were still practiced in its original superstitious guise, divorcees would suffer as did past Kings of England (not to mention the 8 Queens of Henry) and as do Catholics and Muslim women who can be left a helpless divorcee by a simple renunciation by their husband of their wedding vows. In fact the whole institution of marraige is primarily one based on commercial concerns, not on whatever religious froth blisters out of the mouths of the faithful [PS: and not on pro-creation either - people do that without getting married. They marry to raise a family, which is comparable to a business partnership and costs money and time, hence, in that way marraige is a commercial concern with investment values of emotional and survival fulfilment, even though the "products" will not be traded in the common sense of commerce - except in the case of girls in many "traditional" and other superstitious cultures] . In centuries gone past, women had virtually no right to a publlic life, including the right to trade and make a living - this is still evident in countries ruled by that other extremist superstition and in many cases in African custom itself, where a deceased man's brother becomes the caretaker / husband / guardian of his brother's widow and the father of his children. Divorce is a legal tool that liberated women from the paternalism which saw them being abused by their husbands without a foot to stand on afterwards. The equal application of the law to gender concerns have allso played its part. Women today no longer need to marry to put dinner on their plate. The institution of marraige has not evaporated because of these incredible reforms. It has continued to survive. There truly is no reason why "the effect on society" of reform of this sad and sorry tradition should be used as a scapegoat to prevent homosexual people from enjoying the legal protection and recourse which the state affords heterosexual married couples in the form of tax and estate law. Regarding the requirement of two opposite genders, let us not forget how the law in years gone past have used gender to also discrimnate against men. As divorcees they almost never obtained custody of their children in the case of a dispute. Making this "instituion" genderless is for the benefit if men as well as women.

I take my hats of to the ANC and the ANC Youth League and Cosatu. As the parties representative of the majority of South Africans they have done the most to protect the rights of minorities in this country - not minority parties, nor the religious righteous. Thank You to them.