Conspiracy Theory: Diamond in the rough
South Africa approves gay marriage
By Leela Pereira, senior writer

We are not too young to remember the apartheid. At the very least, we remember that it was unjust. We remember that it brought South Africa much pain, disunity and violence. South Africa remembers all too well: overriding the zeitgeist of moral judgment and religious zealotry, the South African parliament legalized gay marriage on Tuesday.

Gay marriage has little to do with apartheid, but everything to do with injustice. South Africa’s post-apartheid democracy aims to mend and amend the prejudices that plagued the nation for nearly 40 years. The South African constitution, reworked after apartheid ended, is unique for its defense of sexual orientation in addition to race, gender and religion. The new constitutional amendment is a democratic gem which surfaced in the struggle between the political left and right.

South African opinions regarding homosexuality and gay marriage are as disparate and fervent as those expressed in the United States. Certainly, the American handling of gay marriage a week ago did not augur the South African response. But the United States is far removed from its own infamous era of prejudice. Understandably, South Africa still licks its wounds, a mere 12 years after apartheid ended.

The beauty of parliament’s 430-to-41 ruling in favor of gay marriage is its realism.

South Africa’s parliamentary action reflects an adherence to the original aims of democracy, including a loyalty to and respect for the citizenry as a whole. The South African gay-marriage amendment upholds the right of any two citizens over the age of 18 to marry, but does not force acceptance of gay marriage or homosexuality down the throats of its citizens. A clause in South Africa’s gay-marriage amendment permits marriage officers to refuse to marry same-sex couples, if doing so conflicts with one’s principles, beliefs or religion.

The South African constitution is far from completion, but parliament’s approval of gay marriage signals another peg in the document’s egalitarian framework. “When we attained our democracy, we sought to distinguish ourselves from an unjust, painful past,” South African Home Affairs Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula said. Her words echo sentiments expressed by the framers of the American constitution.

In the years since its inception, the American constitution has been disturbingly misperceived as an aegis for religious or moral beliefs, rather than a guarantor of the people’s safety and basic rights. The inevitable overlap between crime and sin has muddled our judgment. While South Africa shrewdly recognizes the role of government in preserving the people’s unity, safety and liberties, the United States mires gay marriage in religious “zealpolitik.”

Perhaps one day, the pragmatism that inspired the U.S. Constitution will become obsolete. Perhaps the Constitution will one day shift to punish sin by addressing premarital sex or adultery, and reward hypocrisy by tolerating gays, but not their fundamental practice of sexual preference. Until then, the examples set by South Africa, Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain serve as a thoughtful reminder of democracy in its simplest and most genuine form. Anything else is fool’s gold.

Leela Pereira is a senior history major.