Page:Gory v Kolver (HC).djvu/10

Rh married. In December 2004 homosexual people could not legally get married. Why would they get engaged? Their argument that the applicant's offer to buy the property on the basis that he is the owner of an undivided half share thereof contradicts his allegation that he is the heir is not correct. He claimed all along that he was the heir. Although he acceded to the first respondent's demands to hand over the movables and to move out of the property it was never accepted by him that he is not the heir. If he owned half of the property and he is the heir he inherits half of the property. If the property belonged to the deceased alone and he is the heir he inherits the whole property. How his offer to buy the property on the basis that he owns half thereof detracts from his claim to be the heir I do not understand. The result in my view is that it is evident that, if it was possible for the applicant and the deceased to get married, they would have got married. They could not get married. From their point of view the birthday party of 5 December 2004 was their public announcement of their commitment to one another. I have no hesitation to find that they assumed reciprocal duties of support.

Is section 1(1) of the Act inconsistent with the Constitution.

Before the judgment in Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie; Lesbian and Gay Equality Project, supra there were quite a number of judgments in various courts, in which the constitutional right to equality and the right not to be discriminated against were interpreted. The right not to be discriminated against on the ground of sexual orientation in particular was the central issue in a number of judgments. In all those judgments existing statutory or regulatory provisions were found to be inconsistent with the Constitution and relief was granted to the successful applicants. See Langemaat v Minister of Safety and Security, 1998(3) SA 312 (T) ; National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Home Affairs, 2000 (2) SA 1 (CC) ; Satchwell v President of the Republic of South Africa, 2002 (1) SA 6 (CC) ; Du Toit v Minister of Welfare and