Ekurhuleni residents have urged a delegation of MPs from the Home Affairs Portfolio Committee to include the cohabitation living arrangements - “vat-en-sit” - in the Marriage Bill.
“Vat-en-sit” relationships have become common place where couples cohabit as though married, without taking the traditional step of paying lobola before entering into marriage.
The committee has started public hearings in Gauteng on the Bill, and the group in Ekurhuleni held its engagement at the Vosloorus Civic Centre Community Hall.
According to the committee in Ekurhuleni, participants acknowledged the importance of marriage but highlighted that many people cohabit without being married, leaving them legally vulnerable.
The Bill is a proposed law that seeks to recognise all marriages, including customary unions, solemnised and register marriages, as well as address the consequences of marriage and its dissolution, provide for offences, and also establish requirements for monogamous and polygamous marriages.
It was tabled in Parliament on December 13, 2023, in a bid to ensure that all marriages were treated equally.
“They argued that due to a lack of legal protection of this living arrangement, many women and children are put at risk when the arrangement is dissolved, either by separation or death.
“They argued strongly that the committee considers including provisions that will protect property and other rights of partners in this living arrangement,” the committee said.
Despite receiving mixed reviews, the Bill garnered both support and opposition.
However, the prevailing consensus was that it represented a necessary intervention to prevent the state from unjustly discriminating against individuals based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or cultural beliefs.
Proponents of the Bill emphasised that it would promote equality and ensure the recognition of all marriages within the country.
Additionally, they welcomed the expansion of the categories of marriage officers, arguing that this aligned with constitutional principles of non-discrimination and reflected the diversity of society.
Supporters argued that setting the legal age requirement to 18 aligns with international standards and the Children’s Act, helping protect children from exploitation and forced child marriage.
Supporters, however, contended that the penalties outlined in Section 17 are insufficient and could be circumvented by individuals with significant financial resources.
They advocated for stricter measures, including imprisonment for anyone who marries a person under the age of 18.
Meanwhile, the Bill's opponents claimed that it did not sufficiently handle weddings of all kinds, especially Muslim marriages.
They argued that the legal loopholes in recognising Muslim marriages are not adequately addressed by the Bill.
The Bill should contain explicit measures and changes to provide proper legal recognition of all marriage forms, according to critics, because Muslim women continue to face prejudice in marriage.
They voiced worry that there would be ongoing legal ambiguity around the rights of those involved in Muslim marriages as a result of the draft Bill's lack of specific references to them.
Furthermore, others called for a clearer explanation of some of the inadequacies within the Bill.