1 1. INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS In the introduction to the South African Law Reform Commission’s Discussion Paper 104, Project 118 with regard to Domestic Partnerships, it is explicitly stated that the goal of the legislation is to give recognition to same sex relationships. Creating legislation with the purpose of giving recognition to same sex relationships might give official sanction or encourage a relationship that is unfavorable for bringing up children and is physically and psychologically unnatural and harmful to the children and the partners and even society as a whole. It is noted that the Commission’s options in respect of marriages proceed from the viewpoint of accommodating homosexuals within the institution of marriage without considering medical and psychological research as such and the far reaching and harmful consequences proceeding from these unions. In the words of Dr Satinover we would like to emphasize the importance that: “these deliberations be based not only on compassion, and justice, but on the factual truth as well. Indeed, unless resting upon truth, neither justice nor compassion can long endure against shifts in sentiment. That as a society we strive no longer to condone – rather to condemn – cruelty toward people attracted to members of their own sex is an absolute requirement of both justice and humanity. But we would be short sighted indeed were we to advance this, or any other, just cause based on fictions: Not only will the inevitable uncovering of those fictions, however long delayed, provide an excuse for bigotry to reclaim its unearned place, it will engender beliefs, attitudes and policies that, by flying in the face of reality, will lead to an increase, rather than a decrease in the happiness all are entitled to pursue. Nature (and if you prefer, “Nature’s God”) cannot be fooled.”1 2. THE IMPORTANCE AND VALUE OF THE TRADITIONAL HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE Marriage is a virtually universal and fundamental human institution.2 It is not a creation of the law and predates the law or constitution. At its heart it is an anthropological and sociological reality, not a legal one. Laws relating to marriage merely recognize and regulate an institution that already exists.3 No culture or any of the major religions anywhere in the world has a moral objection against the Traditional Heterosexual Marriage. On the contrary all major religions value the Traditional Heterosexual Marriage highly. Neither has any human society ever 2 tolerated “marriage” between members of the same sex as a norm for family life.4 A few pro-homosexual writers, such as William N. Eskridge, Jr. (author of a 1996 book called The Case for Same-Sex Marriage), have argued against this. They support their claim by citing evidence, mostly from obscure, primitive tribes, suggesting some tolerance of gender non- conformity or even homosexual relationships (particularly between men and boys). But the important point is that, in none of these cultures was such behavior seen as the moral and social equivalent of lifelong Traditional Heterosexual Marriage. 5 Anthropology teaches that every human society is established by males and females joining in permanent unions to build a life together and bear and raise children. The differences we see in family from culture to culture are primarily variations on this model: how long the male and female stay together, how many spouses either can have and how the labor is divided. Some cultures make greater use of extended family than others. Family diversity is largely confined to these differences. But there has never been a culture or society that made homosexual marriage part of its family model. Marriage is more than just a way of recognizing people who love each other and want to spend their lives together. If love and companionship were sufficient to define marriage, then there would be no reason to deny “marriage” to unions of a child and an adult, or and adult child and his or her ageing parent, or to roommates who have no sexual relationship, or to groups rather than couples. Even though love and companionship are usually considered integral to marriage in our culture, they are not sufficient to define it as and institution. 6 Marriage is a public commitment, not a private liaison. The married family is profoundly important for a stable society. 7 It is still true that the vast majority of children are raised by married couples. 8 Children have been shown to suffer not only from the presence of well- documented negative parental characteristics, (e.g., harsh discipline, overt abuse) they have also been shown to suffer from the absence of desiderata, in particular reference to the above, multigenerational stability, that is, the capacity of their own family to reproduce itself by raising biological children who themselves raise children who go on to establish stable, harmonious families. (See Annexure “A”: “The Marital Statute” by Dr Jeffrey Satinover attached hereto). It is therefore not surprising that in 2000 Jack Straw stated in the British House of Commons “[Marriage is] about a union for the procreation of 3 children, which by definition can only happen between a heterosexual couple. So I see no circumstances in which we would ever bring forward proposals for so-called gay marriages”. Refer to Annexure “B” hereto from Liberty Council for a study on the history of marriage, including its purposes and effect, which included social and economic effects. This section also discusses why, given what marriage is and is intended to do, prohibiting marriage for same-sex couples does not violate Art. 9 of the South African Constitution. 2.1 STATISTICS PROVE THE SUCCESS OF TRADITIONAL HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE 2.1.1 Advantages of Traditional Heterosexual Marriage to the partners involved Research consistently shows that married adults: - do better in virtually every measure of well-being; - live longer; - have happier lives; - enjoy higher levels of physical health; - enjoy higher levels of mental health; - recover from illness quicker; - earn and save more money; - are more reliable employees; - suffer less stress and; - are less likely to become victims of any kind of violence; - are less likely to be the victims or perpetrators of crime; - find the job of parenting more successful and enjoyable; - they have more satisfying and fulfilling sex lives. These benefits are largely equal for men and women. 9 (See annexure “F” hereto) 2.1.2 Advantage of Traditional Heterosexual Marriage to the children involved Compared with children in any other situation, children with married parents: 4 - need to visit doctors less often for physical or emotional problems; - do better in all measures of intellectual and academic development; - are more sympathetic toward others; - are much less likely to be in trouble at school, at home or with the police; - are less likely to engage in delinquent and criminal behaviour; - are much less likely to use drugs; - are much less likely to be involved in violent behavior; - are much less likely to be involved in premarital sexual activity and childbearing; - are unlikely to live in poverty or; - are at less risk of being victims of sexual abuse; 10 2.1.3 Further Statistics of the Traditional Heterosexual Marriages - Marriage increases the likelihood that fathers have good relationships with their children. - Cohabitation is not the functional equivalent of marriage. - Growing up outside an intact marriage increases the likelihood that children will themselves divorce or become unwed parents. - Children who live with their own two married parents enjoy better physical health, on average, than do children in other family forms. - Marriage is associated with a sharply lower risk of infant mortality. - Marriage is associated with lower rates of disability for both men and women. - Divorce appears to significantly increase the risk of suicide. 11 3. SAME SEX MARRIAGES AND RELATIONSHIPS WILL NOT HAVE THE SAME VALUE AS THAT OF THE TRADITIONAL HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGES 5 Although some argue that children with two parents of the same gender are as well adjusted as children with one of each kind there is not sufficient scientific proof to sustain that view point. A 1996 study by an Australian sociologist compared children raised by heterosexual married couples, heterosexual cohabiting couples, and homosexual cohabiting couples. It found that the children of heterosexual married couples did the best, and children raised by homosexual couples the worst, in nine of the thirteen academic and social categories measured. 12 Studies that try to prove that same sex couples would serve the same purpose are unconvincing. The presence of methodological defects – a mark of substandard research – would be cause for rejection of research conducted in virtually any other subject area. In a look at 49 studies about children in homosexual households, it was found that all had fatal flaws such as tiny sample size, skewed selection of subjects, and built in biases of the researchers. For further material on this topic please refer to annexure “C” hereto : document by Timothy J. Daily. To prove that there still remains a huge question mark on the desirability of bringing children up in a same sex relationship, we would like to refer to: The American Academy of Pediatrics’ report, brought out by the Task Force on the Family (Pediatrics, June 2003). This report was commented on by the College of American Pediatricians as follows: “…The report is marred by the inclusion of a gratuitous section describing same-gender