THE ISSUE: Should marriage be defined as a union between one man and one woman? Some lawmakers say passage of the amendment would protect against ‘activist judges in other states,’ while other legislators say the amendment would be discriminatory.

South Carolinians will decide next year whether to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

The S.C. House on Tuesday approved putting the question — should marriage be defined as a union between one man and one woman — on the 2006 ballot. The Senate already had approved the proposed amendment.

South Carolina law already defines marriage in that way, but lawmakers are hoping to prevent courts from striking down the existing law as unconstitutional. They also want to forbid legal recognition in South Carolina of gay marriages sanctioned by other states.

Cherie Smith, 55, director of religious education at St. John Neumann Elementary School, already knows how she will vote next year.

“Marriage is a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman,” she said. “The institution doesn’t need to be dismantled. It’s a shame that we’ve gotten to a point that we have to define it.

“The marriage laws we pass say a lot about who we are as a society — what we value and what we don’t. Marriage between a man and a woman is fundamental to society and civilization.”

Michael Drennan, a 25-year-old financial adviser from Columbia, sees it differently.

The state constitution shouldn’t be amended, he said, because that document “exists to protect the people and their rights — not to deny basic human rights.”

He called the amendment discriminatory because it singles out a class of people and denies them privileges extended to others.

‘JUST ANOTHER PROTECTION’ OR BIAS?

By a voice vote Tuesday, the House concurred with Senate changes to the proposed amendment. Senators approved it 36-1 two weeks ago.

Senators changed it to address concerns that the original version would have banned not only gay marriages, but also other agreements between people of the same gender, such as hospital visitation rights.

But the overall intent — making it difficult to overturn the ban on gay marriage and keeping those unions recognized in other states out of South Carolina — remained intact.

“It’s just another protection against activist judges in other states,” said Rep. Greg Delleney, R-Chester.

Rep. Brenda Lee, D-Spartanburg, said South Carolina has had enough discrimination in its history.

“I’ve lived that,” said Lee, who is black. “We don’t need to do that to anyone else.”

The measure does not need Gov. Mark Sanford’s approval to go on the Nov. 7, 2006, ballot.

Spokesman Will Folks said he thought the Republican governor might vote for the amendment next year.

“He’s always felt marriage is between a man and a woman,” Folks said.

BOTH SIDES FEAR DIVISIVE DEBATE

The Palmetto Family Council has led the fight to get the proposed amendment on the ballot. Even so, president Oran Smith said it’s unfortunate that South Carolinians will have to suffer through a divisive debate over gay marriage.

“Our desire is to have the strongest law we could possibly have,” he said. “It’s sad for us in our society that we have to do it.”

Ed Madden, board member of the South Carolina Equality Coalition, a statewide gay rights organization, also is saddened that the matter will be the subject of public debate.

“I’m hoping over the next 18 months that fair-minded South Carolinians will get to know the gay and lesbian people who live in their communities,” he said. “I don’t think you should use the constitution as a weapon.”

The amendment needed a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate to make it onto the ballot. It only needs the support of a majority of South Carolina voters to make it into the constitution.

Similar votes in other states have helped draw conservative voters to the polls, but S.C. politicians and scholars said they don’t expect the vote to have much, if any, effect on congressional or legislative races or the governor’s race next year.

Clemson University political scientist Bruce Ransom said passage of the amendment “may activate a few more conservatives.” He doesn’t think it will change Republican control of the House or hurt Sanford’s chances to be re-elected.

If anything, it could hurt some Democratic candidates and elected officials if they do not take a strong stance against gay marriage, