humanity to have their families and family lives in such same-sex relationships respected or protected. It serves in addition to perpetuate and reinforce existing prejudices and stereotypes. The impact constitutes a crass, blunt, cruel and serious invasion of their dignity. The discrimination, based on sexual orientation, is severe because no concern, let alone anything approaching equal concern, is shown for the particular sexual orientation of gays and lesbians.”[1]
The judgment adds that protecting the traditional institution of marriage as recognised by law may not be done in a way which unjustifiably limits the constitutional rights of partners in a permanent same-sex life partnership.[2]
[55]Having pronounced unambiguously on the issues before it, the judgment goes on to say that it expressly leaves open two questions, the first relating to the position of unmarried partners in permanent heterosexual relationships, and the second “whether, or to what extent, the law ought to give formal institutional recognition to same-sex partnerships”.[3] In other words, it stopped short of considering whether some form of global or umbrella institutional recognition should be given to same-sex partnerships, an issue which had not been raised in that matter and was not before it, but which is before us.
[56]In Satchwell,[4] the issue was whether the non-inclusion of same-sex partners in a statute providing pension rights to the surviving spouses of Judges was
- ↑ Id at para 54.
- ↑ Id at para 55.
- ↑ Id at para 60.
- ↑ Satchwell v President of the Republic of South Africa and Another 2002 (6) SA 1 (CC); 2002 (9) BCLR 986 (CC).
