When our elected representatives crafted the equality clause in our Bill of Rights--which prohibits discrimination on a number of grounds, including race, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, and belief--there is no doubt that they were waging a battle with the human rights violations, injustice and racial discrimination of our past. However, they may not have realised that they were, at the same time, crafting a living instrument that compels us to acknowledge and to address new forms of discrimination and injustice as they emerge. Today the equality clause is facing one of its greatest tests as a result of a recent Constitutional Court ruling. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the current Marriage Act discriminates unfairly against lesbian and gay people by failing to recognise permanent same-sex relationships.

Against this backdrop, the heads of various Christian denominations will gather at the beginning of February to discuss same-sex unions. They will be joined by policy makers, legal experts, ethicists and Biblical scholars, in what is likely to be the first salvo in one of the most vigorous moral fist fights our young democracy has yet seen. This is an issue that has already caused much division within and among Christian churches; no single view can be depicted accurately as the "Church" perspective. Now, by giving Parliament an opportunity to decide how best to eliminate this brand of discrimination, the Court has invited the public to join the fray.

The tragedy of such disputes is that they often generate more emotional heat than reason, and in the process the core issues can be lost. If the recent rows over the issue of same-sex marriages in North America and Europe are anything to go by, we should not be surprised if South Africa's debate is beset by more fanaticism and militancy than any prior policy discussion. When people feel that their understanding of the world is unable to accommodate new realities, they often take refuge in fundamentalism and traditionalism.

Those who would be the moral guides of the nation must demonstrate their leadership by encouraging people to debate the matter with cool heads and warm hearts. The starting point of our discussion should be the core commitment of the Bill of Rights, namely the affirmation of the dignity and equality of all South Africans. The critical question should be whether our Bill of Rights erred in obliging the state to ensure that it does not practice unfair discrimination, even with respect to sexual orientation. Or put another way: should we expect the state not only to protect those disadvantaged by unfair discrimination but also to enable all to achieve and to enjoy equality? This broader vision requires the State progressively to expand, rather than to reduce, the scope for the expression of our rights and freedoms.

As we seek to define the parameters of the debate, we should also avoid the temptation to make religious scriptures the primary basis for the debate. Our diverse religious creeds, dogmas, traditions and customary practices will undoubtedly have relevance in the debate and will serve as touchstones and resources for many participants as we struggle to build consensus. But this is not essentially a theological debate. It is a debate about the values of our nation. The question is whether our laws and policies reflect our common ethical commitment to promoting human dignity, equality, and human rights?

Having said that, our policy makers would do well to remember that even though our government is a secular Constitutional democracy, many of our people still view their world through the eyes of faith. There is therefore an inseparable faith dimension to issues of marriage, gender relations and even sexual orientation matters. The parameters of the debate must also respect the faith concerns of our people.

Indeed, there is an unavoidable connection between respect for an individual's faith and respect for other aspects of his or her identity--including sexual orientation. Once we begin to pick holes in the fabric of human rights and dignity, it becomes that much easier to justify other breaches of broad principles.

Ultimately, the challenge will be to emerge from this debate more committed to a common set of democratic values that enables all South Africans to realise their full potential as human beings whilst also recognising and fostering our rich and diverse religious traditions. In this test, our policy makers will need to display the wisdom of Solomon. It would be a sad day for our young democracy if we shy from this challenge or retreat to a simplistic fundamentalism that inhibits the progressive recognition of rights and freedoms. Should we pass this test and still remain intact as a democracy and as faith communities committed to social justice, we would have further reason to be proud of ourselves as South Africans. Let the debate begin.

Rev. Dr. Molefe Tsele
General Secretary