THE Daily Dispatch was very proud on Monday to carry the first picture on its weddings page of the marriage of two women to each other. We were proud that Maxi and Abigail Lottering had chosen this newspaper to announce their marriage to the world and we were proud of the constitution that has made it possible for them to do so.
We carried the picture in the full knowledge that it would challenge some readers, whose interpretation of their faiths deems such a union unholy, and looked forward to the debate it would trigger. It was and remains our conviction that it is through public discussion of such issues that we will make our society more humane, caring and secure.
Our decision was made also with respect for the views of those who find gay marriage difficult to accept. We assume that those who find the concept offensive will have given deep thought to the issue and will have decided to reject it on the basis of honest introspection.
We assume that Vuyolwethu Matshele, who wrote to object to the use of the picture, did so after similar consideration, and we welcome her passionate explanation of her determination to “do all possible to protect the sanctity of the sacred and beautiful act of marriage”.
Clearly, Beverley Lottering, who wrote to defend her daughter Maxi’s choice, has had time and reason to think through the issue of gay marriage.
“Maxi and Abi have been an inspiration to other gay people to stop hiding away. There is nothing to be ashamed of,” she wrote.
This discussion may run for a few more days in the pages of the Dispatch. We will use as many respectful and thoughtful contributions as we can in an effort to help each side to understand and to accept the position of the other.
In our view, it is acceptance that we need as a community and as a nation to strive for and to encourage.
Perhaps one day those who feel gay marriage is wrong will accept that others can and are entitled to hold a different view. And perhaps those who celebrate same-sex unions will, if they do not already do so, concede the right of moral rejection to those of a different persuasion.
This newspaper will, as in all public issues, be guided by the wisdom of our constitution and its interpretation by the Constitutional Court, which in 2006 confirmed the right of gay couples to marry or to form a civil union.
Gay marriage is not an obligation, it is a right to be freely exercised only by those who want to do so.
It is a new right that has brought great happiness for many and one that should offend only those who would wish to impose their own interpretation of morality or the scriptures on others.
A union to be proud of
We carried the picture in the full knowledge that it would challenge some readers, whose interpretation of their faiths deems such a union unholy, and looked forward to the debate it would trigger. It was and remains our conviction that it is through public discussion of such issues that we will make our society more humane, caring and secure.
Our decision was made also with respect for the views of those who find gay marriage difficult to accept. We assume that those who find the concept offensive will have given deep thought to the issue and will have decided to reject it on the basis of honest introspection.
We assume that Vuyolwethu Matshele, who wrote to object to the use of the picture, did so after similar consideration, and we welcome her passionate explanation of her determination to “do all possible to protect the sanctity of the sacred and beautiful act of marriage”.
Clearly, Beverley Lottering, who wrote to defend her daughter Maxi’s choice, has had time and reason to think through the issue of gay marriage.
“Maxi and Abi have been an inspiration to other gay people to stop hiding away. There is nothing to be ashamed of,” she wrote.
This discussion may run for a few more days in the pages of the Dispatch. We will use as many respectful and thoughtful contributions as we can in an effort to help each side to understand and to accept the position of the other.
In our view, it is acceptance that we need as a community and as a nation to strive for and to encourage.
Perhaps one day those who feel gay marriage is wrong will accept that others can and are entitled to hold a different view. And perhaps those who celebrate same-sex unions will, if they do not already do so, concede the right of moral rejection to those of a different persuasion.
This newspaper will, as in all public issues, be guided by the wisdom of our constitution and its interpretation by the Constitutional Court, which in 2006 confirmed the right of gay couples to marry or to form a civil union.
Gay marriage is not an obligation, it is a right to be freely exercised only by those who want to do so.
It is a new right that has brought great happiness for many and one that should offend only those who would wish to impose their own interpretation of morality or the scriptures on others.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos