Sasha Louw

I would like to begin by saying that my argument here is not about homosexuality. It is not about whether homosexuality is right or wrong.  My argument is about marriage. Let us consider the following illustration. A couple has been dating for a while. They announce their engagement and are later married. What is the question that soon follows the wedding ceremony? The question, without fail, is “so, when are the kids coming?”  There is a reason for this. Inherently, as a society, we understand that once a man and woman make their vows, a measure of permanence and weightiness enters the relationship, which acts to bind the man and woman to each other in a way that other stages of the relationship did not.

 Marriage is a specific thing. 

It carries certain meaning to it. In the future, it is this bond that provides much-needed stability to the children who are likely to come of the union.  Marriage between biological parents is the vehicle with which we offer these developing humans the best outcomes. It is also the institution that best secures the natural right of the child to its own mother and father.  Additionally, the state recognises marriage, whereas it does not legally recognise any other unions. The reason for this is that the state has a vested interest in this very unique union. Why is that?   It is because the properties of this union offer the best outcomes for children – children, who will become either productive citizens, contributing to the overall stability and continuity necessary to society. 

Moreover, children who, as adults, will suffer from a number of social pathologies that will cause them to take from the system more than they are able to give.  A significant factor that will determine the outcome will be the circumstances in which those children were raised. Marriage is good, not only for individuals, but it uniquely benefits our communities in its ability to contribute toward sustainability. What we are beginning to see here is that marriage is clearly a unique institution, and its relevance is rooted in the union between a man and woman, and their importance in the creation and caregiving of their offspring.

 While there have been cultures that have embraced the acts of homosexuality and other types of unions, and have even, at times, formalised these in some instances, the universal standard has prevailed that marriage belongs to one man and one woman.  One outcome of disregarding this reality is a loss of investment into marriage in its original form. Married heterosexuals need not hold to the core principles of their union because their union no longer means what we all understood it to mean.  When we begin to say that marriage can simply be a commitment based on emotion and can be obtained by all just as long as they want to be married, we weaken the potency it held in its original form: the form that best served individuals and society.  This seriously undermines the good that was to be brought about by traditional marriages. Another disadvantage is that it takes away freedom of religious or moral liberty. Most people hold to the opinion that marriage is something that belongs to a man and a woman – not a man and a man or a number of consenting persons or an adult and child – one man and one woman.  If we legalise marriage in any other form, we will force people to perform marriage ceremonies, bake wedding cakes or use the word “spouse” in a way that goes against their deepest-held beliefs.  Compelled speech is another concern. Forcing people into a situation where they must redefine and utter words that they do not believe in is honestly, disturbing. The will of a minority simply cannot dictate that the very foundations of the majority’s principles and understanding must be uprooted and that the very meaning and value placed on certain words be changed.  Legalising same-sex marriage in this country will ultimately lead to the legalisation of same-sex families as well. If the terms and roles of husband and wife can be erased, so can the terms and roles of mother and father. What begins to happen at this point is that the desires of adults will overrule the best interests and rights of children.  When same-sex partners procure a child through egg or sperm donorship – by default, the child has just been robbed of one biological parent.

 The loss of a parent is a deeply understood tragedy – except in these cases, where it is celebrated as the actualisation of human rights. For who? Not for the child. Marriage and the family best belong to the pair of persons it began with – one man and one woman.  We must realise the importance of conserving the wellbeing of our nation by upholding the true essence and nature of marriage and the family.  To sign a petition against the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex unions formalised outside our borders, follow this link: https://forms.gle/nnK2gosVZsGEns4V7 

*Sasha Louw is the founder of Conserve Namibia