“They both smile. We get joy from the little things they do. One is quiet while the other one has a very loud mouth. We can already see who the cheeky one is,” the woman said.
In a ruling on February 24, a month after they welcomed their twin boys, the high court found that the Children’s Act remained conservatively “lagging” in terms of artificial fertilisation and the recognition of partners as parents.
“Great strides have been made in the past with the acknowledgment of gay and lesbian rights in terms of recognition and formalisation of union, civil union and marriage and facilitation of recognition of relationships in terms of succession, estate planning and provision for what would normally have been viewed as spouses in [every] sense. However, the Children's Act remains conservatively lagging in terms of artificial fertilisation and the subsequent recognition of partners as parents.
“The physical, scientific side of fertilisation presents cut and dried facts, which is regulated in terms of the Health Care Act. However, the more murky side of recognising contributing partners, whether as a nurturing parent or as a contributing donor of gametes, while in a committed relationship, albeit without a ceremony that constitutes some form of union or a registered contract, still presents a problem.
“It is a fact that sometimes parties, for various reasons prefer not to get married or to have some form of formal process. This does not take away from parties in a relationship, which they view as a permanent, lifelong committed relationship also wanting to procreate and establish a family with children and eventually wanting to be grandparents and eventually great-grandparents, if they are granted long and healthy lives. Parties are then sharing parental responsibilities and want to pool their financial resources in order to create an estate which will establish a secure future,” the judgment read.