Madam Deputy Speaker, at lunch time today members rejected the 16th constitutional amendment proposed by the ACDP in the Standing Committee on Private Members' Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions. Whilst we are grateful to the chairperson that this matter was prioritised, we regret that our recommendation was not accepted.
The ACDP rejects prior arguments that we would be going back to pre-1996 days should we amend the Constitution as proposed. This argument flies in the face of this government's approach to 12 other constitutional amendments and, in particular, to that relating to floor-crossing. It is well known that the Constitutional Court, in the certification judgment, found floor-crossing undesirable. In the UDM case, which we participated in, the court again rejected floor-crossing legislation for not having been passed in time.
The ANC was quick to pass the constitutional amendment then to allow floor- crossing. We are now considering a further proposal to amend the Constitution again to disallow floor-crossing.
The ACDP proposed that section 39 of the Constitution be amended to read, "the Constitution shall be interpreted to mean that a marriage is a voluntary union of a man and a woman".
Our view is supported by many millions of South Africans represented by the Marriage Alliance, the National House of Traditional Leaders, the Congress of Traditional Leaders of SA and numerous others. Internationally, many states have passed similar amendments to their constitutions. The Californian High Court, for example, upheld a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, and noted that the people - and not the court - through legal fiat, should make the law.
More pertinently, African countries such as Uganda and Nigeria have adopted legislation to protect traditional marriages, with Uganda amending its constitution. Thank you.