Talk:Same-sex marriage in South Africa

early discussion

I can't find any confirmation that same-sex marriages are legal in South Africa. The date of July 2002 mentioned was that of a court decision that one same-sex couple should receive the financial benefits of a married couple (see [1]). Google yields several pages from later dates that state that SA does not yet have legal recognition of SSMs. Can someone quote an authority on this? -- Kimiko 09:27, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Same-sex marriages are not legal in South Africa. I can't quote any authority but myself (since I live here). However, the courts have ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban same-sex marriage, and has directed Parliament to amend the law. So SSM must be legalised, but it is very unpopular, both among voters and (possibly) parliamentarians, so they seem to be putting it off as long as possible. --Taejo | [[User talk:Taejo|Talk]] 06:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that the court ruled that the legislature must change the law within one year's time to include same-sex couples or the court will change the law itself. Liamdaly620 17:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Which would be absolutely, totally unprecedented in any country in the history of mankind, for any court to write new words into a law, instead of a democratically elected body. "Democracy" is now dead, welcome to "Activist Judicocracy", with threats and ultimatums. 17:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, this is hardly unprecedented, and fully within the court's authority to interpret laws according to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, which is fairly clear on there being no discrimination based on gender. Now, the role of the legislature is not overridden in this, as the legislature still controls the most important power of all: The authority to amend the Constitution. So, I don't know who you are (you chose to refuse to associate your name with your comment), but you evidently know little about the workings of democracy, and so your claim that it is dead rings somewhat hollow. — Impi 10:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Courts of law have been interpreting law, and deciding between conflicting laws, for at least a few hunderd years. thirty-seven 07:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Each paragraph now seems to be referenced, and in terms of quality I can't see any particularly sloppy mistakes, so I'm removing the cleanup/citation tags. Arvedui 22:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The article says "Many white South Africans, particularly Afrikaners, are very conservative on social issues.", which implies (though it doesn't state) that opposition is primarily from white South Africans, particularly Afrikaners. However, it's my understanding (which might be wrong) that same-sex marriage is unpopular among black South Africans as well, possibly even more so. Is that the case? --Delirium 07:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, a fair amount of black South Africans are very socially conservative, and are not in favour of it. I'm not sure why the article focuses only on white South Africans, because it's pretty clear that if only white South Africans were opposed to it, it would have been law long ago. — Impi 10:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, I've been meaning to make that change for a while - but was waiting for time to do a major rewrite (that doesn't look really necessary anymore). Most South Africans are probably (and regretably) homophobic. Certainly most are anti-SSM. --대조 | Talk 16:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The article reads "Because homosexuals were accepted, it was easy for the government to write the legislation into the constitution." Easy? Accepted by whom? This is too vague, too general, denies the hard work of too many people, and ties into the correction about conservatism. One mixed race bar does not mean acceptance. If homosexuality was so readily accepted, why did the new government have to remove sodomy laws that were on the books? Lesbian and Gay activists joined in the struggle with the ANC to fight apartheid, thereby giving homosexual rights a place on the platform. That line should be removed entirely. Jsandrsn 19:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Most recent events

Cabinet assents to same-sex marriage Bill

-M-, Afrikaans Wikipedia

Sodomy?

Removed the startling assertion that homosexuality was legal in apartheid-era South Africa. Rubbish; sodomy was a criminal offence until 1998. Also removed the POV statements that homosexuals were accepted, and that the 2005 decision was met with much opposition - it was, but it was also met with rejoicing from gay and lesbian South Africans and those who support sexual equality. 82.108.5.59 12:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Republics

"[South Africa] will be the first African country and the first republic to legalize same-sex marriage."

Pardon my American ignorance, but aren't the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and Canada all parliamentary and/or democratic republics? --BDD 20:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

They are all monarchys. See Politics of Canada, Politics of Spain, Politics of Belgium and Politics of the Netherlands. Canada is still under the Brittish crown, since its an old colony. Spain restored its monarchy after the death of Franco in 1975. Belgium and the Netherlands are monarchys as well. They are both parliamentary democracys (or at least if I remember it right), but they are not republics.

