The development of South African matrimonial law with specific reference to the need for and application of a domestic partnership rubric
| dc.contributor.advisor | Brand, F. D. J. | |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Robinson, J. A. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Smith, Bradley Shaun | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2015-11-13T08:46:42Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2015-11-13T08:46:42Z | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2009-11 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2009-11 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2009-11 | |
| dc.description.abstract | English: In strictly adhering to the concept of marriage inherited from the Western legal tradition, pre-1994 South African family law paid scant regard to marriages other than monogamous heterosexual civil marriages, while the common law provided no express legal recognition for unmarried life or domestic partnerships. The advent of the democratic constitutional era in 1994 however spawned a flurry of legal development that broadened the notion of marriage by recognising customary marriages as well as certain consequences of marriages concluded according to the tenets of a recognised faith such as Islam. Commencing with the watershed National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality cases,1 the legal position in which same-sex life partners found themselves was also dramatically improved by a number of ad hoc judicial pronouncements which extended certain consequences of marriage to such partners on the premise that they were at the time precluded from marrying one another. The flipside of this premise—namely that heterosexual life partners have always been permitted to marry one another and thus cannot request an extension of matrimonial (property) law where they have exercised a choice not to marry (the so-called “choice argument”)—was, however, to constitute the major justification for the judiciary’s refusal to extend similar recognition to heterosexual life partners. The application of this line of reasoning has implied that, within little more than a decade into the democratic constitutional dispensation, same-sex life partners ostensibly enjoy better legal protection and recognition of their relationships than their heterosexual counterparts. This state of affairs implies that the current legal position regarding unmarried life partners is inconsistent and fraught with anomalous legal consequences. Over and above the judicial developments, post-1994 legislation has also provided increasing recognition for unmarried life partners. However, as was the case with the judicial developments, the legislative developments were also merely piecemeal in nature. The upshot of this state of affairs is that interpersonal relationships in South Africa are governed by “a patchwork of laws that did not [and still do not] express a coherent set of family law rules.”2 While the validation of same-sex marriages by way of the promulgation of the Civil Union Act 17 of 2006 was a salutary development from a human rights perspective, this development has created difficulties of its own. To begin with, the validation of samesex marriage implies, strictu sensu, that the “choice argument” applies equally to samesex couples who elect not to marry one another. This entails that such couples could potentially be deprived of the consortium omnis vitae that the Courts have in principle found to exist between them and that they may no longer be able to rely on the piecemeal judicial extensions granted by the Courts prior to 30 November 2006 (the day on which same-sex marriage became permissible). The legal position in this regard however remains unclear. In addition, the validation of same-sex marriage has been accomplished by way of legislation that not only requires same-sex couples to marry one another in terms of separate legislation but that also further overcomplicates the legal landscape by providing for “civil unions” that can take the form of either marriages or civil partnerships. As such, no legislation has as yet been enacted that deals with the position of life or domestic partners per se. In January 2008 a draft Domestic Partnerships Bill, 2008 saw the light of day. Using this Bill as a prototype, this study attempts—by applying a domestic partnership rubric that requires the modification of the Bill and its calibration with attendant legislation—to iron out the inconsistencies and anomalies alluded to above by providing effective domestic partnership legislation. In order to achieve this, an in-depth analysis of case law, legislation and common law is conducted with a view to establishing certain fundamental principles that ought not only to feature in the domestic partnerships legislation itself, but which are also required in order to facilitate the Bill’s alignment with applicable legislation. In the light of the modified Bill, the study concludes with an evaluation of the case for retaining the Civil Union Act 17 of 2006. In the final analysis, the conclusion is reached that the enactment of the Domestic Partnerships Bill as developed in accordance with the rubric, coupled with the repeal of the Civil Union Act 17 of 2006, will provide a more consistent, coherent and less complex legal framework within which interpersonal relationships in South Africa can be regulated. | en_ZA |
