Page:Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie.djvu/81

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
Sachs J

made in the Paper. By the closing date for submissions on the Discussion Paper[1] a total of 230 submissions and 50 worksheets had been received.

[129]It is clear from the above summary of the work done by the SALRC that extensive opportunity has in fact been given for all sides to be canvassed, and over a lengthy period. The SALRC states in the recent memorandum that it feels after considerable research[2] it has reached a position to produce draft legislation. This it is ready to submit to Parliament as soon as it has had the opportunity to take cognisance of the judgment of this Court in the present matter.[3]

[130]The memorandum adds that the final recommendations of the Project Committee of the SALRC will be included in a report to be submitted by it to the SALRC for consideration. Upon approval of the report by the SALRC, it will be submitted to the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development to be placed before Parliament at her discretion. The ordinary parliamentary processes will then commence. Attending to the consequential amendments necessitated by this new dispensation would form a secondary part of the investigation. The memorandum


  1. 31 March 2004.
  2. One aspect of the research indicated that although many same-sex couples were in favour of same-sex marriage, others saw it as an oppressive institution that is wrongly presented by a heterosexual society as the norm against which all other relationships should be measured. Many of them might also deliberately choose not to get married because they did not desire the consequences attached to marriage. In this context it was argued that the legislature should respect the autonomy of these partners and make provision for both these groups.
  3. It should be added that the SALRC memorandum noted that this Court's judgment would ultimately assist the SALRC in recommending legislation that might pass constitutional scrutiny and which would put an end to ad hoc applications to enforce rights on a piecemeal basis.
81