Starkly put, if ever there was a naturalistic and historical argument to be made for the sanctity of marriage, this is it.
It is declared that the common-law offence of sodomy is inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa It is declared that the common-law offence of commission of an unnatural sexual act is inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa to the extent that it criminalises acts committed by a man or between men which, if committed by a woman or between women or between a man and a woman, would not constitute an offence.
It is declared that section 20A of the Sexual Offences Act, is inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid. It is declared that the inclusion of sodomy as an item in Schedule 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act, is inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid. It is declared that the inclusion of sodomy as an item in the Schedule to the Security Officers Act, is inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid.
The aforementioned orders, in so far as they declare provisions of Acts of Parliament invalid, are referred to the Constitutional Court for confirmation in terms of section 2 a of Act of I shall deal later with the problems that can arise because the Constitution makes no provision for an obligatory referral in such cases.
The second applicant is the South African Human Rights Commission which functions under section of the Constitution. Initially the applicants sought the following relief in the High Court: The first respondent initially opposed the application on very limited grounds.
When, however, the applicants withdrew their prayers h and j above, before the hearing in the High Court commenced, the first respondent withdrew such opposition and consequently no order for costs was sought by the applicants.
At a later stage of the High Court proceedings, the applicants abandoned the relief sought in prayers b and d.
Without abandoning the relief sought in prayer fthe applicants did not pursue such relief in the High Court because they were of the view that only the Constitutional Court had jurisdiction to grant relief having the generalised effect of this prayer.
These matters are alluded to because of the difficulties arising from the orders sought from this Court, which will be dealt with later in this judgment. The Centre for Applied Legal Studies was admitted as amicus curiae under rule 9, lodged heads of argument and was allowed to present oral argument before the Court.
The effect of the inclusion of the offence of sodomy in Schedule 1 is, amongst other things, the following: The offence of sodomy is listed in such schedule.
The effect of the inclusion of the offence of sodomy in the Security Officers Act Schedule is the following: Both are relevant for issues to be dealt with later. Section 8 of the interim Constitution,  to the extent presently relevant, provided: To promote the achievement of equality, legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken.
National legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination. So too did Farlam J Ngcobo J concurring in S v K,  a case heavily relied on by Heher J in coming to the conclusion that the common law crime of sodomy ceased to exist after the coming into effect of the interim Constitution .
Before the new constitutional order came into operation in our country, the common law offence of sodomy differentiated between gays and heterosexuals and between gays and lesbians. It criminally proscribed sodomy between men and men, even in private between consenting adults, but not between men and women; nor did it proscribe intimate sexual acts in private between consenting adult women.
As far as there being any rational connection between such differentiation and a legitimate government purpose,  Heher J simply held that: He immediately proceeded to consider whether the offence of sodomy was justified under section 36 of the Constitution, without expressly considering the question whether, notwithstanding the presumption under section 9 3it had been established that the discrimination was fair.
Having found, under section 9 1 of the Constitution, that there was no connection between the differentiation involved in this offence and any legitimate governmental purpose, he immediately turned to the question of justification.
He concluded that there was no justification for maintaining the common law crime of committing an unnatural sexual act by a man or between men, if such act would not constitute an offence if committed by a woman, between women or between a man and a woman; and made a declaration of constitutional inconsistency accordingly.
As both are listed in section 9 3 unfairness is presumed, and without considering whether fairness had been established, Heher J immediately proceeded to consider whether the violation of section 9 could be justified under section The Constitutional Validity of the Common Law Offence of Sodomy  I shall for the moment deal only with sodomy which takes place in private between consenting males.
The long history relating to the ways in which the South African criminal common law differentiated in its treatment of gays as opposed to its treatment of heterosexuals and lesbians, prior to the passing of the interim Constitution, has already been dealt with in at least three judgments of the High Court.
Nor was any sexual act, in private, between consenting adult females so punishable. It is relevant to mention at this point that Mr Davis, who appeared for the amicus curiae, submitted that a more substantive interpretation should be given to the provisions of section 9 1 of the Constitution than this Court has given to the provisions of section 8 1 of the interim Constitution.
Mr Davis did not suggest that the outcome of this referral should be other than supported by Mr Marcus.
His argument went to the reasoning used to arrive at that result. I shall deal with these submissions later in this judgment. Such discrimination is unfair: The drafters realised that it was necessary both to proscribe such forms of discrimination and to permit positive steps to redress the effects of such discrimination.
The need to prohibit such patterns of discrimination and to remedy their results are the primary purposes of section 8 and, in particular, subsections 23 and 4. In Harksen the approach was summarised as follows: If so, does the differentiation bear a rational connection to a legitimate government purpose?
If it does not then there is a violation of section 8 1.Physicians' Top 20 Ethical Dilemmas - Survey Results Slideshow and the quality of life is poor rather than if there's no hope but some quality, or if there is some hope but the quality of life.
Ethics are for those who believe in dealing with others in a respectful and thoughtful way.
Morals are simple guidelines staked out along the path of life to guide the individual clear of the edge of the abyss. On "BreakPoint This Week," John Stonestreet and co-host Ed Stetzer host a weekly conversation with leading Christian writers and thinkers.
These compelling discussions cover a wide variety of topics, but center on the issues shaping our culture. Abandoning Faith and Morals The Declines of the Mainlines.
Life and Human Dignity, The Point. judging from your description of yourself as a working-man, I venture to think that you will have a much better chance of success in life by remaining in your own sphere and sticking to your trade than by adopting any other course.
EsinIslam Ramadan Explorer. Khalaf Ahmad Mahmoud In light of disintegration and separation which overshadowed our families, materialism, and egoism, comes the blessed month of Ram. RULES of NO CONTACT. 1. To keep my sanity and totally end this relationship, I must maintain NO CONTACT.
2. No Contact includes every single form of contact with him/her.. 2a. This also includes NOT asking my friends/family about him/her and not letting friends/family tell me about him/her.