HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS

CANNOT BE MARRIAGE
Response to Discussion Paper 104, Project 118
December 2003

This discussion paper is a response to the proposals presented in Discussion Paper

104, Project 118, titled ‘Domestic Partnerships’ (regarding domestic partnerships and
including homosexual marriages). It is addressed to the members of the South African
Law Reform Commission:
The Honourable Madam Justice Y Mokgoro (Chairperson)
The Honourable Madam Justice L Mailula (Vice-Chairperson)
Adv JJ Gauntlett
Prof CE Hoexter (additional member)
The Honourable Mr Justice CT Howie
Prof I Maithufi
Ms Z Seedat
The Honourable Mr Justice W Seriti

Submitted by: ChristianView Network

Email: mail@Christianview.org
Tel/fax: 021-6854500
Mail: Postnet 114, P/Bag X18, Rondebosch, 7701
Homosexual relationships can't be marriage ii

SUMMARY

This document examines the proposals contained in Discussion Paper 104, Project 118,
on Domestic Partnerships (Volume 1). It is not comprehensive and seeks primarily to
address social and moral issues in the proposals. Various issues are raised in
Discussion Paper 104, but in the interests of brevity this document focuses primarily
on the proposals summarized in pages (vi-xiv).

The proposals are rejected on the basis that they pose a threat to the institution of
marriage. Furthermore, it is recommended that the views of the majority of South
Africans and not simply special interest groups should be taken into account. The
majority of the South African public, which professes the Christian faith, holds the view
that marriage is sacred and laws regarding it should not be changed.

Specific mention is made with regard to legalizing homosexual marriages. Opinion

polls of Africans towards homosexuality show low tolerance for the act, therefore it
would be undemocratic to advance further the cause of homosexuality in South Africa.
It is also recommended that the words ‘sexual orientation’ be removed from the
Equality Clause in the Constitution to prevent this minority group from obtaining
special rights that negatively impact others.

The proposals would further provoke the judgement of God on South Africa. They
would also take hope away from homosexuals who want to change and impose legal
constraints to them breaking off their immoral relationships.

The proposals for legalising so called 'homosexual marriage', civil unions or various
forms of domestic partnership as a substitute for marriage are unhelpful and should be
rejected in totality.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY....................................................................................................................................................................II
INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................................1
THE PROPOSALS.........................................................................................................................................................1
SHOULD DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS BE LEGALLY RECOGNIZED AND REGULATED?..............................2
SHOULD MARITAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS BE EXTENDED TO DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS?............3
SHOULD A SCHEME OF REGISTERED PARTNERSHIPS/CIVIL UNIONS BE INTRODUCED?........................4
WHICH MARITAL RIGHTS, OBLIGATIONS AND BENEFITS SHOULD REQUIRE REGISTRATION OR
MARRIAGE AND WHICH SHOULD DEPEND ONLY ON THE EXISTENCE OF A DOMESTIC
RELATIONSHIP?.......................................................................................................................................................4
SHOULD LEGISLATION PROVIDE FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGES?...................................................................4
SHOULD MARITAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS BE FURTHER EXTENDED TO PEOPLE LIVING IN
INTERDEPENDENT RELATIONSHIPS HAVING NO SEXUAL ELEMENT?..........................................................9
ISSUES.........................................................................................................................................................................10
The benefits of marriage over concubinage/domestic partnerships........................................................................10
Stealing hope from homosexuals..............................................................................................................................11
Provoking God's wrath............................................................................................................................................11
CONCLUSIONS..........................................................................................................................................................12

Ref: PER: [/var/www/apps/scribd/scribd/tmp/scratch3/9090787.doc] 17 October, 2008

 HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS CANNOT BE MARRIAGE
INTRODUCTION

Marriage is a religious and social institution upon which the state cannot impose. By
demanding the legalization of gay marriages, homosexuals are telling the majority of
South African citizens to abandon their conscience and morals and inherent tradition,
virtues that have sustained our society and kept it from chaos and disorder, to satisfy
their desires. They are telling South Africans that they have no choice but to accept
their behaviour, which most of us consider abnormal. Homosexuals know that as long
as people take a common-sense approach to this issue, they will not be able to fully
and freely indulge their fantasies. But the South African Constitution states clearly
that every individual has a right to his/her conscience:

Clause 15 (1): Freedom of religion, belief and opinion

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and
opinion 1 [emphasis mine]

In the same way that one does not approve of bigamy, polygamy, child sexual abuse
and woman abuse, one should not be forced to approve of homosexuality and so
called 'homosexual marriages' if it goes against one’s principles.

