Text 6386, 142 rader
Skriven 2004-12-18 22:29:00 av THURSTON ACKERMAN (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av STEPHEN HAYES
Ärende: Debate: Same-sex marr 1/2
=================================
SH>* Forwarded (from: DEBATE_FMY) by Stephen Hayes using timEd/2 1.10.y2k.
SH>* Originally from family.debate@family-bbs.net (8:8/2) to All.
SH>* Original dated: Tue Dec 14, 03:45

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

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

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

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

SH>Christian Leaders Call for National Referendum on Same-Sex Marriage

SH>7 December 2004

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SH>The SACLA leaders are accordingly asking the State President to intervene an
SH>stall this process in the courts so that due pro- cess can be followed throu
SH>a National Referendum, thereby allowing the whole populace thoughtfully to
SH>decide which way to go. It is imperative that all stakeholders be given
SH>adequate time thoroughly to discuss the legal issues and contemplate the soc
SH>and moral implications of disregarding not only the biblical ethic but the
SH>teachings of all major religions in the world since the origin of humankind.
>>> Continued to next message
---
 þ SLMR 2.1a þ Enjoy a Happy Holiday of your choice.
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)