Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie

Last updated
Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie
Constitutional court of South Africa.jpeg
Court Constitutional Court of South Africa
Full case name Minister of Home Affairs and Another v Fourie and Another (Doctors for Life International and Others, amici curiae); Lesbian and Gay Equality Project and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others
Decided1 December 2005
Citations [2005] ZACC 19, 2006 (1) SA 524 (CC), 2006 (3) BCLR 355 (CC)
Case history
Prior actions
Court membership
Judges sitting Langa CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, O'Regan, Sachs, Skweyiya, van der Westhuizen & Yacoob JJ
Case opinions
The common-law definition of marriage and section 30(1) of the Marriage Act are inconsistent with the Constitution, and therefore invalid, to the extent that they do not allow to same-sex couples the status and benefits of marriage allowed to opposite-sex couples. (Unanimous.) The declaration of invalidity is suspended for twelve months to allow Parliament to correct the defects. (8:1, O'Regan dissenting.)
Decision byJustice Sachs
Keywords
LGBT rights, same-sex marriage, Husband, Wife, Marriage, Common law, Parliament, Constitutional law, Human rights, Fundamental rights, Diversity, Pluralism, Society, Majoritarianim, Equality, Equality before the law, Discrimination, Sexual orientation, Unfair discrimination, Human dignity, Development of common law, Interpretation, Religion

Minister of Home Affairs and Another v Fourie and Another; Lesbian and Gay Equality Project and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others, [2005] ZACC 19, [1] [2] [3] is a landmark decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in which the court ruled unanimously that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The judgment, authored by Justice Albie Sachs and delivered on 1 December 2005, gave Parliament one year to pass the necessary legislation. As a result, the Civil Union Act came into force on 30 November 2006, making South Africa the fifth country in the world to recognise same-sex marriage.

Contents

The case was heard on May 17, 2005, by Langa ACJ, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Moseneke J, Ngcobo J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Skweyiya J, Yacoob J and Van Der Westhuizen J. MTK Moerane SC (with S. Nthai) appeared for the applicants, P Oosthuizen (with T Kathri) for the respondents, JJ Smyth QC for the first and second amici curiae, GC Pretorius SC (with DM Achtzehn, PG Seleka and JR Bauer) for the third amicus curiae, DI Berger SC (with Fayeeza Kathree) for the applicants, and M Donen SC for the respondents. In the Fourie case, the applicants' counsel was instructed by the State Attorney, and the respondents' by M. van den Berg. The third amicus curiae was instructed by Motla Conradie. In the Lesbian and Gay Equality Project case, the applicants' counsel was instructed by Nicholls, Cambanis & Associates, and the respondents' by the State Attorney.

The case concerned applications for leave to appeal and cross-appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal (the Fourie case) coupled with an application for direct access to the Constitutional Court (the Lesbian and Gay Equality Project case).

The definition of marriage in South African common law is drawn from the Roman-Dutch law, and until the Fourie case it was described as "a union of one man with one woman, to the exclusion, while it lasts, of all others". [4] This definition excluded same-sex unions; it also excluded polygamous or potentially polygamous unions like Muslim marriages and marriages under African customary law.

The Marriage Act, [5] the statute which regulates the formalities of the marriage ceremony, does not make any explicit mention of the genders of the spouses. However, section 30(1) of the act (as substituted by the Marriage Amendment Act, 1973) requires the marriage officer to ask each party to the marriage:

"Do you, A.B., declare that as far as you know there is no lawful impediment to your proposed marriage with C.D. here present, and that you call all here present to witness that you take C.D. as your lawful wife (or husband)?" and thereupon the parties shall give each other the right hand and the marriage officer concerned shall declare the marriage solemnized in the following words: "I declare that A B and C D here present have been lawfully married.

The courts understood the use words "wife (or husband)" to require that the spouses must be a man and a woman. [6]

The Interim Constitution which came into force in April 1994, and the final Constitution which replaced it in February 1997, both prohibit unfair discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Section 9 of the final Constitution provides as follows:

(1) Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.

(2) Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms.

(3) The State may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.

(4) No person may unfairly discriminate against anyone on one or more grounds in terms of ss (3).

Section 10 of the Constitution provides that "everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and protected."

