Talk:Same-sex marriage in South Africa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Law Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
???	This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.

	Africa Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Africa, which collaborates on articles related to Africa in Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject South Africa. See also The South Africa Portal.
Assessment comments This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	LGBT Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

Contents 1 early discussion 2 Most recent events 3 Sodomy? 4 Republics 5 Context 6 Page tampering or vandalism? 7 why the photo at the beginning? 8 What's the deal with the first sentence? 9 Same-sex marriage in South Africa & The Mediation Cabal 10 Sharif Ahmed 11 Social reaction 12 Merge of civil unions? 13 Opposite sex?

[edit] early discussion

I can't find any confirmation that same-sex marriages are legal in South Africa. The date of July 2002 mentioned was that of a court decision that one same-sex couple should receive the financial benefits of a married couple (see [1]). Google yields several pages from later dates that state that SA does not yet have legal recognition of SSMs. Can someone quote an authority on this? -- Kimiko 09:27, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Same-sex marriages are not legal in South Africa. I can't quote any authority but myself (since I live here). However, the courts have ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban same-sex marriage, and has directed Parliament to amend the law. So SSM must be legalised, but it is very unpopular, both among voters and (possibly) parliamentarians, so they seem to be putting it off as long as possible. --Taejo | [[User talk:Taejo|Talk]] 06:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that the court ruled that the legislature must change the law within one year's time to include same-sex couples or the court will change the law itself. Liamdaly620 17:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Which would be absolutely, totally unprecedented in any country in the history of mankind, for any court to write new words into a law, instead of a democratically elected body. "Democracy" is now dead, welcome to "Activist Judicocracy", with threats and ultimatums. 17:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, this is hardly unprecedented, and fully within the court's authority to interpret laws according to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, which is fairly clear on there being no discrimination based on gender. Now, the role of the legislature is not overridden in this, as the legislature still controls the most important power of all: The authority to amend the Constitution. So, I don't know who you are (you chose to refuse to associate your name with your comment), but you evidently know little about the workings of democracy, and so your claim that it is dead rings somewhat hollow. — Impi 10:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Courts of law have been interpreting law, and deciding between conflicting laws, for at least a few hunderd years. thirty-seven 07:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Each paragraph now seems to be referenced, and in terms of quality I can't see any particularly sloppy mistakes, so I'm removing the cleanup/citation tags. Arvedui 22:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The article says "Many white South Africans, particularly Afrikaners, are very conservative on social issues.", which implies (though it doesn't state) that opposition is primarily from white South Africans, particularly Afrikaners. However, it's my understanding (which might be wrong) that same-sex marriage is unpopular among black South Africans as well, possibly even more so. Is that the case? --Delirium 07:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, a fair amount of black South Africans are very socially conservative, and are not in favour of it. I'm not sure why the article focuses only on white South Africans, because it's pretty clear that if only white South Africans were opposed to it, it would have been law long ago. — Impi 10:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, I've been meaning to make that change for a while - but was waiting for time to do a major rewrite (that doesn't look really necessary anymore). Most South Africans are probably (and regretably) homophobic. Certainly most are anti-SSM. --대조 | Talk 16:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The article reads "Because homosexuals were accepted, it was easy for the government to write the legislation into the constitution." Easy? Accepted by whom? This is too vague, too general, denies the hard work of too many people, and ties into the correction about conservatism. One mixed race bar does not mean acceptance. If homosexuality was so readily accepted, why did the new government have to remove sodomy laws that were on the books? Lesbian and Gay activists joined in the struggle with the ANC to fight apartheid, thereby giving homosexual rights a place on the platform. That line should be removed entirely. Jsandrsn 19:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Most recent events

Cabinet assents to same-sex marriage Bill

-M-, Afrikaans Wikipedia

[edit] Sodomy?

Removed the startling assertion that homosexuality was legal in apartheid-era South Africa. Rubbish; sodomy was a criminal offence until 1998. Also removed the POV statements that homosexuals were accepted, and that the 2005 decision was met with much opposition - it was, but it was also met with rejoicing from gay and lesbian South Africans and those who support sexual equality. 82.108.5.59 12:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Wouldnt it be possible to still have sodomy illegal and same-sex marriage legal?

Technically, no. Marriage is defined (in part) as a sexual union. As such, if it is made legal the acts that define it must also be made legal. - 24.10.95.220 08:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Your saying anal-sex defines (in part) gay marriage? I'm skeptical. Brentt 00:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Conjugal relations are one of the traditional factors in determining whether a marriage is consummated or not. This is particularly important because of the prevalence of "sham" marriages for the purposes of fooling immigration or financial officials.