The concept of domestic partnerships, although not new to our society, indeed poses a
threat due to the increasing number of property and maintenance disputes. However
the answer to this problem lies in comparing the risks between introducing acts that
will benefit the part of the population involved in these domestic partnerships versus
the implications that such acts are likely to have on the South African society as a
whole.

This paper aims to discuss, amongst other things, the implications of Domestic
Partnerships for non-homosexuals and particularly the family structure, and the
implications and consequences of promoting homosexual behaviour in a society (and
especially from studies in societies which have already implemented these changes).

THE PROPOSALS

Section (1.3.5.) on the proposal for domestic partnerships in Discussion Paper 104,
page 7, reads as follows:

1.3.5. The Commission is consequently considering proposals for possible law reform
with regard to the following issues:

• Whether domestic partnerships should be legally recognised and regulated

• Whether marital rights and obligations should be further extended to
domestic partnerships
• Whether a scheme of registered partnerships should be introduced

1
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, as adopted on 8 May 1996, Act 108 of 1996. Article online at
www.polity.org.za
Homosexual relationships can't be marriage 2

• Which marital rights, obligations and benefits should require registration or

marriage and which should depend only on the existence of a domestic
relationship
• Whether legislation should provide for same-sex marriage
• Whether marital rights and obligations should be further extended to people
living in interdependent relationships having no sexual element

We will now look at individual sections of these proposals in the order presented
above.

SHOULD DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS BE LEGALLY RECOGNIZED AND

REGULATED?

Section (1.2.7) of Discussion Paper 104, page 4, reads:

The number of people living in non-marriage relationships has,[however],

increased worldwide and also in South Africa. The dissatisfaction with the current
laws can be seen in the activities of lawmakers and law reform bodies across the
globe. In both Britain and France there is evidence of restructuring away from
marriage on a large scale, a process termed ‘de mariage’. Denmark recognises
same-sex partnerships while the Netherlands and Belgium recognise same-sex
marriage. South Africa is, however, far behind other countries in the development
of appropriate laws

An important abstract from section (1.2.8), page 5, follows:

…More and more legal problems associated with domestic partners and their
families are coming to the attention of the courts and of lawyers generally.
Partners are increasingly likely to bring disputes over such matters as property and
custody before the courts. Lately there have been a number of Constitutional and
High Court cases dealing with challenges in terms of section 9 of the Constitution
of 1996 (the so-called equality clause)

It is important to remember first of all that most people who live together and have a
sexual relationship but are not married do so out of choice, and precisely because they
wish to avoid the legal and social implications of marriage; they prefer the
convenience of a relationship from which they can easily walk out, or they may have
their own reasons as to why they choose not to get married. They do not want to have
status similar to marriage. For some others, it’s an attempt to try out the relationship
while deciding if they want to be married, and nothing stops these or any other
couples should they decide to get married. The only couples who would not be allowed
to marry would be those that do not meet the requirements for marriage, namely
couples where one or both partners are too young, if they are blood related, and very
importantly a minority group of same-sex individuals whose representatives are a
huge driving force behind the propaganda for granting of domestic partnerships the
same legal status as marriages. Common-sense and crucial critical analysis when it
comes to matters of the law should make us consider the question of whether this is
not a way for these same-sex individuals of getting around the law to obtain more
privileges?
Ref: PER: [/var/www/apps/scribd/scribd/tmp/scratch3/9090787.doc] 17 October, 2008
 Homosexual relationships can't be marriage 3

There are alternative methods of solving the growing incidence of disputes between
couples who live together and then separate. They can recur to the law; nothing stops
them from drawing up contracts and wills if they wish, and the law would have to
uphold these. It’s not necessary to take drastic measures such as changing something
as vital and beneficial to society as the marriage laws. The Constitution exists to
protect the whole of society. It should not be abused and used to hand out benefits
randomly to radical liberal minority groups demanding legal sanction for their acts
simply because of the ‘changing times of the world’.