Facts

The applicants were Ms Marié Adriaana Fourie and Ms Cecelia Johanna Bonthuys, a lesbian couple that wished to marry. Prior to the hearing, applications were made by Doctors For Life International and its legal representative Mr John Smyth, to be admitted as amici curiae. Application to be admitted as amicus curiae was also made by the Marriage Alliance of South Africa, supported on affidavit by Cardinal Wilfred Napier.

Judgment

The nine judges hearing the case agreed unanimously that same-sex couples were entitled to marry, accordingly declared the common-law definition of marriage to be inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid to the extent that it did not permit same-sex couples to enjoy the status and the benefits coupled with responsibilities it accorded to heterosexual couples. They disagreed as to the remedy. The majority suspended the declaration of invalidity for a period of a year to allow Parliament time to correct the defect. It also declared the omission from section 30(1) of the Marriage Act after the words "or husband" of the words "or spouse" to be inconsistent with the Constitution, and invalid to the extent of the inconsistency. Again, the declaration of invalidity was suspended for a year to allow Parliament time to correct the defect. [7] Justice Kate O'Regan, the lone dissenter in part, thought the statute should be altered immediately.

The court's finding was based on section 9 of the Constitution of South Africa, particularly on the right to equal protection and benefit of the law in section 9(1) and the explicit prohibition on discrimination, including on the basis of sexual orientation, in section 9(3). The common law and section 30(1) of the Marriage Act denied same-sex couples equal protection and benefit of the law, in conflict with section 9(1) of the Constitution, and taken together resulted in same-sex couples being subjected to unfair discrimination by the State, in conflict with section 9(3) of the Constitution. [8] When evaluated in the context of the legal regime as a whole, the common-law definition of marriage and section 30(1) of the Marriage Act were under-inclusive, Sachs found, and unconstitutional to the extent that they made no appropriate provision for gay and lesbian people to celebrate their unions in the same way that they enabled heterosexual couples to do. [9] This violation of the equality and dignity rights of same-sex couples was not justified as contemplated in section 36 of the Constitution. [10]

The failure of the common law and the Marriage Act to provide the means whereby same-sex couples could enjoy the same status, entitlements and responsibilities accorded to heterosexual couples through marriage accordingly constituted an unjustifiable violation of their right to equal protection of the law under section 9(1), and not to be discriminated against unfairly in terms of s 9(3) of the Constitution. Furthermore, such failure represented an unjustifiable violation of their right to dignity in terms of section 10 of the Constitution. [11]

It is one thing, Sachs wrote, for the Constitutional Court to acknowledge the important role that religion plays in public life; it is quite another for it to use religious doctrine as a source for interpreting the Constitution. It would be out of order to employ the religious sentiments of some as a guide to the constitutional rights of others. Judges would be placed in an intolerable situation if they were called upon to construe religious texts and take sides on issues that have caused deep schisms within religious bodies. [12]

The Constitution, Sachs continued, contains a number of provisions that underline the constitutional value of acknowledging diversity and pluralism in South African society, and give a particular texture to the broadly-phrased right to freedom of association contained in section 18. Taken together, they affirm the right of people to self-expression without being forced to subordinate themselves to the cultural and religious norms of others, and highlight the importance of individuals and communities being able to enjoy what has been called the "right to be different." In each case, space has been found for members of communities to depart from a majoritarian norm. [13]

The court noted that South Africa has a multitude of family formations that are evolving rapidly as society develops, so that it is inappropriate to entrench any particular form as the only socially and legally acceptable one. There is an imperative constitutional need to acknowledge the long history in South Africa and abroad of marginalisation and persecution of gays and lesbians, although a number of breakthroughs have been made in particular areas. The court also found that there is no comprehensive legal regulation of the family law rights of gays and lesbians, and that the Constitution represents a radical rupture with a past based on intolerance and exclusion, and the movement forward to the acceptance of the need to develop a society based on equality and respect by all for all. The Court pointed out that what was at issue was the need to affirm the character of the society as one based on tolerance and mutual respect.

See also

Related Research Articles

Same-sex marriage has been legal in South Africa since the Civil Union Act, 2006 came into force on 30 November 2006. The decision of the Constitutional Court in the case of Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie on 1 December 2005 extended the common-law definition of marriage to include same-sex spouses—as the Constitution of South Africa guarantees equal protection before the law to all citizens regardless of sexual orientation—and gave Parliament one year to rectify the inequality in the marriage statutes. On 14 November 2006, the National Assembly passed a law allowing same-sex couples to legally solemnise their union 229 to 41, which was subsequently approved by the National Council of Provinces on 28 November in a 36 to 11 vote, and the law came into effect two days later.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in South Africa</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in South Africa have the same legal rights as non-LGBTQ people. South Africa has a complex and diverse history regarding the human rights of LGBTQ people. The legal and social status of between 400,000 to over 2 million lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex South Africans has been influenced by a combination of traditional South African morals, colonialism, and the lingering effects of apartheid and the human rights movement that contributed to its abolition.

