South Africans Split On Marriage Bill As Polygamy Sparks Concerns Of Gender Inequality

CAPE TOWN, South Africa, October 31, 2025/APO Group/ --

The Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs has concluded the Western Cape leg of public hearings on the Marriage Bill with mixed views received from residents of the greater City of Cape Town Metropolitan Municipality. The committee held the last hearing in the Western Cape at the OR Tambo hall in Khayelitsha.

With the recognition of polygamous marriages being one of the contentious clauses for residents, some participants argued that in passing the bill as it is, Parliament will perpetuate gender-based violence, as women in South Africa remain in a weak position to negotiate, either financially or physically. As a result, participants argued that women will be coerced into agreeing to enter a polygamous marriage.

Also, participants from faith-based organisations argued that marriage, according to their teachings and values recognises marriage as being between “one woman and one man”. Thus, the recognition of polygamy directly contradicts their teachings and values, hence the opposition to the bill.

There was also a concern that the bill perpetuates gender inequality, in that by recognising polygamy and its silence on polyandry marriages it discriminates against women and undermines the provision of equality in the Constitution.

There were also diverse views on the recognition of same sex marriages, with some participants highlighting that every South African is entitled to the protection of their right to marry whomever they choose. The opposing view from faith-based organisations was that same sex marriage is not in line with cultural and religious beliefs and represented “state recognised fraud”, which they were unwilling to accept.

There was also widespread agreement about the increase in the legal age of consent from 18 years to 21, as participants argued that marriage requires a level of maturity that an 18-year-old does not possess.

Meanwhile, some Islamic organisations called for a rethink of the Marriage Bill, as they are of the view that it contradicts the Department of Home Affairs’ own green paper, which says that a single marriage statute would be unconstitutional. This, they argue, is because the Constitution says the people of South Africa are united in their diversity, but the Marriage Bill undermines the recognition of South Africa’s diversity. Participants further argued that the bill forces everyone to be united under one law and does not recognise diversity of religions and cultures in South Africa.

With a balance of views supporting or rejecting the bill, some participants argued that the bill should include recognition of cohabiting partners to protect their property rights, which are often disregarded when one partner passes away.

Meanwhile, there was a concern that the bill makes the registration of customary marriages compulsory, which might negatively affect partners who do not register their marriage. Participants argued that consideration should be made to prevent having a law-making registration mandatory.

With the completion of the Western Cape public participation process, the committee is left with Limpopo as the last province where provincial public participation will be undertaken. The committee intends to undertake the hearings sometime in November and the dates and venues will be communicated in due course.