Whatever the government legitimises becomes more acceptable and more common in
society. For example, since the legalization of no fault divorce, the rate of divorce has
increased significantly. Abortions have also become more common since its
legalization in 1996. In the same way it can anticipated that the concept of Domestic
Partnerships will result in more young people seeking this alternative, non-committed
type of lifestyle. Children are likely to be born into these less stable unions. Families
will be even less stable, with divorce rates soaring even higher, and children will be
even less safe.

Historical notes

The second king in England to convert to Christianity, Wihtred king of Kent, had the
following solution to the problem of 'domestic partnerships': '"Foreigners, if they will
not regularise their unions, shall depart from the land with their possessions and their
sins", while for the same offence, "Men of our own country also shall be excluded from
the communion of the Church, without being subject to forfeiture of their goods" Men
living in "illicit unions" are also commanded to "turn to a righteous life repenting of
their sins, or they shall be excluded from the communion of the Church." There are
also fines for both noblemen and commoners for entering illicit unions (100 shillings
and 50 shillings respectively).'2

President Jimmy Carter told young people in his administration, "Those of you living
together and are not married ought to get married."3

Answer: No. Domestic partnerships should not be legally recognised and

regulated.

SHOULD MARITAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS BE EXTENDED TO DOMESTIC

PARTNERSHIPS?

For the reasons discussed above, it is clear that there is no need to do this.

Answer: No. Marital rights and obligations should not be extended to

domestic partnerships.

2
Christianity and Law: Stephen Perks, 1993, Avant Books, Whitby, Enland, p 16
3
Blinded by Might: Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson, 1999 Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, USA, p 226.
Ref: PER: [/var/www/apps/scribd/scribd/tmp/scratch3/9090787.doc] 17 October, 2008
 Homosexual relationships can't be marriage 4

SHOULD A SCHEME OF REGISTERED PARTNERSHIPS/CIVIL UNIONS BE

INTRODUCED?

No. A scheme of registered partnerships should not be introduced. The fact that
people choose to be partners but not marry could be because they prefer their
relationship to be private, and there is no guarantee that they will register their
partnership even if they are able to. As has been discussed above the introduction of
Registered Partnerships and other alternatives to marriage is likely to affect the whole
of society.

The proposed 'registered partnerships' would form an alternative to marriage and thus
discourage many people from getting married properly. It would degrade public
morals, but recognising illicit unions as if they were acceptable. The unions would
leave women and children with weaker protection against abandonment than if the
couple were properly married.

Couples who live together outside of marriage should instead be encouraged to get
married.

Answer: No. A scheme of civil unions/ domestic partnerships should not be

introduced.

WHICH MARITAL RIGHTS, OBLIGATIONS AND BENEFITS SHOULD REQUIRE

REGISTRATION OR MARRIAGE AND WHICH SHOULD DEPEND ONLY ON THE
EXISTENCE OF A DOMESTIC RELATIONSHIP?

The majority of the population, which professes the Christian faith, recognizes
marriage in the traditional legal definition of the joining of two people of the opposite
sex. This being the case, a democratic approach would have to be taken and the
beliefs and tradition of the majority of people with regards to marriage would have to
be respected. Marital rights, obligations and benefits would remain unique to marriage
and alternative ways of dealing with disputes of property between unmarried couples
would have to be found.

Answer: No. We do not need new legislation on this issue.

SHOULD LEGISLATION PROVIDE FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGES?

Who should be allowed to marry?

The term marriage refers specifically to the joining of two people of the opposite sex.
Giving non-marital relationships the same status as marriage does not expand the
definition of marriage; it destroys it. Marriage excludes many groups of people, on
grounds of age, sex and blood relations. This is not discrimination - it’s simply a set of
requirements that must be met before one enters marriage. It’s no more
discriminatory than decreeing that the only people who may participate in the men’s
under-21 100 metre race are males of that age. Complaining that the current marriage
laws are discriminatory to sexual orientation is a way of trying to obtain special, and
not equal, rights.