Chapter Two of the Constitution of South Africa contains the Bill of Rights, a human rights charter that protects the civil, political and socio-economic rights of all people in South Africa. The rights in the Bill apply to all law, including the common law, and bind all branches of the government, including the national executive, Parliament, the judiciary, provincial governments, and municipal councils. Some provisions, such as those prohibiting unfair discrimination, also apply to the actions of private persons.

<i>National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Justice</i> South African legal case

National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Another v Minister of Justice and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which struck down the laws prohibiting consensual sexual activities between men. Basing its decision on the Bill of Rights in the Constitution – and in particular its explicit prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation – the court unanimously ruled that the crime of sodomy, as well as various other related provisions of the criminal law, were unconstitutional and therefore invalid.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lesbian and Gay Equality Project</span> Lesbian/Gay Equality for South Africa Action

The Lesbian and Gay Equality Project (LGEP), formerly known as the National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality (NCGLE), is a non-profit, non-governmental organization in South Africa that focuses on the expansion of LGBT civil rights in South Africa and other countries in sub-Saharan Africa. It was co-founded by Zackie Achmat in 1994, and successfully lobbied for the inclusion of sexual orientation as a basis for non-discrimination laws in the country after the end of the apartheid period. The organization has continued to operate after South Africa officially legalized same-sex marriage in 2005. Its work includes "law reform, lobbying, litigation, advocacy, employment equity, leadership training and development."

Catherine "Kate" O'Regan is a former judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. From 2013 to 2014 she was a commissioner of the Khayelitsha Commission and is now the inaugural director of the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights at the University of Oxford.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of the Western Cape</span>

The Constitution of the Western Cape is, subject to the Constitution of South Africa, the highest law regulating the structure and powers of the government of the Western Cape province of South Africa. It was enacted by the Western Cape Provincial Legislature in terms of Chapter 6 of the national constitution, and came into force on 16 January 1998. The Western Cape is the only South African province to have adopted a constitution.

<i>National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Home Affairs</i> South African legal case

National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others, [1999] ZACC 17, is a 1999 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which extended to same-sex partners the same benefits granted to spouses in the issuing of immigration permits. It was the first Constitutional Court case to deal with the recognition of same-sex partnerships, and also the first case in which a South African court adopted the remedy of "reading in" to correct an unconstitutional law. The case is of particular importance in the areas of civil procedure, immigration, and constitutional law and litigation.

<i>Du Toit v Minister for Welfare and Population Development</i> South African legal case

Du Toit and Another v Minister for Welfare and Population Development and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which granted same-sex couples the ability to jointly adopt children. LGBT people had already been able to adopt children individually, but only married couples could adopt jointly; the decision was handed down in September 2002, four years before same-sex marriage became legal in South Africa. The court ruled unanimously that the statutory provisions limiting joint adoption to married couples were unconstitutional, and the resulting order amended the law to treat same-sex partners in the same way as married couples.

Section Nine of the Constitution of South Africa guarantees equality before the law and freedom from discrimination to the people of South Africa. This equality right is the first right listed in the Bill of Rights. It prohibits both discrimination by the government and discrimination by private persons; however, it also allows for affirmative action to be taken to redress past unfair discrimination.

South African family law is concerned with those legal rules in South Africa which pertain to familial relationships. It may be defined as "that subdivision of material private law which researches, describes and regulates the origin, contents and dissolution of all legal relationships between: (i) husband and wife ; (ii) parents, guardians and children; and (iii) relatives related through blood and affinity."

"As far as family law is concerned, we in South Africa have it all. We have every kind of family; extended families, nuclear families, one-parent families, same-sex families, and in relation to each one of these there are controversy, difficulties and cases coming before the courts or due to come before the courts. This is the result of ancient history and recent history [...]. Our families are suffused with history, as family law is suffused with history, culture, belief and personality. For researchers it's a paradise, for judges a purgatory."

