because sexual orientation is specifically listed in the Bill of Rights, but on wider grounds of dignity and privacy.[1] Same-sex partners have been held to be entitled to access to statutory health insurance schemes.[2] The right of permanent same-sex partners to equal spousal benefits provided in legislation has been asserted.[3] The protection and nurturance same-sex partners can jointly offer children in need of adoption has been put on equal footing with heterosexual couples.[4] The right of a same-sex partner not giving birth to a child conceived by artificial insemination to become the legitimate parent of the child has been confirmed.[5] The equal right of same-sex partners to beneficial immigrant status has been established.[6] And this Court has developed the common law by extending the spouse's action for loss of support to partners in permanent same-sex life relationships.[7]
[13]The importance of these cases lies not merely in what they decided, but in the far-reaching doctrines of dignity, equality
- ↑ National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Justice 1999 (1) SA 6 (CC) paras 28–32, per Ackermann J for the Court; paras 108–129, per Sachs J (with whose sentiments Ackermann J associated himself—para 78).
- ↑ Langemaat v Minister of Safety and Security 1998 (3) SA 312 (T), per Roux J.
- ↑ Satchwell v President of the Republic of South Africa 2002 (6) SA 1 (CC), per Madala J for the Court.
- ↑ Du Toit v Minister of Welfare and Population Development 2003 (2) SA 198 (CC), per Skweyiya AJ for the Court.
- ↑ J v Director General: Department of Home Affairs 2003 (5) SA 621 (CC), per Goldstone J for the Court.
- ↑ National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Home Affairs 2000 (2) SA 1 (CC), per Ackermann J for the Court.
- ↑ Du Plessis v Road Accident Fund 2004 (1) SA 359 (SCA), per Cloete JA for the Court.