Ref: PER: [/var/www/apps/scribd/scribd/tmp/scratch3/9090787.doc] 17 October, 2008

 Homosexual relationships can't be marriage 5

The majority of the population recognizes marriage in the traditional legal definition.
The fact that certain minority groups in society perceive it to be otherwise is no
grounds for changing the marriage laws that are so vital for the peace and stability of
our society. Many things occur in our society; bigamy, polygamy and homosexual
partnerships (even though they are often not considered the norm) and yet mere
common sense and society’s voice of reason tells us that this is not grounds for
legalizing these acts. It’s ignorant to think that we should begin to legalize certain
customs simply because they exist. We don’t legalize woman battering simply because
it exists.

Homosexual rights are undemocratic

Unfortunately, the way in which laws are passed in our country is not always a
democratic one. An example of this occurred in 1996, during the passing of the laws of
legalisation of abortion. At the time of the passing of this law, polls showed that an
overwhelming majority of South Africans were against abortion, but because of the
emotional and passionate demands of certain activist groups, and the often
misleading information that they supplied, parliament was led to ignore the rational
arguments against the passing of the law. It completely ignored public opinion and
was totally anti-democratic.

Homosexual activists often call for democracy, when the truth is that democratically
they would stand a poor chance of getting the recognition they seek. Even in America
support for this group has dropped dramatically.4

Amongst Africans, and especially amongst black cultures, tolerance is very poor.
Homosexuality is considered illegal or is strongly disapproved in over 80% of African
countries.5 However, homosexuals (which constitutes mainly Westerners) like to
propagate the view that homosexuality is just as common and acceptable amongst
black cultures as it is in white cultures. What is of specific concern is that this
unpopular minority group is now attempting to invade the African Continent, and it
may well have found fertile soil in South Africa, with its liberal Constitution. And
without much sensible debate or question, we are accepting the agenda of an
international organization (The International Gay and Lesbian Association - ILGA) which
to this day is denied recognition from the United Nations because a number of its
members either condone paedophilia or are promoting it.6

Getting ‘around’ democracy

The reason why homosexuality is being actively promoted in our country despite the
fact that most people are against it, is that they misuse and manipulate the
constitution because of the words they were able to add into the Equality Clause:
sexual orientation. Essentially these words, which were lobbied for by the Organization
for Lesbian and Gay Action, and which are found only in the South African Constitution,

4
‘The Case for Marriage’, Robert H. Knightly; online at www.cwfa.org
5
‘ Sexual Revolution in South Africa: The Pink Agenda’, Christine McCafferty with Peter Hammond, Christian Liberty
books, Cape Town, 2001, p 63
6
‘Sexual revolution in South Africa: The Pink Agenda’, Christine McCafferty with Peter Hammond, Christian Liberty
Books, Cape Town, p119
Ref: PER: [/var/www/apps/scribd/scribd/tmp/scratch3/9090787.doc] 17 October, 2008
 Homosexual relationships can't be marriage 6

serve to grant them special rights, and not equal rights as they would have everyone
think. Without these words in the Constitution, a homosexual person would still have
all the rights that you and I have: to life, property, a job, etc (he/she could easily be
protected under the Equality Clause, under ‘no discrimination… on the basis of belief
or culture); he/she just would not be too willing to flaunt his/her sexual preferences to
society, as much of the gay community does today. The addition of these words,
however, gives homosexuals and homosexual activists the capacity to make demands
and press ‘discrimination’ charges which at times have been blatantly senseless and
potentially life threatening. Consider the case in March 2000 when South African
homosexuals demanded and argued that under the Constitution, they should be
allowed to donate blood, and the South African Human Rights Commission tried to
force the SA blood transfusion Service to take blood from homosexuals. 7 This despite
the fact that they are a high risk group for AIDS that is prohibited from donating blood
under the World Health Organization guidelines. Removing the words sexual
orientation from our Constitution would be the appropriate thing to do.

Who else will demand rights?

The South African Constitution Equality Clause reads:

Clause 9 (3): Equality

(3) The State may not unfairly discriminate directly against anyone on one or more
grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin,
colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture,
language, and birth.[emphasis mine].

