Who is affected
This bill directly impacts South Africans whose personal and religious convictions define marriage as a sacred, lifelong union between one man and one woman. For the 85% of the population who identify as Christian, the proposed Marriage Bill undermines this foundational belief by redefining marriage to include multiple types of unions under a single legal framework. It also affects magistrates and marriage officers whose freedom of conscience and religious belief would be violated if compelled to officiate unions contrary to their faith. Families, particularly those grounded in traditional and Biblical marriage values, face a potential erosion of the legal and moral recognition of their convictions.

What is at stake
If the Marriage Bill [B43–2023] passes as written, South Africa risks diluting the meaning of marriage and disregarding long-held cultural and religious principles. The legal merging of fundamentally different unions under one act could blur the moral and social foundation on which families are built. Failing to preserve distinct frameworks for customary, civil, and same-sex unions not only disrespects diversity but could accelerate the breakdown of the family unit, increase social instability, and further distance the state from the values of the majority it serves. Upholding the traditional definition of marriage protects the integrity of both faith and family.

Why now is the time to act
Parliament is currently considering the Marriage Bill, and immediate public input can still influence its outcome. Once enacted, it will be difficult to reverse its social and moral consequences. South Africa already faces widespread family breakdown and moral decline—now is the moment to reinforce, not weaken, the institution of marriage. Citizens must make their voices heard to ensure that legislation reflects the convictions of the people it governs, respects freedom of belief, and preserves the foundational structures of society.

Letter

The Chairperson
Portfolio Committee: Home Affairs
PARLIAMENT
MARRIAGE BILL: [B43 – 2023]

1. The undersigned, confessing Christians from different denominations took notice of the Marriage Bill [B43 – 2023], and submit the following views for your consideration. We do not address all provisions of the Bill and focus only on those that conflict with our values and convictions.
2. According to Statistics SA (Census 2022) 85,3% of the South African population professes the Christian faith. Therefore, we suggest that the Portfolio Committee take notice of those provisions in the Marriage Bill that conflict with the convictions of such a large majority of South Africans.
3. According to the Bible, marriage is a life-long union of one man and one woman. Most other cultures and religions also subscribe to this definition of marriage. Any other union that the state may choose to recognise for legal purposes cannot be called a marriage without offending the Biblical definition of marriage.
4. We are therefore of the opinion that a single Act recognising different unions as marriages is not desirable or feasible. In a diverse society like South Africa different arrangements must necessarily be made, as has been the case so far. It is not discriminatory to recognise diversity and we reject any view that different arrangements for different unions are discriminatory, or violate the equality or dignity of people, as implied in the Preamble to the Bill.
5. It is also not the place of the state to abolish the accepted view of marriage and offend the large majority of society simply for the sake of uniformity. We therefore do not agree that the Bill should lump together the arrangements for different unions and replace the existing laws on different unions.
6. Example 1: Customary marriages are recognised in terms of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998. If the state wishes to make other arrangements in respect of polygamous marriages (which apply only to customary marriages), that Act should be amended, rather than to force it into this Bill. We emphasise, polygamous marriages are inconsistent with the Biblical view of marriage. If the Bill means that anybody else than persons who live under customary law may now also enter into polygamous marriages, we reject the Bill on this point.
7. Example 2: The Civil Union Act 17 of 2006 provides for unions between persons of the same sex. It is one thing for the state to recognise such unions for legal purposes, but it is a completely different matter to call such a union a marriage. Such a union can, with respect, never be called a marriage. It was therefore proper for the state to adopt a separate Act. If the state wants to further regulate such unions, it should amend that Act and not try and force it into one Marriage Bill.
8. The Bill excludes the right of a magistrate or other official marriage officer to refuse to solemnise a marriage that would be against their conscience, religion or belief (section 11(4)). This is a violation of the right of such officers to freedom of religion and belief.
9. We are concerned about the absolute prohibition of marriages where one or both parties are under 18. We accept the prohibition is to protect minors, but if no exceptions are allowed, it will have the opposite effect and indeed lead to ―
   1. more unmarried mothers who then become dependent on the state;
   2. and/or an increase in the abomination of abortion;
   3. and to the further dismantling of marriage as institution because people will choose to live together instead.
10. By recognising different unions as marriage and lumping them together in one Act, this Bill will cause the institution of marriage great harm. In a time of large-scale broken families, babies born out of wedlock and abortion of unborn babies, the state should go out of its way to respect, protect and promote marriage instead of proposing measures that, even if unintended, will break down marriage. The Bill is not in the best interest of the people of South Africa.
11. For these reasons we the undersigned oppose the Marriage Bill [B43-2023].