The Marriage Act is Constitutionally Correct, The Civil Union Bill is Constitutionally incorrect

The South African Constitutional Court's findings in their case #254 are not consistent with the Constitution and the proposed Civil Union Bill needs to take into account the limitations on rights.

Johannesburg, South Africa (PRWEB) September 23, 2006 -- A spokesperson for The Foundation for Peace and Democracy (The FPD) had the following to say today concerning South African Constitutional Court Case #254, Minister of Home Affairs and Another v Fourie and Other, Lesbian and Gay Equality Project v Minister of Home Affairs and Others:

"The opinion of the South African Constitutional Court and its order to the South African Parliament is not relevant misleading and inappropriate and must be overturned.

"Futhermore, proposed Civil Union Bill B 26 – 2006 is defective in that it does not take into account the limitations of Section 33 of Act 200 of 1993 or Section 36 of Act 108 of 1996. This deficiency must be addressed by the writers of the Civil Union Bill.

"O’Regan J and the majority as per Sachs J in reaching their opinion in case #254 are in breach of their obligation in terms of Act 200 of 1993 Section 96(2) or Act 108 of 1996 Section 165(2) in that they have chosen to ignore Section 33 of Act 200 of 1993 equivalent to Section 36(1) of Act 108 of 1996.

"The challenge to the constitutionality of sections of The Marriage Act 25 of 1961 by one of the litigants in case #254 that the marriage formula to be repeated by a couple discriminated unconstitutionally against homosexual persons is not true.

"Here is simple proof that The Marriage Act 25 of 1961 that recognizes only heterosexual unions is constitutionally correct and that the proposed Civil Unions Bill is constitutionally incorrect:

"In terms of the defining document of the constitution namely Act 200 of 1993: The rights conferred by section 8 are limited by section 33.

Specifically the restriction of partners to a marriage being limited to male-female is indeed permissible in terms of section 33(1)(a)(i) being reasonable because of the fundamental physiological differences in the male and female that together compliment one another in the union of marriage and 33(1)(a)(ii) is justifiable as the union of the complementary male-female relationship cannot be physiologically replicated in a male-male or female-female relationship.

"Or in terms of Act 108 of 1996 version of the constitution: The rights conferred by section 9 are limited by section 36(1). Specifically the restriction of partners to a marriage being limited to male-female is indeed permissible in terms of section 36(1) being reasonable because of the fundamental physiological differences in the male and female that together compliment one another in the union of marriage and is justifiable as the union of the complementary male-female relationship cannot be physiologically replicated in a male-male or female-female relationship.

###