NCOP passes bill barring marriage officers from objecting to same-sex marriages

RedViking

Nord of the South
Joined
Feb 23, 2012
Messages
29,989
Religious officers must just get rid of the licence, marry the couple, and the rest they can sorry out at the court.

Or are they next going to stop religious organisations from traditional marry who they chose?
 

ponder

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
83,907
Religious officers must just get rid of the licence, marry the couple, and the rest they can sorry out at the court.

Or are they next going to stop religious organisations from traditional marry who they chose?
I'm not religious or homophobic but for the state to force people to marry people that go completely against their religion is wrong.
 

ponder

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
83,907
Some good news for a change.

The constitution states that everyone has the right to freedom of religion, belief and opinion.

It does not say that you can use that religious freedom to impose those beliefs on others or to use them to discriminate.
The irony.
 

Scooby_Doo

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Messages
6,929
The irony.
Missing the part where the constitution states that you cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. The religion is discriminating and is incompatible with the constitution, not the other way round.

The Section, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights prohibits all discrimination "on one or more grounds, including...", but specifically lists the following grounds "race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth." This is list is more extensive than the equality provisions in most human rights instruments, noteworthy are the distinction between "gender" and "sex", the inclusion of "pregnancy", the distinction between "race" and "colour", the inclusion of "age" and "disability".
 

ponder

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
83,907
Missing the part where the constitution states that you cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. The religion is discriminating and is incompatible with the constitution, not the other way round.

The Section, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights prohibits all discrimination "on one or more grounds, including...", but specifically lists the following grounds "race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth." This is list is more extensive than the equality provisions in most human rights instruments, noteworthy are the distinction between "gender" and "sex", the inclusion of "pregnancy", the distinction between "race" and "colour", the inclusion of "age" and "disability".
You don't get it either.
 

STS

Mafia Detective
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
31,849
If someone is a registered marriage officer for the government or endorsed by the government, then they should do all marriages, even the ones they do not agree with.

If they don't want to do all marriages, revoke the license but let them do their spiritual wedding thing, then send them off to a registered marriage official. Religious people do a lot of things which are not endorsed or monitored by the government.

Imagine if any officials or counsellors/services were allowed to discriminate based on race/sex/religion/etc, we'd think it is idiotic. Many religious people are performing a secular service(and marriage has become secular, due to laws, expectations, culture, etc.) They should perform their official service or do their business apart from the secular government.

They can still follow their beliefs and do their own thing on their private property, I just don't see why the government needs to endorse someone that only does half their job
 

ponder

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
83,907
If someone is a registered marriage officer for the government or endorsed by the government, then they should do all marriages, even the ones they do not agree with.

If they don't want to do all marriages, revoke the license but let them do their spiritual wedding thing, then send them off to a registered marriage official. Religious people do a lot of things which are not endorsed or monitored by the government.

Imagine if any officials or counsellors/services were allowed to discriminate based on race/sex/religion/etc, we'd think it is idiotic. Many religious people are performing a secular service(and marriage has become secular, due to laws, expectations, culture, etc.) They should perform their official service or do their business apart from the secular government.

They can still follow their beliefs and do their own thing on their private propertt, I just don't see why the government needs to endorse someone thatis only does half their job
They become marriage officers as it makes things easier for people from their own congregation.

There are real issues wrt to Islamic & customary marriages in this country, marriage officers can really help here.
 

Jabulani22

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
5,008
How about some right of admission reserved stickers , if you don't like their clothes , don't get involved in their shenanigans.
 

wbot

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2017
Messages
1,997
They can still follow their beliefs and do their own thing on their private property, I just don't see why the government needs to endorse someone that only does half their job
Like Beloftebos that is now battling against the sahrc?

https://www.iol.co.za/capetimes/new...back-in-affidavit-over-same-sex-saga-48295559

They have no problem hosting parties and stuff for same sex people, but they just don't do same sex weddings for religious reasons. You cannot force anyone to go against their religious beliefs
 
Last edited:

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
25,835
Some good news for a change.

The constitution states that everyone has the right to freedom of religion, belief and opinion.