As South African citizens, we should begin to ask ourselves: If homosexual minority

groups can demand special rights in terms of the equality clause, who else can and
most likely will misuse the clause under the guise of ‘human/equal rights for all’ and
‘no discrimination’? If we do not use our common sense and better judgement in
deciding what should be legalised and what shouldn’t, the society in which we live
could become a playground for various evils. A child molester could one day justify his
sexual relationship with a seven year old under the pretext of ‘no discrimination on the
basis of age’.

What about the freedom of conscience of millions of others?

Requiring citizens to sanction or subsidize homosexual relationships (for example

through pensions) violates the freedom of conscience of millions of Christians, Jews,
Muslim and other people who believe marriage is the union of the two sexes. Civil
marriage is a public act.8 Solemnizing and subsidizing a homosexual relationship under
the law will inadvertently force millions to ignore their conscience and beliefs to the
benefit of this minority group. It is unfair and unconstitutional to force people to ignore
their conscience and values for any reason, particularly because homosexuality is a
choice and no genetic link to it has been found. Many people who engaged in
7
‘Sexual revolution in South Africa: The Pink Agenda’, Christine McCafferty with Peter Hammond, Christian Liberty
Books, Cape Town, p41
8
‘The Case for Marriage’, Robert H. Knight, article in www.cwfa.org
Ref: PER: [/var/www/apps/scribd/scribd/tmp/scratch3/9090787.doc] 17 October, 2008
 Homosexual relationships can't be marriage 7

homosexual behaviour and then decided to change received therapy and now lead
successful heterosexual lives.9 This fact is hardly ever publicised. Even if
homosexuality were genetically determined, in light of all the risks associated with it
(AIDS, STDs, child sexual abuse and violence) 10, homosexuality should be approached
with the same seriousness as one would approach teenage pregnancies, alcoholism,
drug addiction and other problems.

Why marriage is so important and why changing its legal meaning or

providing legal ‘alternatives’ to it would be detrimental to the South
African society

Marriage is something valuable, something that most young people look forward to. It
is undoubtedly vital to the South African culture. It is beneficial in that women are
more respected and less likely to be abused, while children tend to do better in the
safe, family environment provided by a mother and a father. Men become more
responsible and tend to participate in less risk taking behaviour, as they are motivated
to maintain themselves well to provide and protect for their families. People who have
stable marriages and stay married live longer than people who are single. As a group
of thirteen leading social scientists reported in 200211,

‘Marriage is an important social good, associated with an impressively broad array of

positive outcomes for children and adults alike’

For example, consider the following study results12:

• A five year study released in 1998 found that continuously married husbands
and wives experience better emotional health and less depression than
people of any other marital status
• A 1990 review of research found that husbands and wives also have better
physical health, while the unmarried have significantly higher annual death
rates - about 50% higher for women and 250% higher for men
• Rates of violent abuse by intimate partners are four times higher among
never-married women, and twelve times higher among divorced and
separated women, than they are among married women. In fact, married
people are less likely to be the victims of any type of violent crime than are
those who have divorced, separated, or never married
• Families headed by married couples also have much higher incomes and
greater financial assets
• In addition, husbands and wives who are sexually faithful even experience
more physical pleasure and emotional satisfaction in their sexual relations
than do any other sexually active people

9
‘Pro-homosexual researcher attacked for study showing gays can change’, Christian News, Christians for Truth, 31
May 2001
10
Various sources; see later for specific references
11
‘Q&A: What’s wrong with letting same-sex couples marry?’, Peter Sprigg, article on www.frc.org
12
For more information on the benefits of marriage, please refer to the following articles: ‘Why Marriage Should be
Privileged in Public Policy’, Bridget Maher, online at www.frc.org; ‘Why Marriage Matters: Twenty-One Conclusions
from the Social Sciences’, New York: Institute for American Values, 2002, online at www.americanvalues.org; ‘The
case for marriage: Why married people are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially’, Linda J. Waite and Maggie
Gallagher, New York: Doubleday, 2000
Ref: PER: [/var/www/apps/scribd/scribd/tmp/scratch3/9090787.doc] 17 October, 2008
 Homosexual relationships can't be marriage 8

Children raised by their mother and father, meanwhile, experience lower rates of
many social problems, including premarital childbearing, illicit drug use, arrest, health,
emotional and behavioural problems, poverty and school failure or expulsion. These
benefits are then passed on to future generations as well, because children raised by
married parents are themselves less likely to co-habit or to divorce as adults.

