[126]The memorandum summarises the extensive work it has done in pursuance of achieving that harmonisation. In October 2001 the SALRC had published an Issue Paper in the form of a questionnaire.[1] One hundred and forty-five respondents had responded to the SALRC's invitation and submitted written comments. Submissions had been received from various organisations as well as ordinary members of the public. After these submissions had been considered and comparative research done,[2] the SALRC had formed various models for the reform of domestic partnerships.
[127]The memorandum points out that during August 2003 the SALRC had published a Discussion Paper for information and comment, which included six options for reform. The first three options had aimed to afford same-sex couples the same rights currently afforded to opposite-sex partners in marriage and in this regard the constitutionality of the chosen option was the main consideration. These were the three options referred to by Farlam JA.[3] As will be seen, the SALRC decided to replace them with a single new proposal.[4]
[128]Interest groups and members of the public were invited to submit comments on the proposed options. A series of eight workshops were held to discuss the proposals
- ↑ Issue Paper no. 17 (Project 118).Issue Paper
- ↑ The models researched varied from civil marriage (The Netherlands and Belgium), no special legal status for domestic partners (UK), de facto recognition (Australia) and civil unions (Vermont). The fact that none of the models researched emanated in a constitutional dispensation such as the South African one with specific protection of sexual orientation in an equality clause, indicated the need for a uniquely South African solution.
- ↑ Fourie (SCA) above n 12 at paras 110–1. See paras 28–31 above.
- ↑ At para 141 below.
