[102]In Du Plessis v Road Accident Fund[1] that this Court extended the action for loss of support to partners in a same-sex permanent life relationship similar in other respects to marriage, who had a contractual duty to support one another. Cloete JA said[2] that this extension would be ‘an incremental step to ensure that the common law accords with the dynamic and evolving fabric of our society as reflected in the Constitution, recent legislation and judicial pronouncements.’
Would the extension of the common law definition of marriage to allow persons of the same sex to marry constitute an incremental step or is the problem one more appropriately to be solved by the legislature?
[103]Counsel for the respondents contended that the step which the appellants ask the Court to take is not merely an incremental one but one which would require a fundamental rewriting of important aspects of what can be described as the essence of marriage. He incorporated in his argument portion of the submissions advanced by Counsel for the Attorney General of
