Good for South Africa!
JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - South Africa's top court said on Thursday it was unconstitutional to deny gay people the right to marry, putting it on track to become the first African country to legalize same-sex marriage.
The Constitutional Court told parliament to amend marriage laws to include same-sex partners within the year -- a step that runs counter to widespread African taboos against homosexuality.
"The exclusion of same-sex couples from the benefits and responsibilities of marriage ... signifies that their capacity for love, commitment and accepting responsibility is by definition less worthy of regard than that of heterosexual couples," Justice Albie Sachs said in the ruling.
The court said if parliament did not act, the legal definition of marriage would be automatically changed to include same-sex unions. That would put South Africa alongside Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and Canada in allowing gay marriages.
Elated gay and lesbian couples and supporters hugged each after the judgment, although some said they were disappointed they had to wait longer to get married.
"We would've liked to get married as soon as we could," said Fikile Vilakazi, wearing a yellow T-shirt with the words "Marriage -- anything less is not equal."
"I'm very happy though that finally our courts have discovered that the common law definition of marriage is unconstitutional."
Post-apartheid South Africa has one of the most progressive constitutions in the world and the only one to enshrine equal rights for gays and lesbians.
Many African countries, by contrast, outlaw homosexuality and turn a blind eye to persecution of gays and lesbians.
South African gay activists have won a string of legal victories in recent years, including the right to adopt children and inherit from partners' wills, but so far the right to marry has eluded them.
THE SECULAR AND THE SACRED
South Africa's ruling African National Congress, which under Nelson Mandela led the country from apartheid to democracy, said the ruling affirmed the state should not discriminate against its citizens.
"Today's ruling, like other before it, is an important step forward in aligning the laws of the country with the rights and freedoms contained in the South African Constitution," the ANC, which dominates South Africa's parliament, said in a statement.
The case stemmed from an application won a year ago by a lesbian couple to have their marriage recognized in a lower court. Government lawyers appealed, arguing only parliament should have the right to change the country's laws.
The couple was backed by the country's leading gay rights group, the Lesbian and Gay Equality Project.
Only one of the court's 11 judges dissented from the ruling, arguing it should have legalized gay marriage immediately instead of allowing 12 months for parliament to act.
Sachs dismissed religious objections to gay marriage, saying the country's constitution gave no reason why gays and religious groups could not co-exist.
"In the open and democratic society contemplated by the Constitution there must be mutually respectful co-existence between the secular and the sacred," he said.
Then there was the standard comments of dissent from Christian groups, but we've all heard that.
As for the bolded quote? What a wonderful way of putting into word and action what America claims, but does not do.
The Constitutional Court told parliament to amend marriage laws to include same-sex partners within the year -- a step that runs counter to widespread African taboos against homosexuality.
"The exclusion of same-sex couples from the benefits and responsibilities of marriage ... signifies that their capacity for love, commitment and accepting responsibility is by definition less worthy of regard than that of heterosexual couples," Justice Albie Sachs said in the ruling.
The court said if parliament did not act, the legal definition of marriage would be automatically changed to include same-sex unions. That would put South Africa alongside Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and Canada in allowing gay marriages.
Elated gay and lesbian couples and supporters hugged each after the judgment, although some said they were disappointed they had to wait longer to get married.
"We would've liked to get married as soon as we could," said Fikile Vilakazi, wearing a yellow T-shirt with the words "Marriage -- anything less is not equal."
"I'm very happy though that finally our courts have discovered that the common law definition of marriage is unconstitutional."
Post-apartheid South Africa has one of the most progressive constitutions in the world and the only one to enshrine equal rights for gays and lesbians.
Many African countries, by contrast, outlaw homosexuality and turn a blind eye to persecution of gays and lesbians.
South African gay activists have won a string of legal victories in recent years, including the right to adopt children and inherit from partners' wills, but so far the right to marry has eluded them.
THE SECULAR AND THE SACRED
South Africa's ruling African National Congress, which under Nelson Mandela led the country from apartheid to democracy, said the ruling affirmed the state should not discriminate against its citizens.
"Today's ruling, like other before it, is an important step forward in aligning the laws of the country with the rights and freedoms contained in the South African Constitution," the ANC, which dominates South Africa's parliament, said in a statement.
The case stemmed from an application won a year ago by a lesbian couple to have their marriage recognized in a lower court. Government lawyers appealed, arguing only parliament should have the right to change the country's laws.
The couple was backed by the country's leading gay rights group, the Lesbian and Gay Equality Project.
Only one of the court's 11 judges dissented from the ruling, arguing it should have legalized gay marriage immediately instead of allowing 12 months for parliament to act.
Sachs dismissed religious objections to gay marriage, saying the country's constitution gave no reason why gays and religious groups could not co-exist.
"In the open and democratic society contemplated by the Constitution there must be mutually respectful co-existence between the secular and the sacred," he said.
Then there was the standard comments of dissent from Christian groups, but we've all heard that.
As for the bolded quote? What a wonderful way of putting into word and action what America claims, but does not do.