It does not say that you can use that religious freedom to impose those beliefs on others or to use them to discriminate.
This bill is doing just that.

It is using the power of the state to impose a set of beliefs on people.

This is a scheduling issue. All the bill needed to do is state that if a marriage officer objects to the marriage, they have to provide the details of someone who won't object.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
25,835
If someone is a registered marriage officer for the government or endorsed by the government, then they should do all marriages, even the ones they do not agree with.

If they don't want to do all marriages, revoke the license but let them do their spiritual wedding thing, then send them off to a registered marriage official. Religious people do a lot of things which are not endorsed or monitored by the government.

Imagine if any officials or counsellors/services were allowed to discriminate based on race/sex/religion/etc, we'd think it is idiotic. Many religious people are performing a secular service(and marriage has become secular, due to laws, expectations, culture, etc.) They should perform their official service or do their business apart from the secular government.

They can still follow their beliefs and do their own thing on their private property, I just don't see why the government needs to endorse someone that only does half their job
You can already do that. You can go to a magistrate and get a completely secular marriage. No need to go up to some random pastor in the middle of nowhere and force them to do a wedding that they don't want to do.

What this is going to do is simply decrease the amount of marriage officials because the people who would object to this would rather not have people be legally married than go against their beliefs.

The objective here should be to to get as many people legally married, as this protects woman in traditional marriages.
 

daveza

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
40,887
So when we start chopping off the hands of thieves, cane adulterers and kill people who work on Saturdays that will be fine because we must allow unlimited religious freedom. :unsure:
 

chrisc

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
8,649
The imam at the Open Mosque will marry same-sex couples
 

Shalin_ZN

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,407
Some religions hold very firm beliefs on homosexuality , they should not be forced to go against their beliefs.
Just let the courts do the same sex unions(it shouldn't be called marriage either as it doesn't fit the definition) but should carry the same weight.
I fundamentally disagree here.

Religions can have whatever beliefs they want, but those beliefs must be within the law. Religion is not above the law.

Eg. if a religion has a firm belief that pedophilia is acceptable, that is in direct contravention of the law.
 

The Free Radical

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
836
Almost every single LGBT people I know is also a self confessed atheist who has turned their backs on their traditional religious base. They should just get solemnized (not sodomized :ROFL:) at Home Affairs while applying for their new ID.
I don't understand the gall of these self entitled people who barge into religious institutions demanding wedlock ceremonies which run roughshod over the tenants of the religions represented. They don't belong in that church, mosque, temple or synagogue if they are not true belivers and practicing their religion according to its tenants.
 
Last edited:

ponder

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
83,907
So when we start chopping off the hands of thieves, cane adulterers and kill people who work on Saturdays that will be fine because we must allow unlimited religious freedom. :unsure:
You should read your post and think about it.
 

newby_investor

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2018
Messages
2,638
Is the point of this not to prevent people in official positions from letting their religious beliefs interfere with their work?

A minister may be a licensed marriage officer so that he can perform marriages for his congregation (when you apply there's usually a motivation like that - you're not usually soliciting opportunities to perform marriages outside of the organisation that sponsors you). It's unlikely that an LGBT+ couple of any description would approach him / her out of the blue.

But when a home-affairs official refuses to perform some (legal) marriage due to their own religious beliefs, then this is a problem.

That being said, I don't know that introducing another law is going to change things. I'm familiar with a few examples of public servants just ignoring their legal obligations because of their own private opinions.
 

ponder

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
83,907
Is the point of this not to prevent people in official positions from letting their religious beliefs interfere with their work?

A minister may be a licensed marriage officer so that he can perform marriages for his congregation (when you apply there's usually a motivation like that - you're not usually soliciting opportunities to perform marriages outside of the organisation that sponsors you). It's unlikely that an LGBT+ couple of any description would approach him / her out of the blue.

But when a home-affairs official refuses to perform some (legal) marriage due to their own religious beliefs, then this is a problem.

That being said, I don't know that introducing another law is going to change things. I'm familiar with a few examples of public servants just ignoring their legal obligations because of their own private opinions.
It applies to all marriage officers. So the satanic gay crossdressing couple can get married by an iman in a mosque...
 
Top