Religious leaders weigh in on men having the option to take their wives’ surnames

RELIGIOUS leaders have weighed in on a groundbreaking judgment in the highest court in the land, whereby men will now have the option to assume their wives’ surnames.

- NADIA KHAN [e-mail]

Last week, the Constitutional Court handed down a unanimous judgment by Justice Leona Theron in an application for confirmation of an order of constitutional invalidity granted by the Free State High Court.

The application was in relation to the constitutionality of Section 26(1)(a)-(c) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 51 of 1992 (the act).

This section regulates the amendment of the forenames and surnames of South African citizens, and is linked to Regulation 18(2)(a) of the Regulations on the Registration of Births and Deaths, 2014.

The judgment followed a joint application by two couples in the high court last year.

In the case of the first couple, they had agreed prior to their marriage that the husband would assume his wife’s surname. However, upon registration of the marriage, they were advised by the Department of Home Affairs that it was not possible for a husband to assume his wife’s surname.

In addition to this, they also have a child who they would like to bear the surname of the mother.

In the case of the second couple, the woman wished to retain her surname to preserve familial ties with her biological parents as an only child. The couple intended to have a double-barrel surname. They were advised by the Department of Home Affairs that only a female spouse may amend her surname.

The high court declared Section 26(1)(a)-(c) of the act to be unconstitutional to the extent that it discriminated on the ground of gender.