--Screensaver 21:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, since checking the article here on republics, this seems consistent with Wikipedia definitions. It still seems strange to me, however, that monarchies and republics are considered mutually exclusive categories. In practice, the people in all four of those countries elect representatives who govern in their stead, which sounds like a republic to me. A bit semantical. I won't dispute it though. Thanks. --BDD 23:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't sound strange to me. Perhaps you just have a different understanding of republic then the rest of us? I don't think many people in there countries dispute that they are not a republic and in most (especially Canada I suspect) there are probably republic movements which seek to remove the monarchy as well as monarchist movements which seek to maintain/preserve the monarchy. More precisely, these countries are called constitutional monarchies and parliamentry demoracies. I think both terms together accurately convey what kind of countries they are. If you were to call them republics, it would be rather confusing. How do you differentiate between a real republic and a monarchy? Nil Einne 02:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Easy: monarchies have a monarch, and republics don't. Although we democratically elect our effective government (a situation called responsible government), and the monarch reigns at the suffrance of the democratic government, the monarch is still a monarch, rather than a head of state elected either by the people or by other democratically elected officials. - Montréalais 05:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this still gives the impression it was the first country to legalize it, you could simply say it is the 5th country to legalize it? Or something like "the 5th country on the world and the first republic", but that is not a very good sentence ;) I agree with BDD, it's a bit semantical. -- Sirius81 | Talk 12:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Context

The lead section needs more context and content. --70.39.133.138 12:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Page tampering or vandalism?

As of 11:20 AM, Central Time, the page is "pie face" followed by excessive exclamation points, repeatedly, for its entire content.

11:21 AM: Sorry, must have been a fluke.

Ugh someone did tamper with the page. Hopefully someone can reverse it ASAP.

why the photo at the beginning?

I do not see what an photo of male genitals has to do with this discussion and it makes it impossible to send it to people who would be interested if I know they will access it at work. I would edit it out but I can't figure out how. Also, this is not just a male issue.Dsrtwrendsrtwren

This was vandalism and has been cleaned up. You can learn more about how you can clean up vandalism by checking out the Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 21:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Shame on South Africa...

...as it has now violated the Bible's prohibition which specifically forbids male homosexuality as stated clearly in Leviticus 18:22: "DO NOT LIE WITH A MALE AS YOU WOULD WITH A WOMAN, SINCE THIS IS A DISGUSTING PERVERSION" (וְאֶת-זָכָר--לֹא תִשְׁכַּב, מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה: תּוֹעֵבָה, הִוא) [2] ...one wonders what will come next? IZAK 09:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Note to the anonymous user who recently deleted the above on the grounds that they are "not related to the contents of the article" -- how is it "not related" if South Africa is now turning its back on one of the conerstones of the Judeo-Christian heritage and all that the Bible teaches? What if South Africa turns its back on the Ten Commandments by legalizing stealing and adultary? Will that also somehow be disconnected from the traditional teachings of the Christian teachings widely taught and practiced in South Africa? It is most definitely a sign of how much South Africa is rapidly losing a sense of it's own traditional moral values that have always been rooted in Biblical values. In its giddy attempt to correct the ills of Apartheid certain people in South Africa now feel that they must overthrow values that are holy to millions of its own Christians who still abide by the Biblical teachings that homsoxulaity is a sin. Feel free to dispute this, but kindly do not delete these comments. Thank you. IZAK 13:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, this is not the place to have a conversation on the ruling. This is the talk page to discuss how to improve the article, not to flaunt your close-mindedness. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 16:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The Ungovernable: You need to respect religious views as you would any other, no matter what you think. Anyone who thinks that the views of mainstream religion on a subject that affects it directly is "narrow-mided" needs to get their head read (for it's own narrow-mindedness.) And to the editor who keeps on deleting these comments, do not do so, they are directly related to the section Same-sex marriage in South Africa#Religious roots of the opposition to same-sex marriages. IZAK 08:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)