Women don't need lectures but protection
May 09, 2011
EDITOR: In their petition submitted to the chairperson of the legal and parliamentary affairs committee on April 27, the religious leaders make some interesting assertions about the Marriage and Divorce Bill. They start off by noting that the Bill could erode fundamental values of marriage and the f
EDITOR: In their petition submitted to the chairperson of the legal and parliamentary affairs committee on April 27, the religious leaders make some interesting assertions about the Marriage and Divorce Bill. They start off by noting that the Bill could erode fundamental values of marriage and the family.
I can say with authority that this happened a long time ago and they were probably much closer to the crime scene than this Bill was when the erosion happened. The reality is that there are already problems with many Ugandan families and marriages and the Bill only seeks to plug the holes. The clerics argue against a separate law for Muslims based on the fact that Uganda is a secular state and that keeping Sharia as part of our laws will, in effect, erode this secularism. However, they also argue against cohabitation, noting the overwhelming problems and terrible things it brings for those involved. The erosion of the general societal fabric has left many women stripped of a lot of protection and privileges that were traditionally accorded them. Unfortunately, a very large number of couples in Uganda fall in the cohabiting group. Many Ugandans who actually refer to their spouses as husband or wife are more often than not cohabiting. They don't need lectures, they need to have their rights protected. We dream of a corruption-free Uganda but we face a different reality and must make laws to fit the situation. Laws relating to marriage and the family must be addressed in the same light. Trying to block the passing of the Bill based on religious ideals does not sound very secular to me— it is hypocrisy. The reality is that not many women like cohabiting. However, they hold limited powers to influence decisions such as making their partners marry them “officiallyâ€. Religious leaders probably have more influence over these men in terms of getting them to marry their fellow cohabiters. I actually find the Bill to be quite weak on articulating the rights of cohabiting couples and nowhere is cohabitation recognised as a form of marriage. The Bill only mentions cohabitation in reference to property rights and in effect seeks to address, very timidly, an issue that has been a sore spot for many women in Uganda. Why should women then be punished by taking away the very limited recognition the Bill avails them? The religious leaders regrettably allow themselves to indulge in some fabrication by making some unsubstantiated claims such as the Bill having ‘an underlying assumption that divorce is inevitable.’ I read the document quite thoroughly and find the assertion ridiculous. While they claim that the Bill advises spouses to own property separately, which it does not, the Bill clearly and continuously uses the term ‘may’ which means that you have the option of owning property separately if you so wish.
The petition refers to ‘many other flaws’ that need correction including the title, consent to marry, handling of conjugal rights, handling family breakdown, ministerial power to grant licence to marry, etc. I note that these issues are mainly based on the views that these leaders hold about what a good Christian marriage should be. As a Christian I will try to understand where they are coming from but I object to the hypocrisy which calls out the Muslims citing the secular nature of the state only to throw the Church door at the Marriage and Divorce Bill. If religious leaders want their arguments to be taken in good faith then they should be consistent with the ‘secular brand’ when discussing all aspects of the Marriage and Divorce Bill, including cohabitation. They should also stick to the facts in the Bill and tell it as it is—this is the Christian thing to do. Women deserve justice and accountability and no one should obstruct their journey, least of all the people we look up to as our leaders!
Juliet Nakato Odoi
Policy and Advocacy Officer
ACORD Uganda
I can say with authority that this happened a long time ago and they were probably much closer to the crime scene than this Bill was when the erosion happened. The reality is that there are already problems with many Ugandan families and marriages and the Bill only seeks to plug the holes. The clerics argue against a separate law for Muslims based on the fact that Uganda is a secular state and that keeping Sharia as part of our laws will, in effect, erode this secularism. However, they also argue against cohabitation, noting the overwhelming problems and terrible things it brings for those involved. The erosion of the general societal fabric has left many women stripped of a lot of protection and privileges that were traditionally accorded them. Unfortunately, a very large number of couples in Uganda fall in the cohabiting group. Many Ugandans who actually refer to their spouses as husband or wife are more often than not cohabiting. They don't need lectures, they need to have their rights protected. We dream of a corruption-free Uganda but we face a different reality and must make laws to fit the situation. Laws relating to marriage and the family must be addressed in the same light. Trying to block the passing of the Bill based on religious ideals does not sound very secular to me— it is hypocrisy. The reality is that not many women like cohabiting. However, they hold limited powers to influence decisions such as making their partners marry them “officiallyâ€. Religious leaders probably have more influence over these men in terms of getting them to marry their fellow cohabiters. I actually find the Bill to be quite weak on articulating the rights of cohabiting couples and nowhere is cohabitation recognised as a form of marriage. The Bill only mentions cohabitation in reference to property rights and in effect seeks to address, very timidly, an issue that has been a sore spot for many women in Uganda. Why should women then be punished by taking away the very limited recognition the Bill avails them? The religious leaders regrettably allow themselves to indulge in some fabrication by making some unsubstantiated claims such as the Bill having ‘an underlying assumption that divorce is inevitable.’ I read the document quite thoroughly and find the assertion ridiculous. While they claim that the Bill advises spouses to own property separately, which it does not, the Bill clearly and continuously uses the term ‘may’ which means that you have the option of owning property separately if you so wish.
The petition refers to ‘many other flaws’ that need correction including the title, consent to marry, handling of conjugal rights, handling family breakdown, ministerial power to grant licence to marry, etc. I note that these issues are mainly based on the views that these leaders hold about what a good Christian marriage should be. As a Christian I will try to understand where they are coming from but I object to the hypocrisy which calls out the Muslims citing the secular nature of the state only to throw the Church door at the Marriage and Divorce Bill. If religious leaders want their arguments to be taken in good faith then they should be consistent with the ‘secular brand’ when discussing all aspects of the Marriage and Divorce Bill, including cohabitation. They should also stick to the facts in the Bill and tell it as it is—this is the Christian thing to do. Women deserve justice and accountability and no one should obstruct their journey, least of all the people we look up to as our leaders!
Juliet Nakato Odoi
Policy and Advocacy Officer
ACORD Uganda