Period.

And McMaster wants to make sure that union, recognized in tradition and common law since ancient times, is enshrined in the South Carolina constitution by voters in November.

"I would call it the ultimate clarification," said McMaster, who said there is already a state statute on the books that prohibits same-sex unions.

Opponents fear that enshrining a ban on same-sex marriage in the state constitution would relegate homosexuals to second-class citizenship.

"People are tired of this image of the South as the home of bigotry, as a place that is not welcoming to all people," said Manju Rajendran, communications director for the South Carolina Equality Coalition, which is working to defeat the proposed ban.

South Carolina is one of eight states where voters will consider a marriage amendment.

Twenty other states have passed legislation in the wake of a Massachusetts court decision that legalized same-sex unions there.

While the debate has been hostile in several other states, in South Carolina it has been marked by both civility and remarkable quiet.

The Equality Coalition is enlisting people to hold "house parties" around the state to explain its view of the amendment and garner support.

The aim is to make it personal: The coalition estimates there are 250,000 lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender -- or LGBT -- people in South Carolina. If each of them gains two votes, the coalition thinks the amendment can be defeated.

"LGBT people really respond to the idea that if every LGBT person talks to two friends, two family members, two allies, we can defeat this at the polls," Rajendran said.

The small S.C. AFL-CIO passed a resolution against the amendment in September.

The Equality Coalition set up a booth at the S.C. State Fair to explain the amendment to fairgoers, said Brett Bursey, executive director of the S.C. Progressive Network.

"If you engage people one-on-one to ask is it the government's business to get into your private life, they say, 'Hell no,'" he said.

McMaster, honorary chairman of the campaign run by the nonprofit Palmetto Family Council, said he has worked to ensure that the political battle does not become personal. He has met with activists to reassure them that the amendment would not affect inheritance, hospital-visitation rights and other issues important to the gay community.

In other states, concerns over how to handle domestic violence among same-sex partners have surfaced. McMaster said assaults between same-sex individuals never have come under the umbrella of domestic violence in South Carolina but are prosecuted fully under the state's assault statute.

"I'm confident that the concerns and fears that have been expressed about the amendment are not well-founded," McMaster said. "It does not take away the right to inherit property and things like that. This amendment would have no effect on that."

McMaster and other advocates want to prevent "activist" judges, such as those on the Massachusetts bench, from tinkering with the definition of marriage.

An example of that activism emerged last month when a Boston Superior Court judge ruled that a gay couple from Rhode Island have the right to marry in Massachusetts because laws in their home state do not expressly prohibit same-sex marriage.

"The vast majority of people believe that keeping intact the traditional understanding of marriage is enormously important to society in general," McMaster said. "They are not judging people. ... (They say) everybody's private life is their own business. But when it comes to a definition of marriage, they are adamant that marriage means one thing in South Carolina."

Opponents of the amendment have found an unlikely ally in well-known conservative jurist J. Harvie Wilkinson. Wilkinson, an oft-mentioned U.S. Supreme Court nominee, sits on the Richmond, Va.-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes South Carolina.

In a Washington Post opinion piece last month, Wilkinson lamented the "constitutional fever" that has spread in the wake of the Massachusetts decision.

"Ordinary legislation -- not constitutional amendments -- should express the community's view that marriage 'shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman,' " he wrote. "To use the Constitution for prescriptions of policy is to shackle future generations that should have the same right as ours to enact policies of their own."

No large rallies are planned by either side. But as the election nears, some faith groups are showing growing interest in the amendment. The Unitarian Universalist Church in Spartanburg has passed a resolution in opposition to the amendment, and other congregations are holding panels to learn more.

Ben Harrison, a spokesman for the S.C. bishop of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, said the group's members likely would support the same-sex ban, although there is no effort to adopt it as a high-profile issue.

"The AME church would look toward biblical scripture that says man should not be with man and woman should not be with woman," Harrison said.

That said, "the AME church is not going to let loose a crusade against homosexuals. What the AME church is about is feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and housing the homeless."

For his part, McMaster is working hard to get across the message that the amendment is a backstop, not a backdoor way to restrict the rights of gay South Carolinians.

"Since 1996, we have had a statute that says marriage between persons of the same sex is void from the beginning," he said. "It won't change anything as it exists today, but it will be a confirmation, a relatively important confirmation, of what marriage is in South Carolina."

If McMaster is correct that the amendment alters nothing, then "it begs the question, 'Why we are doing this?'" said the Progressive Network's Bursey. "The lack of any compelling reason for it suggests another reason, the 'get-out-the-vote' ploy" for the Republicans."