What will the marriage amendment do

A problem might arise if a person in the Western Cape sought to get married customarily and wanted a traditional leader to facilitate the process. She emphasized that working with a traditional leader was a choice and not a requirement, and people could go straight to the DHA to register a marriage without the facilitation of a traditional leader. Further discussion Mr Marais raised his concern on a potential situation where a man could marry two or three women, and then seek to marry another woman from another culture who decided to marry in a church or through civil law.

He asked whether in that scenario, the customary marriages got precedence over a marriage in community of property, or whether the spouse from the civil marriage got her half of the estate, and the other half was divided between the spouses in the customary marriages.

He asked for clarity on whether the law addressed such a situation. Ms Ross responded that the situation Mr Marais had raised was not covered in the RCMA Bill, because it only sought to give effect to the court order in the case of Ramuhovhi. A subsequent customary marriage did not invalidate a previous customary marriage. On whether a customary marriage invalidated a subsequent civil marriage, she referred to the creation of a will. She said that through a will, it was the choice for any person to distribute their assets in a manner in which they pleased.

This was a tricky question, because it brought up the question of which marriage invalidated which marriage. A person who was already married in terms of customary law could proceed and marry in terms of civil law.

She emphasised that the amendments protected spouses in regard to the proprietary consequences of the marriage. The Bill did not deal with other aspects which were dealt with in the Act itself. Mr Marais said his question had been answered in a way that did not solve his problem. His question was about a man who married a woman not of his culture through civil law in community of property after having married, say, four wives through customary marriage.

He wanted to know about the position of the other four wives married through customary law, and whether the law provided that they should divide the other half of the estate that was in community of property through the civil marriage between them.

The contract that must be in writing to regulate the future property regime, should be authorised by the court so as to make how the property regime in the polygamous marriage would apply, clearer. That was as far as an explanation could go. The Chairperson thanked the delegation for their attendance and excused them. The Standing Committee may call upon the delegation again to design the public participation process.

Mr Marais said the Committee had to think deeply about this Bill, because the delegation had answered him by leaving it up to the magistrate to decide, and magistrates could not make law.

The Committee was trying to enact justice and equal rights for all women, yet the Bill leaves out people who marry across different cultural lines. He raised his scenario again, and emphasised that he was asking whether the law improved the right to equality for all women. The Committee should throw this question back to the legal department so that it eventually accommodated women of all cultures.

The Chairperson responded that the Bill was still in its initial process. There would be a public participation process after the briefing, and thereafter a negotiating mandate and a final mandate.

He said a Recognition of Customary Marriages Act had been in place since that had been considered, interpreted and applied by the Constitutional Court when it dealt with the cases of Ramuhovhi and Gumede. The Act had been deemed as constitutionally valid when it was passed. Because of the application of that Act, the Limpopo High Court had found that there was unfairness in terms of the proprietary consequences emanating from the application of the Act, where certain spouses were discriminated against for whatever reason.

The WCPP was not currently dealing with the RCMA, but rather with the two court judgments from the Constitutional Court intended to equalize the regime pertaining to marital consequences. The Committee was engaging with that Bill to consider whether the consequences of those judgments could and should be properly infused in the already existing RCMA.

He assumes that Members, in dealing with the amendment Bill, were familiar with the principal Act. He had no questions on the amendment Bill, because the substance of this amendment Bill was effectively effecting a court judgment pertaining to the marital regime before and after The Committee was obliged to consider whether these consequential amendments properly reflected the legal decision and the rationale of the two judgments, as the substance of the Bill was uncontroversial.

The only matter pending was the issue of the definition of particular terms, and he echoed the indication from Ms Ross that the Bill was out of time already. With this question in mind, he had no doubt that the amendment gave effect to the rationale behind the Constitutional Court judgments. He advised the Committee that there should be no reservation about supporting this amendment of the principal Act.

Mr Marias assured Mr Maasdorp that he had done his homework on the matter, and argued that the Constitutional Court could also err, which was why these cases had come before the Court again.

