Sachs J
significance and social importance. It is in the interests of justice that they both be granted.
The second challenge: section 30(1) of the Marriage Act as well as the common law definition (the Equality Project case)
[34]In the meantime, accepting the need to challenge the Marriage Act as well as the common law, the Lesbian and Gay Equality Project (the Equality Project) and eighteen others had launched an application in the Johannesburg High Court[1] for the following relief:
“1. Declaring that the common law definition of marriage and the prescribed marriage formula in section 30(1) of the Marriage Act 25 of 1961 (‘the Marriage Act’) are unconstitutional in that they violate the rights of lesbian and gay people to:
1.1. equality in terms of section 9 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (‘the Constitution’); 1.2. dignity in terms of section 10 of the Constitution; and 1.3. privacy in terms of section 14 of the Constitution; 2. Declaring that the common law definition of marriage is henceforth to be read as follows: ‘Marriage is the lawful and voluntary union of two persons to the exclusion of all others while it lasts’;
3. Declaring that the words ‘or spouse’ are to be read into the prescribed marriage formula in section 30(1) of the Marriage Act immediately after the words ‘or husband’; 4. Ordering those of the respondents who oppose this application to pay the applicants’ costs of suit; and 5. Granting the applicants such further and/or alternative relief as this Court deems appropriate in the circumstances.”
- ↑ On 8 July 2004.
20
