adminZvamaida Murwira Senior Reporter
Female Members of Parliament have thrown their weight behind a clause in the Marriages Bill allowing civil partnerships in matrimonial relationship, saying it was wrong for people to believe that it sought to destroy unions.
Women legislators implored the Government to reconsider its bid to withdraw Clause 40 which allowed for civil unions, saying those who denounced it did not understand its noble objective.
This came out during the Second Reading stage of the Marriages Bill in the National Assembly on Tuesday.
Proportional Representative MP, Ms Lindiwe Maphosa (MDC-Alliance), said it was wrong to suggest that the Bill encouraged cohabiting and extra-marital affairs, but acknowledged the existence of such unions and sought to protect women during property distribution upon their dissolution.
“It was interpreted in a way to say this Bill would destroy marriages, which were there, which is not true. This clause was put in place to protect those women who found themselves in situations whereby when they go to court, they have no standing to defend themselves on what they would have gone through during the tenure on which they were in that relationship,” said Ms Maphosa.
“Mr Speaker Sir, there was nowhere in this clause where side chicks or homosexuals are encouraged. All this Bill was trying to do was acknowledge that these things are happening, that there are women out there who have children with men who have deserted them or women who would have gotten married, bore children and acquired assets with their partners but the union was not registered and when the man dies they lose everything to their partner’s relatives because they will claim that they do not know her because no lobola was paid for her.”
She said the Government should reconsider withdrawing the clause because there were many women losing property because they are in unregistered unions.
Another female MP, Ms Priscila Misihairabwi-Mushonga (MDC) said the Government should not have rushed to announce that it wanted to withdraw the clause, but instead should have allowed debate to ensue in Parliament.
She said most women were quick to denounce the clause because some people made it to appear as if it was promoting “small houses” and that women were at risk of losing their husbands, to mask its underlying noble objectives. She said efforts to remove the clause were orchestrated by men who did not want to commit themselves to unions for fear of being held accountable.
Online Reporter