If the Committee was not willing to discuss these issues, then the Constitutional Court would be called on to amend the Act another three or four times. He understood that the purpose of the Act was to ensure that all women were treated equally, but raised concern as to whether the amendment provided for equal treatment across cultures. He emphasised that he was asking a different question on whether the amendment was intended to protect customary marriages between the Nguni tribe or, at the same time, other marriages not belonging to the Nguni tribes.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Marais for clarifying his question, and responded that that was not a question that would be opened up at this meeting. Ms Botha welcomed the input from Adv Maasdorp. The Committee had to get to the constituents that this law would affect, which raised the issue of public hearings. The next step and the timelines should reflect the consideration of input from where it really mattered.

Adv Maasdorp amplified that the role that the WCPP played after the briefing was to popularise the amendment to people who had a direct, material and legitimate interest in the consequences and substance of the Bill. In accordance with sections 9, 10 and 31 of the Constitution, the legal framework that will regulate polygamous marriages will include all polygamous marriages irrespective of race, religion, culture, nationality, etc.

All polygamous marriages will be concluded in accordance with sections9, 10 and 31 of the Constitution. That is, the legal framework will enable realisation of equality, non-discrimination, human dignity principles in the marriage institution.

This will include rights to enjoy and practise culture and religion. This includes the practice of marriages that are concluded for the purpose of giving birth to a future king or heir. The marriage legislation must enable the recognition of customary marriages that are practiced in some African communities, including royal families Policy Options: Option 1: The Marriage legislation may recognise the royal family tradition of marrying a principal wife as the designated mother of the future king.

In the event that the principal wife is unable to give birth to a future king, the woman that is married by the royal family to give birth to a future king may be recognised by law. However, proper adoption processes must be followed with regards to the registration of children born under these circumstances to avoid future royal family disputes. Option 2: Recognition of Principal and Supporting wives for all polygamous marriages.

Customary marriages concluded in Royal families with the purpose of giving birth to a future king will be regulated by law. Such marriages will be concluded in line with section 31 of the Constitution which provides that persons belonging to a cultural, religious or linguistic community may not be denied the right, with other members of that community to enjoy their culture.

During stakeholder consultation, stakeholders such as gender activists argued for the introduction of polyandry in accordance with Section 9 of the constitution. If this proposal is adopted, it will protect those who are in polyandrous relationship. Marriages officers may refuse to solemnise marriages that are incongruent with the provision of this Act including same sex marriages.

However, since the introduction of the Civil Union Amendment Act in , government officials may no longer refuse to solemnise civil unions for same sex couples.

In keeping with section 9 3 of the Constitution, the legislation must make provision for all social, religious and traditional communities to apply to be designated as marriage officers.

Option 1: Indiscriminative solemnisation of marriages by all marriage officers without exception. Option 2: Indiscriminative solemnisation of marriages by public servants. However, government marriage officers would not be required to perform any ceremonial functions generally associated with marriage. The registration will be perform akin to other registration functions such as birth and death registration.

At issue here is civil marriage - a legal institution regulated by the government that grants over 1, legal rights and obligations. The First Amendment protects the right of people of faith to organize themselves according to their own beliefs and traditions, and no law recognizing marriage of lesbian and gay couples will limit the freedom of religions to define marriage as each sees fit.

What about those people who say their religious beliefs are threatened by marriage of lesbian and gay couples? Just as we did not ask them to change their religious beliefs when we legalized divorce and legalized birth control.

Ending discrimination against gays and lesbians is the same thing. American attitudes toward marriage are complex. Americans' attitudes toward the rights of gays and lesbians are evolving just as attitudes on civil rights of other groups of Americans have evolved over time. Polling data shows that Americans oppose discrimination against gays and lesbians.

It would write discrimination into the Constitution. Moreover, it will take away legal protections for committed, long-term couples, such as hospital visitation rights, pension benefits, health insurance coverage, inheritance rights, and many others. What does the Federal Marriage Amendment say? What does that mean?