Granted, same-sex unions are a relatively new concept, but every jurisdiction that has legalized domestic partnerships, civil unions, or same-sex marriage has done away with their sodomy laws first. 24.69.166.109 21 March 2007

[edit] Republics

"[South Africa] will be the first African country and the first republic to legalize same-sex marriage."

Pardon my American ignorance, but aren't the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and Canada all parliamentary and/or democratic republics? --BDD 20:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

They are all monarchys. See Politics of Canada, Politics of Spain, Politics of Belgium and Politics of the Netherlands. Canada is still under the Brittish crown, since its an old colony. Spain restored its monarchy after the death of Franco in 1975. Belgium and the Netherlands are monarchys as well. They are both parliamentary democracys (or at least if I remember it right), but they are not republics.

--Screensaver 21:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, since checking the article here on republics, this seems consistent with Wikipedia definitions. It still seems strange to me, however, that monarchies and republics are considered mutually exclusive categories. In practice, the people in all four of those countries elect representatives who govern in their stead, which sounds like a republic to me. A bit semantical. I won't dispute it though. Thanks. --BDD 23:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't sound strange to me. Perhaps you just have a different understanding of republic then the rest of us? I don't think many people in there countries dispute that they are not a republic and in most (especially Canada I suspect) there are probably republic movements which seek to remove the monarchy as well as monarchist movements which seek to maintain/preserve the monarchy. More precisely, these countries are called constitutional monarchies and parliamentry demoracies. I think both terms together accurately convey what kind of countries they are. If you were to call them republics, it would be rather confusing. How do you differentiate between a real republic and a monarchy? Nil Einne 02:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC) (Just to clarify, I was referring to the idea that Canada, Spain etc should be called republics. BDD seemed to be suggesting it was just semantical and we should call them republics. My point was it was actually a bit silly to call them republic because if we did, how would one differentiate between a republic with a monarch and a republic without one Nil Einne 12:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC))

Easy: monarchies have a monarch, and republics don't. Although we democratically elect our effective government (a situation called responsible government), and the monarch reigns at the suffrance of the democratic government, the monarch is still a monarch, rather than a head of state elected either by the people or by other democratically elected officials. - Montréalais 05:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this still gives the impression it was the first country to legalize it, you could simply say it is the 5th country to legalize it? Or something like "the 5th country on the world and the first republic", but that is not a very good sentence ;) I agree with BDD, it's a bit semantical. -- Sirius81 | Talk 12:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it appears to me to be a distinction without a substantive difference and an attempt to claim a spurious 'first'. It should be replaced with wording indicating that SA is the 5th country to legalise gay marriage. No more than that is necessary, I should think. — Impi 17:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In the context of this article is it even noteworthy that South Africa is a republic? --192.156.102.6 20:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope. — Impi 22:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I was planning to mention this myself but forgot. I agree that it's not particularly relevant Nil Einne 15:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The sentence is quite correct as is, grammatically, semantically and factually, and the "first" is not spurious. Let it go, folks.  :-) BTW, Canada is not under the "British crown"; H.M. Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada quite separately from being Queen of the UK, as she is also Queen of about 15 other Commonwealth Countries. See Monarchy in Canada. Canadians have been totally on their own since the repatriation of their Constitution in 1982 cut the last tenuous links with the British government. Textorus 23:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Context

The lead section needs more context and content. --70.39.133.138 12:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page tampering or vandalism?

As of 11:20 AM, Central Time, the page is "pie face" followed by excessive exclamation points, repeatedly, for its entire content.

11:21 AM: Sorry, must have been a fluke.

Ugh someone did tamper with the page. Hopefully someone can reverse it ASAP.

[edit] why the photo at the beginning?

I do not see what an photo of male genitals has to do with this discussion and it makes it impossible to send it to people who would be interested if I know they will access it at work. I would edit it out but I can't figure out how. Also, this is not just a male issue.Dsrtwrendsrtwren

This was vandalism and has been cleaned up. You can learn more about how you can clean up vandalism by checking out the Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 21:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's the deal with the first sentence?

It says that it is widely believed to spread more AIDS in Africans, and then cites a BBC article which says nothing of the sort. It's a very biased comment, and I hope someone removes it.