Marriage is the most natural way of maintaining peace and survival in our society.
Happy and stable marriages are possible, and the most sensible thing to do to
advance our African society and preserve its heritage is to encourage people towards
this tried and tested path. Jeopardising society’s unique view and respect for marriage
with legitimised, poor ‘alternatives’ to marriage will result in the disappointment of
millions of young people in our country.

The benefits of marriage as discussed above clearly would not extend to homosexual
marriages, or to any children that may be a part of that ‘homosexual family’. The
benefits observed in the studies mentioned above applied only to successful
traditional, one man –one woman marriages. Homosexual marriages do not apply for
many reasons:

• Firstly, one has only to look at the results of ‘homosexual marriages’ in

countries where these have already been legally implemented. These fail
dismally; a study conducted in the Netherlands, a ‘progressive’ nation in which
gay marriage has been legal for many years, found that the average
homosexual relationship lasts no more than 2 years.13
• Homosexuality is also very commonly associated with promiscuous sexual
behaviour.14 For example, a 2003 Dutch study found that even homosexual men
who had a ‘steady partner’ also had an average of eight ’casual’ sex partners
per year; those without a ‘steady partner’ had an average of 22 ‘casual’ ones.
Lesbians, meanwhile, were found by one study to have twice as many lifetime
male sexual partners as women in the heterosexual control group.
• Various research studies have found that homosexuals have higher rates of
alcohol abuse, drug abuse, nicotine dependence, depression and suicide.15
These are likely to bring more problems into a marriage or family. These
problems are not simply due to society’s ‘discrimination’ against homosexuals;
if that were the case, then these problems would occur less commonly in
societies were homosexuality is very much accepted (Holland, Netherlands, etc)
but they happen just as often in these societies.
• There is a higher incidence of violence in lesbian and homosexual relationships
than the traditional marriage households.16 In their book, ‘Men Who Beat the
Men who Love Them: Battered Gay men and Domestic Violence’, D. Island and
P. Letellier postulate that the ‘incidence of domestic violence among gay men is
nearly double that in the heterosexual population.’17In the United States,
government statistics show that ‘intimate partner violence’ between people of
the same sex is approximately twenty times more common than anti-
homosexual ‘hate crimes’. In contrast, research also shows that men and
13
‘AIDS’, Maria Xiridou et al. 2003, 17:1029-1038
14
‘Q&A: What’s wrong with letting same-sex couples “marry”?’, Peter Sprigg, online at www.frc.org
15
‘Q&A: What’s wrong with letting same-sex couples “marry”?’, Peter Sprigg, online at www.frc.org
16
‘Homosexual parenting: Placing children at risk’, Timothy J. Daily, Ph.D. Article online at www.frc.org
17
‘Men Who Beat Men who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence’, D. Island and P. Letellier,
Haworth Press: New York, 1991; p14
Ref: PER: [/var/www/apps/scribd/scribd/tmp/scratch3/9090787.doc] 17 October, 2008
 Homosexual relationships can't be marriage 9

women in heterosexual marriages experience lower rates of domestic violence

than people in any other living arrangement.18
• There is a higher rate of AIDS and STDs amongst homosexuals.19 In fact, AIDS
was originally called the Gay Related Immunodeficiency Syndrome, and was
first discovered amongst homosexual males, who were dying off and came from
San Francisco. Lesbians also tend to have more infections as they often engage
in bisexual behaviour.20

In addition, there is proportionally more child sexual abuse perpetrated by

homosexuals then by other groups of society. A study of convicted child molesters in
the US, published in the Archives of Sexual Behaviour, found that eighty-six percent of
offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.21 This is not
to say, however, that all homosexuals engage in this act. Nevertheless, these factors
should make us seriously consider the risk to children in homosexual marriages.

It is often claimed that studies have shown that children raised by homosexual parents
are no different from other children. However, even pro-homosexual sociologists
Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz report that the actual data from key studies show
the ‘no-difference’ claim to be false. Surveying the research (primarily regarding
lesbians) in an American Sociological Review in an article in 2001, they found that:

• Children of lesbians are less likely to conform to traditional gender norms

• Children of lesbians are more likely to engage in homosexual behaviour
• Daughters of lesbians are ‘more sexually adventurous and less chaste’
• Lesbian ‘co-parent relationships’ are more likely to end than heterosexual ones

Also, most studies on homosexual parenting have been reviewed and shown to have
methodological flaws.22 This has been suggested various times by pro-homosexual
academics themselves.