Section 20A of the Immorality Act, 1957, commonly known as the "men at a party" clause, was a South African law that criminalised all sexual acts between men that occurred in the presence of a third person. The section was enacted by the Immorality Amendment Act, 1969 and remained in force until it was found to be unconstitutional in 1998 by the Constitutional Court in the case of National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Justice.

This is a timeline of notable events in the history of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in South Africa.

<i>Kruger v President of the Republic of South Africa</i> South African legal case

Kruger v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others is an important case in South African law, heard in the Constitutional Court (CC) on 19 February 2008, with judgment handed down on 2 October. The judges were Langa CJ, O'Regan ADCJ, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, Nkabinde J, Skweyiya J, Van Der Westhuizen J, Yacoob J, Jafta AJ and Kroon AJ. Counsel for the applicant was Geoff Budlender. There was no appearance for the first respondent, but Wim Trengove SC appeared for the second and for the third respondent. The applicant's attorneys were Kruger & Co.; the State Attorney represented the second respondent, while the third respondent's attorneys were Brugmans Inc.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wim Trengove</span> South African lawyer

Wim Trengove SC is a South African advocate best known for his role in constitutional litigation. He has argued various administrative law, constitutional law, and human rights law matters in the Constitutional Court of South Africa, including several high-profile political cases.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Civil Union Amendment Act, 2020</span> Act of the South African Parliament

The Civil Union Amendment Act, 2020 is an act of the Parliament of South Africa which repealed section 6 of the Civil Union Act, 2006, a section which had allowed civil marriage officers to opt out of solemnising same-sex marriages on the grounds of conscience, religion or belief.

Freedom of Religion South Africa is a South African nonprofit fundamentalist Christian advocacy group. It was founded in 2014 by Andrew Selley, the lead pastor and founder of the Joshua Generation Church, after parents filed a complaint to the South African Human Rights Commission that alleged that Joshua Generation Church advocated for corporal punishment in the home. In Freedom of Religion South Africa v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, FOR SA unsuccessfully opposed a ruling by the Johannesburg High Court that deemed corporal punishment to be assault.

<i>DE v RH</i> South African legal case

DE v RH is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in the law of delict. The court abolished the third-party delictual claim for adultery, holding unanimously that society's contemporary boni mores indicated that the act of adultery by a third party lacks wrongfulness and therefore does not give rise to delictual liability. The judgment was handed down without papers on 19 June 2015 and was written by Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, with a separate concurrence by Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng.

<i>Harksen v Lane</i> South African legal case

Harksen v Lane NO and Others is an important decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, delivered on 7 October 1997. The court dismissed a challenge to the constitutionality of the Insolvency Act, 1936, finding that it was consistent with the right to property and right to equality for the property of a solvent spouse to be attached to the insolvent estate of his or her partner. Justice Richard Goldstone wrote for the majority.

<i>Bwanya v Master of the High Court</i> South African legal case

Bwanya v Master of the High Court, Cape Town and Others is an important decision in the South African law of succession and particularly the law of intestate succession. It was decided by the Constitutional Court of South Africa on 31 December 2021 with a majority judgment written by Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga. A majority of the court upheld a challenge to the constitutionality of the Intestate Succession Act, 1981 and Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act, 1990, holding that it was unfairly discriminatory to exclude the survivors of permanent life partnerships from the protections the acts extend to the survivors of legal marriages. Bwanya therefore overturned the holding in Volks v Robinson.

References

Cases

Statutes

Notes

  1. ↑ 2006 (1) SA 524 (CC).
  2. ↑ Case Nos CCT 60/04, CCT 10/05.
  3. ↑ Minister of Home Affairs and Another v Fourie and Another, [2005] ZACC 19, online at http://www.saflii.org.za/za/cases/ZACC/2005/19.html
  4. ↑ Mashia Ebrahim v Mahomed Essop 1905 TS 59 (8 March 1905), Supreme Court of the Transvaal
  5. ↑ Act 25 of 1961.
  6. ↑ Fourie and Another v Minister van Binnelandse Sake and Another [2002] ZAGPHC 1 at page 4(18 October 2002), Transvaal Provincial Division
  7. ↑ Para 162.
  8. ↑ Para 78.
  9. ↑ Para 82.
  10. ↑ Para 113.
  11. ↑ Para 114.
  12. ↑ Para 92.
  13. ↑ Para 61.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.