March - November 1993 - Talks resumed at the MPNP and sexual orientation is debated
The only party to oppose the sexual orientation clause in the Interim Constitution was the ACDP. Kenneth Meshoe, its leader at the time explained that: “[Homosexuality] is a lifestyle that is unacceptable to the majority of South Africans, besides the fact that it is unChristian and anti all religion. It is against our culture as Africans, although we know that there are people introduced to this lifestyle. I’m sure that they are an embarrassment to their ancestors. This is a white man’s disease that has been introduced into the black culture. This definitely comes from Europe.”
The ANC’s proposal (as articulated in an amended version of the 1990 draft Bill of Rights)
“(1) Discrimination on the grounds of gender, single parenthood, legitimacy of birth or sexual orientation shall be unlawful.
(2) Legislation shall provide remedies for oppression, abuse, harassment or discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation.
(3) Educational institutions, the media, advertising and other social institutions shall be under a duty to discourage sexual and other types of stereotyping.”
The DP’s proposal
“2.1 Every person shall have the right to equal treatment, and there shall consequently be no discrimination, whether direct or indirect.
2.2 Discrimination means unjustified differentiation. Differentiation on the grounds of race, ethnic origin, colour, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, creed or conscience shall be presumed unjustified unless it is part of a rational programme intended to remedy substantial inequality.”
The IFP’s proposal
“All citizens have equal social dignity, shall be equal before the law and shall share an equal right of access to political, social, and economic opportunities irrespective of sexual orientation.
All citizens of the State of KwaZulu/Natal have equal social dignity, shall be equal before the law and shall share an equal right of access to political, social and economic opportunities irrespective of sex, race, colour, sexual orientation, language, traditions, creed, religion, political affiliation and belief, and social and personal status.”
The NP proposal
“[T]here shall be no discrimination on the ground of race, colour, language, sex, religion, ethnic origin, social class, birth, political or other views or any disability or other natural characteristic.” The NP also took the stance that only “government discrimination against [the listed] groups should … be prohibited,” which meant that gays and lesbians would not be protected from the most pervasive forms of discrimination, namely, by private persons and corporate institutions.
Civil society
Several citizen submissions to the Commission drafting the Interim Constitution expressed disapproval with the sexual orientation clause. After the first draft of the Interim Constitution was published for the public, reactions from citizen submissions were equal in favour and opposition.
“In the second stage [of] submissions … the inclusion of sexual orientation had subsided, with 564 petitions opposing, and 7 032 petitions supporting the inclusion of the clause in the bill of rights.”
Those opposing the sexual orientation clause feared that it would be interpreted to include bestiality or prostitution. Kevin Botha of the Equality Foundation assured citizens that “[the Foundation’s] research indicates that sexual orientation is the preferred terminology and is consistently employed in numerous jurisdictions to describe only the sexual orientation of heterosexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals.”