• That was just vandalism by SRD (some random dolt). — BRIAN0918 • 2006-11-16 18:19Z

[edit] Same-sex marriage in South Africa & The Mediation Cabal

The following section, added to the article by User:IZAK was deleted by User:JBKramer from the article with the insulting comment that it's "just plain made up" [2] with only threats being hurled on IZAK's talk page. In view of this behavior, and after serious comments by IZAK have been repeatedly deleted from this talk page, the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal has been contacted to see if they can help out with the blanket censoring of IZAK's comments here, see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-17 Religious opposition to same-sex marriage in South Africa. Hopefully, a more serious dialogue will now ensue. Thank you. IZAK 12:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC) :

Religious roots of the opposition to same-sex marriages

Thus far, the push to create same-sex marriages in South Africa would amount to civil unions devoid of any religious sanction. Over 80% of South Africans belong to a religious group: (Zion Christian 11.1%, Pentecostal/Charismatic 8.2%, Catholic 7.1%, Methodist 6.8%, Dutch Reformed 6.7%, Anglican 3.8%, other Christian 36%, Islam 1.5%, other 2.3%, unspecified 1.4%, none 15.1% - 2001 census ^[1].)

Indeed, the broader public debate over the rejection or acceptance of same-sex marriage by the general public in South Africa, as noted above, requires an understanding of the degree to which South Africa's various population groups have had a historical connection to mainstream Christianity, Islam, and other religions, all of which reject the notion of same-sex marriage as being anti-Biblical or anti-religious. While individuals such as Desmond Tutu may have their personal views, they are not regarded as the definitive spokespeople for Christianity. (See Homosexuality and Christianity.)

The majority of South Africans belong to Christian churches, such as to the Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa, Anglican Church of Southern Africa, Methodist Church of Southern Africa, the Zionist Churches, Roman Catholicism in South Africa and Afrikaner Calvinism, all of which have neither condoned nor accepted same-sex marriages in their congregations.

The Muslims in South Africa are uniformly opposed to accepting same-sex marriages, in keeping with Islamic teachings and Islamic countries world-wide. (See Homosexuality and Islam.) Jewish South Africans who are mostly alligned with Orthodox Judaism are opposed to the notion and practice of same-sex-marriages. (See Homosexuality and Judaism.)

It is therefore no surprise that many religious groups have opposed the proposed law.

A few comments. Firstly although you signed your post, if you are referring to self it's usually best to do it in the first person rather then the third person so people don't get confused. Secondly, the above either seems inappropriate given that it is unsourced, looks like original research and sounds like it's expressing a POV. I can't comment on JBKramer's alleged personal attacks on your talk page, but I feel his comment in removing what you added is fair even if ideally should be avoided. Also, I note from your talk page, you've been expressing a POV on this talk page, which many find offensive ([3]). As other's have reminded you, the talk page is not a soapbox. Nil Einne 15:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sharif Ahmed

I have linked this article to Sharif Ahmed. Is it the same man? If so it would be worth explaining who he is if he is to be quoted. Rich Farmbrough, 15:46 21 November 2006 (GMT).

[edit] Social reaction

I moved material to this section from the 2002 ruling section. It doesn't really have anything substantive to say about reaction to the ruling; instead, it talks (a little bit) about general receptiveness of the country to the gay lifestyle. I think this needs to be either rewritten to include actual quotes or summaries thereof. It could also simply be moved to Gay rights in South Africa. -- Beland 13:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge of civil unions?

Is this merge of Civil unions in South Africa happening or what? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It should. —Nightstallion (?) 12:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opposite sex?

Can a man and woman enter a civil union in South Africa? Carolynparrishfan 12:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

An excellent question, and one that the courts will probably have to resolve. Orginally, the government bill had differentiated "civil partnerships" (same-sex unions) from "domestic partnerships" (opposite-sex unions). However, since the draft bill did not include the word "marriage" for same-sex couples, as the Constitutional Court ruling required, the government was forced to change the term "civil partnerships" into "marriage partnerships" at the last minute. Meanwhile, the "domestic partnerships" in the original legislation somehow morphed into "civil partnerships" during the amendment process, even though other parts of the bill remained exactly the same. This means some parts of the legislation now refers to "civil partnerships" in terms of "two persons of the same-sex", while other parts still say "two persons" (regardless of gender). So...it's not exactly clear. Eventually, they're going to have to harmonize all these marriage laws. South Africa now has three totally separate and contradictory marriage laws, which is the cause of great confusion. --24.69.176.155 03:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)