admin
Pamela Shumba, Senior Reporter
Bulawayo residents yesterday expressed mixed feelings towards a civil partnership clause that was removed by Cabinet in the Marriages Bill, with some saying it should be totally removed while others think some clauses in the section should be considered for the sake of children born out of wedlock.
Speaking during a consultative meeting, some residents said while section 40 of the Bill might seem to encourage civil partnerships, it also protects women in customary marriage and children born out of wedlock.
Cabinet, however, withdrew a clause in the Marriages Amendment Bill that provided for “civil partnership”, saying such a union was alien and not consistent with the country’s cultural and Christian values.
Section 40 provides as follows: “A relationship between a man and a woman who — (a) are both over the age of 18 years; and (b) have lived together without legally being married to each other; and (c) are not within the degrees of affinity or consanguinity as provided in section 7; and (d) having regard to all the circumstances of their relationship, have a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis.”
Mr Justice Zvaita said the section should be carefully looked into and take into consideration children born out of wedlock.
“Civil partnerships should not be recognised as marriages but children born out of wedlock deserve a fair share of the property owned by their parents.
“This section caters for all the problems we’re grappling with in marriages now. It’s not the whole section that should be removed but a few things that need to be amended,” said Mr Zvaita.
He said it was important for women in civil partnerships to ensure that property bought is registered in their names so that they don’t lose out in case of disputes.
“Women have to register properties in their names because when it comes to disputes it’s difficult to prove that they contributed to the buying of the property if the property is not registered in their names.
“The Bill should therefore make sure that privilege of property is clear to all of us,” said Mr Zvaita.
Miss Petronella Tshuma said while the civil partnership had errors, it had certain clauses that protect women married under customary law.
“If we remove section 40 it means that we’re exposing the woman married under customary marriage.
Such women should be protected and enjoy same rights as those with registered marriages.
“In the event of divorce, these women should be able to go to court and claim their property without any problems,” said Miss Tshuma.
Ms Beauty Mangena, disagreed, saying the country’s laws should only recognise one man one woman marriages and punish those who have relationship outside marriage.
“We grew up in a society that believes in a one man one woman union and our children have been taught the same thing.
“That section should be totally removed because we’ll live like animals. We can’t allow that in our communities,” said Ms Mangena.
Mr Christopher Dube said supporting civil partnerships will fuel the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and create more disputes among families.
“This section will cause a lot of problems for us. It defeats the purpose of marriage. It will encourage multiple partnerships, cause disputes and a rise in sexually transmitted diseases. It’s dangerous. I think it should be completely removed,” said Mr Dube. — @pamelashumbaa1
Bongani Ndlovu
Online Reporter