The looming battle on marriage

by DAVID R. GILLESPIE

Guest columnist

The armies are arrayed; the battle lines drawn. The final engagement: Nov. 7.

That’s the day voters in South Carolina will decide whether to amend the Palmetto State’s constitution on what is, for some, a matter of little importance, but for others, an issue the outcome of which will affect them, their loved ones, their children and families, and possibly their financial well-being, in a most dramatic and foundational way.

The proposed amendment, passed by both bodies of the Legislature, will constitutionally define the word “marriage” as “between one man and one woman.” Not only this; the amendment would constitutionally define that arrangement as “the only lawful domestic union” recognized by the state or its political subdivisions. It explicitly forbids those political subdivisions (counties, cities, agencies, etc.) from recognizing any other domestic union in any way whatsoever, gay or straight.

Sweeping? Yes. Necessary? No.

This brings to a head for South Carolina the whole simmering debate over what has been popularly termed “gay marriage.” But it goes way beyond that concept. Nothing short of a licensed coupling, whether solemnized by church or state, will be seen as legally valid when it comes to such matters as inheritance, visitation rights in hospitals, tax considerations or whatever.

Proponents of such amendments throughout the country have used a variety of arguments to make their case. The most vocal and recognized of them all is perhaps James Dobson, head of the Colorado-based Focus on the Family organization.

Dobson has boiled those arguments down to a concise 11 statements, always presented as statements of fact, as opposed to opinion. Of those 11, three are decidedly and explicitly religious in nature: (1) religious freedom will be in jeopardy, (2) the gospel of Christ will be curtailed, and (3) the world will become like the pre-deluvian world of Noah and deserving, apparently, of the same wrath. These are not properly concerns of the state.

The others, however, are political and social in nature. The first, and most often cited, is: “The legalization of homosexual marriage will quickly destroy the traditional family.”

There has yet to appear anywhere in print or in a broadcast a coherent and convincing argument as to just how that destruction would be accomplished — how two guys or girls who want to live together as a couple in a loving, committed relationship threatens anyone’s marriage.

Divorce does. Adultery (physical and emotional) does. Poverty does. Domestic violence does — all things in which South Carolina seems to want to lead the nation.

The amendment to Article XVII of South Carolina’s constitution will, if passed, codify blatant discrimination against not only gay and lesbian couples, but all couples who opt to forego the ceremony of a marriage.

Unfortunately, few South Carolina voters will make their decision on this issue based on reason or rational argument and debate, and understandably so. It is an emotionally decided issue for most, including the emotion of an unfounded fear placed in their hearts by the likes of Dobson. It is fear-politics at its worst.

I would like to think that South Carolina voters will be better than that; that those who go to the polls in November will listen to reason and not be swayed by the fallacious, ad hominem arguments of the right-wing evangelical Christians — legislators and private citizens — who have fought to have this amendment passed (not all evangelicals are right-wing). I’d like to hope that we will not let anyone, whether from Columbia, Charleston or Colorado, scare us into voting one way or the other.

No one is asking voters to change their rightfully held, legitimate views of what many in Christendom understand to be a sacrament — marriage. Believe what you will. No one is trying to change your beliefs; neither are they trying to force churches into sanctioning and performing same-gender ceremonies.

All that is being asked for, when you get down to it, is to treat all South Carolinians fairly and justly and equally; for loving couples who forego the whole church marriage thing to be able to enjoy the same protections and benefits afforded by the government as enjoyed by those who do go through the ceremony.

After all, that’s what constitutions are supposed to do: protect and secure liberty, not take it away.

Mr. Gillespie is a writer and the editor of OIA, a monthly independent publication. He lives in Greenville and may be contacted at SCupstatewriter@aol.com.