Answer: No. Homosexual relationships should not be legally recognised.

SHOULD MARITAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS BE FURTHER EXTENDED TO

PEOPLE LIVING IN INTERDEPENDENT RELATIONSHIPS HAVING NO SEXUAL
ELEMENT?

No, marital rights and obligations should not be extended to people living in
interdependent relationships having no sexual element. A scheme suggested in
Discussion Paper 104 is that of ‘Unregistered Partnerships (same-sex + opposite-sex
relationships)’23. It reads as follows:

C) UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIPS (same-sex + opposite-sex relationships)

18
‘Health implications associated with homosexuality,’ Austin: The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, 1999; p79
19
‘Risk taking drives up HIV rates in South Africa’, Cape Argus, 2 March 2001
20
‘Q&A: What’s wrong with letting same-sex couples “marry”?’ Peter Sprigg, article on www.frc.org
21
‘Q&A: What’s wrong with letting same-sex couples “marry”?’ Peter Sprigg, article on www.frc.org
22
Ibid., p2
23
Domestic Partnerships: Volume 1, Discussion Paper 104, Project 118; South African Law Reform Commission, page
ix-x
Ref: PER: [/var/www/apps/scribd/scribd/tmp/scratch3/9090787.doc] 17 October, 2008
Homosexual relationships can't be marriage 10

Under the ascription or status model, unmarried and unregistered partners of the
same or opposite sex are awarded a civil status as if they have formally committed to
the relationship, without their having taken any steps to effect such
recognition [emphasis mine]. The civil status automatically attaches to relationships
under certain circumstances. The proposed options distinguish between de facto
relationships and ex post facto relationships.

The document then goes on to explain that Option 1 – De facto unregistered

partnerships, ‘creates rights and obligations for a couple in a conjugal relationship
during the existence of the unregistered relationship.’ Option 2 – Ex post facto
unregistered partnerships, ‘allows former partners in an unregistered partnership to
apply to court for a property division or maintenance order in the event that they
cannot come to agreement after the unregistered relationship has ceased to exist’. It
furthermore states that Option 2 ‘will apply to intimate partnerships (conjugal
relationships) as well as care partnerships (non-conjugal relationships). Care
partners are persons who are in financially or emotionally interdependent
relationships that are of a non-conjugal nature’ [emphasis mine].

The second option is particularly problematic, especially in so far as care partnerships

are concerned. The term ‘care partners’ is too broad; under the suggested proposal, it
could include any non-conjugal relationship, from a babysitter-child relationship to a
nurse-elderly person relationship, both of which can develop emotional bonds and live
under domestic partnerships. In the latter example, once the elderly person dies and
the nurse is paid for her services is the family obliged to share any inheritance with
the nurse if she appeals to court?

Furthermore, laws are never passed on the basis of emotion, no matter how strong
these emotions are. The context of this proposal and its benefit to persons of ex post
facto relationships is unclear and should be annulled or explained better.

Answer: No. We do not need to further complicate non-sexual

interdependent relationships.

ISSUES

The benefits of marriage over concubinage/domestic partnerships

Apart from moral considerations, the commitment involved in a marriage relationship

has a number of pragmatic benefits including the following:
• Partners are likely to chose eachother more carefully, thus avoiding unsuitable
matches.
• They are more likely to respect and place value on the relationship if it is formally
sealed as marriage and if they do not live together beforehand.
• The woman and children have much greater financial security in a marriage than a
domestic partnership.
• Children have much greater emotional security in a marriage and are thus more
likely to respect the authority of their parents.
• Domestic partnership creates an alternative to marriage and is likely to result in
less people getting married.

Ref: PER: [/var/www/apps/scribd/scribd/tmp/scratch3/9090787.doc] 17 October, 2008

Homosexual relationships can't be marriage 11

Stealing hope from homosexuals

If the state were to recognise the fictitious concept of 'homosexual marriage', they
would be adding to the set of myths propagated by radical homosexual activists
designed to make homosexuality seem normal and therefore incurable. This is untrue,
because the Bible teaches that homosexuals can change (1 Corinthians 6:11) and
because many homosexuals have proved it by changing with Christ's help.

