State-employed marriage officers cannot object to officiating same-sex marriages, on the grounds of “conscience, religion or belief,” anymore:
This came after two SU students successfully submitted arguments regarding the Civil Unions Act Amendment Bill, which was approved on 1 July by the National Council of Provinces (NCOP). The students’ submissions were made under the supervision of dr Lize Mills, senior lecturer at Stellenbosch University’s (SU) Department of Private Law.
“I was pleasantly surprised and impressed with the fact that the proposal for the deletion of section 6 came because I’ve always said it’s unconstitutional,” Mills said.
In 2018, the public was invited by the government to comment on the proposed amendment of the Civil Unions Act, said Mills.
Shortly thereafter, two of Mills’ students, Akhona Sandaza and Thembalethu Seyisi, who were first year students at the time, approached her to submit their arguments advocating for legislative reform.
Two SU students’ submissions
“I was very proud of them and happy that I could inspire two students to participate in the legislative process – that’s in essence what they did,” said Mills.
Enter a SU students Thembalethu Seyisi and Akhona Sandaza, who are also Social Justice Ambassadors for the Law Trust Chair at SU, are photographed at a human rights dialogue in Johannesburg in 2019. PHOTO: Hlonelwa Lutulicaption
Akhona Sandaza, a student at SU, details how the idea of making submissions to parliament, which contributed to the removal of section 6 of the Civil Union Act, came to be a reality. AUDIO: Akhona Sandaza
According to Sandaza and Seyisi, Mills ensured the legitimacy of the claims made in their respective submissions.
“… Section 6 was controversial and somewhat not in line with the call to end discrimination against queer individuals,” said Seyisi.
“The voices of the marginalised are not given enough attention…section 6 is discriminatory on the grounds of sexual orientational preferences,” said Sandaza.
“It stuck out like a sore thumb,” Seyisi added.
SU student, Thembalethu Seyisi, tells MatieMedia about his reasoning behind their advocacy for the removal of section 6 of the Civil Unions Act. AUDIO: Thembalethu Seyisi
According to Mills, Sandaza argued for the retention of section 6, while Seyesi encouraged total removal thereof.
Sandaza’s submission argued that section 6 should be limited, rather than removed completely. He explained that the recognition of the constitutional rights to equality and human dignity shouldn’t be to the detriment of the right to freedom of religious beliefs.
Section 6 of the Civil Unions Act allowed a government-employed marriage officer, like a judge or a government appointed official at the Department of Home Affairs, to object to conducting a same-sex couple’s marriage. This objection was on the grounds of “conscience, religion or belief”.
PHOTO: Maico Pereira / Unsplash
Religious marriage officers’ position
According to Mills, religious ministers are required to apply for authorisation enabling them to officiate same-sex marriages by means of the Civil Unions Act. This is unlike the automatically authorised position of government-employed officials, she added.
According to a pastor in the local Stellenbosch community, who preferred to remain anonymous, their congregation hasn’t applied to officiate civil unions because of an “ignorance of the law”.
Upon hearing of the SU students’ submissions, he said, “It’s very bold of them and an indication that civil society has agency and that we can initiate change”.
He said that he personally hasn’t received a request to officiate a same-sex marriage, although his colleague has conducted a mere ceremony for a same-sex couple.
The pastor said that this caused somewhat controversy within their congregation, resulting in a couple of families leaving the congregation.