The law, like the suburban American house, is designed to order a particular pattern of relationships, many of them oriented around the heterosexual nuclear family. For real people in contemporary circumstances to inhabit the house the law built, one has to find side doors and discreet corners, while the dominant space changes little and the façade remains unaltered. The two big L.G.B.T.-rights Supreme Court victories that came before Bostock—Windsor and Obergefell—did exactly that: they carved out a place for monogamous same-sex couples who want to marry (statistically, these are more apt to be white middle-class people like the plaintiffs) in the house of the American nuclear family.
Is the legislature expecting a new spike in divorces now that they have legalised same-sex marriage? From anecdotal evidence it seems that same sex couples are not rushing to the magistrates offices across South Africa to get married so even the most homophobc person could not argue that there will be a flood of new divorce cases.
This means that the propose legislation suggests that in a moment of sanity the higher ups at the Department of Justice or Home Affiars have realised how silly it is to try and limit divorce by making the process expensive and cumbersome.
Whether the advocate’s profession is going to be thrilled by this move is, of course, another matter.