Text 6367, 151 rader
Skriven 2004-12-16 05:40:48 av Stephen Hayes (5:7106/20.0)
Ärende: Debate: Same-sex marriages legal, says Sureme Court of Appeal
=====================================================================
* Forwarded (from: DEBATE_FMY) by Stephen Hayes using timEd/2 1.10.y2k.
* Originally from family.debate@family-bbs.net (8:8/2) to All.
* Original dated: Tue Dec 14, 03:45

From: family.debate@family-bbs.net (Debate)
To: debate@fmlynet.org
Reply-To: family.debate@family-bbs.net

From: "Steve Hayes" <khanyab@lantic.net>

On 2 Dec 2004 at 5:19, Debate wrote:

> From: "Steve Hayes" <khanyab@lantic.net>
>
> SAME-SEX MARRIAGES LEGALISED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
>
> The South African Supreme Court of Appeal ruled on 30 November
> that under the Constitution the common-law concept of marriage
> had to be developed to include same-sex marriages.

Christian Leaders Call for National Referendum on Same-Sex Marriage

7 December 2004

"We believe it to be unacceptable for the Courts of South Africa to seek to
redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships and we therefore call on
the Government to hold a National Referendum on the issue before it is taken
further."

Speaking out against the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal, which has
effectively redefined marriage to include same-sex couples, Michael Cassidy
(International Team Leader of African Enterprise), Reverend Moss Ntlha (General
Secretary of The Evangelical Alliance of South Africa) and Bishop Lunga ka
Siboto (Second Vice President of the South African Council of Churches), who
serve as Co-Convenors of SACLA (South African Christian Leadership Assembly)
follow-up processes, have called on Government to intervene and to hold a
National Referendum so that all South Africans can engage in a thorough process
of con- sultation and debate on the issue. The SACLA leaders, in their personal
capacities, have expressed grave concerns about the judgment and requested an
urgent meeting with the State President, given his request last July at SACLA,
when 4 000 Christian leaders met for a week, that he wanted to hear the voice
of the church on various issues.

The SACLA Leaders are also asking Government to register and publicise the
findings of the HSRC (Human Sciences Research Coun- cil) 2003 Social Attitudes
Survey (released October 2004) which determined that 78 percent of adult South
Africans believe that sexual relations between two adults of the same gender
are "always wrong".   The same report cites that "government is out
of sync with the electorate", when it comes to moral issues. Fur- thermore, the
South Africa  International Religious Freedom Report (Bureau of Democracy,
Human Rights, and Labour. Released 7 October 2002 ) found that 84 percent of
South Africans are Christians.   The National census in 2001 set the figure at
79.8
percent.

"This voice of Christians," say the SACLA Leaders, "needs to be clearly heard
along with that of the whole Nation.  Given the HRSC findings, it would be both
presumptuous and perilous to conclude that the majority of South Africans are
happy and in accord with the prospect of same-sex marriage being legalised in
this country.  In the apartheid era, we resisted a minority imposing its views
on the majority. We need to do the same now. This issue strikes at the very
heart of our national conscience, both as individuals and as a nation. It has
far-reaching socio- political implications. The decision to legalise same-sex
marriage cannot be left to the courts, as all South Africans, both now and in
the future, will be affected by this decision. Therefore, before any such
legislation is contemplated, a Referendum should be held and we call for such."

"As a society," said the SACLA leaders, "we cannot afford to adopt laws that
are also in conflict with GodAEs law as encapsulated in the Bible and in the
writings of all major religions, and which in turn are reflected in natural law
(the laws of nature).   If, as a people, we insist on a contrary
course for the development of both civil and statutory law we will reap very
adverse consequences."

Cassidy, Ntlha and ka Siboto made it clear that, while it is self-evident that
the Church has to reach out in love and acceptance of homosexuals, it
nevertheless cannot condone that which is expressly contrary to Scripture. They
said that to do so would be to abrogate the ChurchAEs position in society: "For
Christians, the Scriptural standard of marriage remains the high- est
authority. Despite all arguments to the contrary, the Christian church, which
is the majority religious group in this nation, cannot stand before God and the
clear teachings of Scripture and accept same-sex marriage."

The SACLA leaders went on to say, "We believe that to pursue the route of
legalising same-sex marriage will be calamitous in the long-term. The
complications and pending crisis of the misplaced identity of individuals
created by a society that has departed from the yardstick of the traditional
family are too frightening to contemplate. While it may be argued that, in
parts of con- temporary society the composition of families is far removed from
the traditional ideal of a father, mother and children, we are convinced that
to replace this model with an unacceptable and perilous alternative will have
very serious long-term moral and spiritual consequences for the new South
Africa . Beyond that, establishing criteria to form future adoption procedures
for same-sex couples becomes both a nightmare and a mine-field.

"We recognise that the Constitution guarantees all people equality before the
law and the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.  We accept that
provision can be made for equal protection for all citizens through alternative
social contracts and agreements, for instance between two individuals who agree
to share their estate, take responsibility for each other and have obligations
towards one another. Such arrangements could be legally contracted between any
two people, regardless of sexual orientation. But the institution of marriage,
which has traditionally been defined as consisting of a man and a woman in
cultures and societies throughout the ages all over the world, should not be
redefined by the courts at the stroke of a pen.  We believe the State has to
make unique provisions for the protection of marriage and the traditional
family if social stability is to be secured for the future. There is no other
institution that can replace it u not even socially engineered aefamiliesAE
that have been constructed by other means."

Cassidy, Ntlha and ka Siboto went on to stress that, "faced with the prospect
of legalising same-sex marriage, the State, the Church and civil society at
large must grapple with this issue at a new level.   The Constitution affirms
the democratic values of
equality, human dignity and freedom of all people. However, the emphasis is on
democratic. It is our understanding that it is the process of consensus that
gives the constitution its legitimacy. If the majority of South Africans no
longer consent to the values affirmed in the constitution, or are perturbed
about how our society is being shaped by the application of the Bill of Rights,
then due process should be followed to address this, and, if need be, the
Constitution amended. The critical issue is that all South Africans must have
sufficient opportunity to engage with the process thoughtfully and
deliberately. If this issue is forced through ahead of a thorough process of
consultation and national debate, and the proposed statutory amendments
enforced by the courts, then the legitimacy of the courts, the judiciary and
indeed the Constitution itself will be questioned.

"In our view there is a serious national challenge before us which, if not
properly addressed, will lead ultimately to a vote of no confidence in the
legal system and destabilise our young democracy."

The SACLA leaders are accordingly asking the State President to intervene and
stall this process in the courts so that due pro- cess can be followed through
a National Referendum, thereby allowing the whole populace thoughtfully to
decide which way to go. It is imperative that all stakeholders be given
adequate time thoroughly to discuss the legal issues and contemplate the social
and moral implications of disregarding not only the biblical ethic but the
teachings of all major religions in the world since the origin of humankind.

-+- Debate
Hosted by Familynet International
http://www.fmlynet.org
Also available as a Newsgroup
nntp://family-bbs.net
Please support FamilyNet

___ BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 - Origin: FamilyNet Sponsored by http://www.christian-wellness.net (8:8/2) 

--- WtrGate v0.93.p9 Unreg
 * Origin: Khanya BBS, Tshwane, South Africa [012] 333-0004 (5:7106/20)