Many people struggling with homosexual temptation do want to change and have
normal relationships. Endorsing so called 'homosexual marriage' or 'civil unions'
would add to the legitimacy of this deviant behaviour, thus undermining these peoples
hope of reform. The legislation would be cruel to homosexuals, because it would give
them no hope of becoming straight.

It would also make it more difficult for so called 'married' or 'unioned' homosexuals to
make a break with homosexuality.

Provoking God's wrath

The Bible records the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah, two cities where
homosexuality had become commonly accepted (Genesis 19). Sodom had no Bible
and no history of Christian law to use to discern right from wrong, but God still
destroyed it. Throughout the rest of the Bible, the city is used as a metaphor for any
wicked society about to be judged by God. God then destroyed the Canaanites
because of their immorality (Leviticus 18:25). Later, God destroyed the whole nation
of Israel because of its rebellion against him.

The concept of the judgement of God is offensive to many, because it is not

compatible with a 'politically correct' viewpoint. Some diluted forms of religion can be
accommodated by political correctors, but God, as judge does not allow for neutrality
in law. It forces a choice: obedience or disobedience to God. The proposals of the
South African Law Reform Commission to recognise sinful relationships are
diametrically opposed to God's law as revealed in the Bible.

Leviticus 18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

God judges nations that indulge in excessive immorality

Leviticus 18:24 Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the
nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was
defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.

The Bible indicates that God's judgement applies to all nations and not only Israel:
Jeremiah 18:7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted,
torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will
relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I
announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil
in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do
for it.

Ref: PER: [/var/www/apps/scribd/scribd/tmp/scratch3/9090787.doc] 17 October, 2008

 Homosexual relationships can't be marriage 12

Psalm 94:10 Does he who disciplines nations not punish?

This belief in the judgement of God on nations that rebel against him has been
recognised and feared by church and political leaders throughout history. For
example, Abraham Lincoln wrote: "…we know that by His divine law, nations, like
individuals are subject to punishments and chastisements in this world, may we not
justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land, may be
but a punishment inflicted on us for our presumptuous sins, to the needful reformation
as a whole people?"24

It is one thing for individuals within a nation to rebel against God's law, but if the
government of that nation also rebels against his law, by creating laws directly
opposed to his law, that country moves closer to God's judgement.

CONCLUSIONS

In light of the views presented above, this document does not agree with the
proposals presented, and requests specifically that a consensus of the whole public be
taken on the issue of domestic partnerships to ensure democracy.

All of the proposed alternatives would have a destabilising effect on the family. While
many marriages are imperfect, a family that includes both a father and mother
committed to each other for life has many benefits for all its members and should be
promoted by the state.

The proposals which are unclear, relating to Unregistered Partnerships Option 2 – ex

post facto relationships (Care Partnerships) should be clarified or annulled since its
purpose is evasive.

It is also recommended that alternative methods of solving property and maintenance

disputes be implemented, such as encouraging people to draw up contracts or wills, as
has been suggested.

With specific regard to homosexual marriages, it is recommended that since

homosexual behaviour is directly associated with higher rates of promiscuity, physical
disease, mental illness, substance abuse, child sexual abuse, and domestic violence,
such behaviour is not rewarded by legalising homosexual marriages or unions.

The proposals, if accepted would be a rebellion against God's laws as revealed in the
Bible and move the nation closer to God's judgement. They would also make it more
difficult for homosexuals to reform because of the constraint of needing 'divorce' in
order to break up a relationship.

It is recommended that the words ‘sexual orientation’ be removed from the Equality
Clause in the Constitution, to prevent minority groups from obtaining special rights.

It is recommended that all of the proposals for domestic partnerships, whether

between people of the same sex or different sexes as suggested as suggested in
discussion paper 104 be rejected.

24
Shaping history through prayer and fasting: Derek Prince 1973: Flemming H Revell Company, Old Tappan, USA
Ref: PER: [/var/www/apps/scribd/scribd/tmp/scratch3/9090787.doc] 17 October, 2008