| dc.description.abstract | Afrikaans: Deur die huweliksbegrip soos van die Westerse regstradisie geërf streng na te volg, het die Suid-Afrikaanse familiereg voor 1994 wynig aandag aan ander huwelike dan die heteroseksuele monogame siviele huwelik gegee. Die gemenereg het geen uitdruklike erkenning aan buite-egtelike lewensverhoudings (oftewel huishoudelike deelgenootskappe) verleen nie. Die koms van die demokratiese grondwetlike bestel in 1994 het egter ‘n vlaag van regsontwikkeling ontketen. Die huweliksbegrip is verbreed deur onder andere die erkenning van gebruiklike huwelike, asook die erkenning van sekere regsgevolge van huwelike wat ingevolge erkende geloofstelsels soos Islam gesluit is. Na aanleiding van die waterskeidende National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality-sake4 is die posisie waarin homoseksuele lewensmaats hulself bevind het stelselmatig deur ‘n aantal ad hoc hofuitsprake waarin sekere gevolge van huweliksluiting na sodanige verhoudings uitgebrei is, aansienlik verbeter. Die uitgangspunt vir hierdie ontwikkeling was die feit dat partye van dieselfde geslag op daardie stadium nie regtens met mekaar kon trou nie. Die omgekeerde van hierdie uitgangspunt—dat heteroseksuele lewensmaats nog altyd die keuse gehad het om met mekaar in die huwelik te tree en derhalwe nie geregtig kan wees om te versoek dat die huweliks(goedere)reg na hul verhouding uitgebrei kan word waar hulle gekies het om nie te trou nie (die sogenaamde “keuse-argument”)—was die vernaamste rede vir die howe se weiering om soortgelyke erkenning aan heterosekuele lewensverhoudings te gee. ‘n Uitvloeisel van die toepassing van hierdie redenasie is dat homoseksuele lewensmaats, binne net meer as ‘n dekade van die bestaan van die demokratiese grondwetlike bestel, skynbaar beter regsbeskerming en -erkenning van hul verhoudings geniet as dié van hul heteroseksuele eweknieë. Hierdie stand van sake impliseer dat die huidige regsposisie ten aansien van ongetroude lewensvershoudings deurspek is met inkonsekwensies en onreëlmatighede. Bo- en behalwe die ontwikkeling wat deur die howe na 1994 teweeggebring is het die wetgewer ook toenemende erkenning aan ongetroude lewensmaats verleen. Soos in die geval van die regsprekende ontwikkelings is die wetgewende ontwikkelings ook slegs stuksgewys van aard. Die uiteinde van hierdie toedrag van sake is dat lewensverhoudings in Suid-Afrika deur ““a patchwork of laws that did not [and still do not] express a coherent set of family law rules”5 gereguleer word. Terwyl die wettiging van homoseksuele huwelike deur middel van die Civil Union Act 17 van 2006 ‘n gesonde ontwikkeling vanaf ‘n menseregte oogpunt was, het hierdie ontwikkeling probleme van sy eie veroorsaak: Eerstens impliseer die wettiging van homoseksuele huwelike dat die “keuse argument” strictu sensu ook op homoseksuele lewensmaats wat besluit om nie in die huwelik te tree nie, van toepassing is. Hierdie argument kan veroorsaak dat die consortium omnis vitae wat die howe reeds in beginsel tussen sodanige lewensmaats erken het, asook die stuksgewyse uitbreiding van die huweliksreg na sodanige verhoudings wat voor 30 November 2006 (die datum waarop die sluiting van homoseksuele huwelike moontlik geword het) plaasgevind het, verval. Die regsposisie in hierdie verband is egter steeds onduidelik. Die wettiging van homoseksuele huwelike is voorts deur wetgewing teweeggebring wat nie alleen van homoseksuele pare vereis om ingevolge aparte wetgewing te trou nie, maar wat ook die regsterrein oorkompliseer deur vir “civil unions” voorsiening te maak, wat die vorm van óf ‘n huwelik óf ‘n “civil partnership” kan aanneem. Daar bestaan as sodanig geen wetgewing om lewensverhoudings per se te reguleer nie. In Januarie 2008 het ‘n konsep Domestic Partnerships Bill die lig gesien. Deur hierdie konsepwet as ‘n grondbeeld te gebruik, poog hierdie studie om—deur middel van die toepassing van ‘n huishoudelike deelgenootskapsrubriek wat aanpassing van die konsepwet en die belyning daarvan met relevante wetgewing vereis—die inkonsekwensies en onreëlmatighede waarna vroeër verwys, is uit die weg te ruim deur die daarstelling van doeltreffende huishoudelike deelgenootskapswetgewing. Ten einde dit te bewerkstellig word ‘n in-diepte ondersoek na regspraak, wetgewing en die gemenereg onderneem met die oog op die vasstelling van grondliggende beginsels wat nie net in die huishoudelike deelgenootskapswetgewing ingesluit behoort te word nie, maar ook die belyning daarvan met toepaslike wetgewing sal bewerkstellig. In die lig van die gewysigde konsepwet, sluit die studie af met ‘n evaluering van die argument ten gunste van die behoud van die Civil Union Act 17 van 2006. Daar word tot die slotsom gekom dat die promulgering van die Domestic Partnerships Bill (soos deur die rubriek aangepas), tesame met die herroeping van die Civil Union Wet 17 van 2006, ‘n meer konsekwente, samehangende en eenvoudige regsraamwerk waarbinne lewensverhoudings gereguleer kan word, daar sal stel. | af |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11660/1645 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_ZA |
| dc.publisher | University of the Free State | en_ZA |
| dc.rights.holder | University of the Free State | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Common-law marriage | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Putative marriage | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Consortium omnis vitae | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Models of marriage | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Choice argument | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Contextualised choice model | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Reciprocal duty of support | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Life partnership agreement | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Rubric | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Purely religious marriage | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Customary marriage | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Civil marriage | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Civil partnership | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Civil union | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Cohabitation Domestic Partnerships Bil,l 2008 | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Unregistered domestic partnership | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Registered domestic partnership | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Universal partnership | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Life partnership | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Domestic partnership | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Husband and wife -- South Africa | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Gay couples -- Legal status, laws etc. -- South Africa | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Thesis (LL.D. (Private Law))--University of the Free State, 2009 | en_ZA |
| dc.title | The development of South African matrimonial law with specific reference to the need for and application of a domestic partnership rubric | en_ZA |
| dc.type | Thesis | en_ZA |