Workers.org

Support
anti-war,
anti-racist
news

:: Donate now ::


Email this articleEmail this article 

Print this pagePrintable page


Email the editor

 

 

Struggle vs. apartheid brings LGBT rights

By Minnie Bruce Pratt

A South African lesbian couple seeking to marry received a favorable ruling on Nov. 30 by that nation's Supreme Court of Appeals. In response to an appeal brought by Marie Adriaana Fourie and Cecelia Johanna Bonthuys, the court stated that "the intended marriage between the appellants is capable of lawful recognition as a legally valid marriage." The court ruled that the South African Marriage Act, which only recognizes marriage between a man and a woman, discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.

The post-apartheid South African Constitution, signed into effect in 1994 by then-President Nelson Mandela, is unique in the world in specifically banning such discrimination.

The court's ruling applies only to common-law marriage at the moment. How ever, Evert Knoesen of the Lesbian and Gay Equality Project predicted that same-sex couples will be married in South Africa within the next year, and declared, "The principle has been won." If the necessary changes are made to its national Marriage Act, South Africa will join the Netherlands and Belgium as the third county to grant fully legal same-sex marriages.

The only political party to object to the court's decision was the far-right African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP), which has no seats in parliament. The platform of the ACDP includes "Christian Principles, Freedom of Religion, An Open Market Economy, and Family Values."

A referendum against the ruling is being organized by a group of churches and other religious organizations, including South African Christian Leadership Assem bly (SACLA), which has ties to the Interna tional Christian Chamber of Commerce.

The African National Congress party, currently in office, welcomed the ruling. The South African government emphasized that the government "respects the right to dignity and equality as enshrined in the Constitution of the country."

LGBT rights from the Struggle

The author of the court's decision, Judge Edward Cameron, is the country's highest-ranking openly gay judge, and was a leading opponent of the former racist apartheid regime. He spoke out as a person living with AIDS during the Durban international AIDS conference in 1999. He was appointed to his judgeship by the African National Congress government.

In the introduction to his opinion, Cameron emphasized that the court's decision had its roots in South Africa's long struggle against racism and oppression. He notes that the resulting Constitution was based in "a conception of our nationhood that was both very wide and very inclusive." He continued: "Having themselves experienced the indignity and pain of legally regulated subordination, and the injustice of exclusion and humiliation through law, the majority committed this country to particularly generous constitutional protections for all South Africans."

The constitutional protection of gay rights, which recognizes that Black and white lesbian, gay, and bisexual people parti cipated in the struggle against apartheid, has already been enforced numerous times by the South African courts. These rulings have overturned the nation's sodomy laws and granted gay couples the right to adopt children--available nationally elsewhere in the world only in Sweden, the Netherlands and Belgium. (Afrol News)

Judge Cameron alluded to this judicial history by saying: "[T]he focus in this case falls on the intrinsic nature of marriage, and the question is whether any aspect of same-sex relationships justifies excluding gays and lesbians from it. What the Constitution asks in such a case is that we look beyond the unavoidable specificities of our condition--such as race, gender and sexual orientation--and consider our intrinsic human capacities and what they render possible for all of us. In this case, the question is whether the capacity for commitment, and the ability to love and nurture and honor and sustain, transcends the incidental fact of sexual orientation. The answer suggested by the Constitution itself and by 10 years of development under it is: yes." (Gay City News)

Sources: Gay City News, Afrol News, WorldHistory.com and sacla.za.net.

Reprinted from the Dec. 23, 2004, issue of Workers World newspaper

This article is copyright under a Creative Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)

HOME :: U.S. NEWS :: WORLD NEWS :: EDITORIALS :: SUBSCRIBE :: DONATE