South African court rules for same-sex 'marriage'

MrBishop

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
Nov 30, 2004
By Staff
BLOEMFONTEIN, South Africa (BP)--South Africa could be the next country to legalize same-sex "marriage" as a result of a court ruling there Nov. 30.

The Supreme Court of Appeal sided with a lesbian couple, ruling that the country's definition of marriage should be sex-neutral and read, "Marriage is the union of two persons to the exclusion of all others for life."

But same-sex "marriage" is not legal in South Africa yet. Statutory regulations still must be changed, according to South African media reports. In addition, pro-family groups and politicians there promise to fight the ruling.

South Africa would join Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada and the United States as the only countries to offer same-sex "marriage" in at least one jurisdiction. Massachusetts is the only American state to do so. The changes in Canada and the United States have come via court order.

Homosexual activists praised the South African court ruling.

"It only takes care of a common-law principle, and that means even though judgment was in favor of the appellants, it's not possible for people of the same sex to be currently married due to the limitations in the current marriage formula and other regulations in the marriage act," Evert Knoesen of the Lesbian and Gay Equality Project was quoted as saying in a story posted on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's website.

"We have to go ahead with legal action to fix up those somewhat more minor legal problems and we foresee that within the next 12 months or so, same-sex couples will indeed be married."

Knoesen added: "The principle has been won."

The African Christian Democratic Party criticized the ruling.

“The ruling does not alter our Judeo-Christian view that marriage should be between male and female," ACDP spokesperson Steve Swart said in a statement. “... We would have preferred the matter to have been referred back to Parliament for consideration of the various options as set out by the Law Reform Commission, as suggested in the minority judgment.

"History, nature, social science, anthropology, religion, and theology all coalesce in vigorous support of marriage, as it has always been understood: a life-long union of male and female for the purpose of creating stable families.”

The ACDP, Knoesen said, supports a "Marriage Protection Amendment to the Constitution.”
--30--
Click to expand...

Source
 
South Africa is FAR more conservative than North America.

So much for a minority belief only...the world's moving that way.

It's that damn slippery-slope again. First Canada, then the USA, then South Africa...them...we take over the WORLD!!!! Muahahaha!!
 
MrBishop said:
South Africa is FAR more conservative than North America.

So much for a minority belief only...the world's moving that way.

It's that damn slippery-slope again. First Canada, then the USA, then South Africa...them...we take over the WORLD!!!! Muahahaha!!
Click to expand...

So? If the rest of the world decides to do a mass migration to Antarctica, does that mean we have to follow suit?
 
Gato_Solo said:
So? If the rest of the world decides to do a mass migration to Antarctica, does that mean we have to follow suit?
Click to expand...

Depends...how do you feel about bridges? *ref to something my mom used to say*

There's something to be said about crowd mentality... when one group sees another group changing, they may change as well in order to fit in. When popular groups change, unpopular ones change as well..fads and trends are passed on down the line.

I just see this as a big bandwagon for people to jump on.
 
MrBishop said:
Depends...how do you feel about bridges? *ref to something my mom used to say*

There's something to be said about crowd mentality... when one group sees another group changing, they may change as well in order to fit in. When popular groups change, unpopular ones change as well..fads and trends are passed on down the line.

I just see this as a big bandwagon for people to jump on.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Ultimately, it is we who have to decide what is best for ourselves, without regard to what somebody else is doing. Just because the neighbors buy a new car, does that mean we're less than our neighbor? Just because our neighbor takes their 12-year old son to see R-rated movies, does that mean we have to take our 12-year old?
 
Professur said:
I suppose it beats having to think for yourself.



Baaaaaaaaa
Click to expand...

:grinyes: Why, they're so much more genteel over there...:rolleyes:...why shouldn't we follow their lead? :lol2:
 
That is the best news I have heard all day!

FINALLY, we got somewhere to ship all the goobers to who wanna see Susie marry Mary and Fred marry Larry. South Africa, yer welcome to 'em! Adios, bon voyage, and see y'uns later! Good riddance!




Or is that too opinionated?
 
As far as I know it is dependent on the will & testament of the deceased, unless contested.

The case I was thining of (the gay guys) is a guy wh's partner died and as far as I can recall he was nmed as beneficiary, but now the deceased guy's family disputes any relationship between the two, even though the guy can prove that they were living together as a commonlaw couple.
 
Seems I saw a news clip a couple weeks ago about some mass rapings goin' on down there.....what's up wid dat?
 
alex said:
Seems I saw a news clip a couple weeks ago about some mass rapings goin' on down there.....what's up wid dat?
Click to expand...

Huh?

Oh...it's tax return time...everyone's been getting their forms in the mail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top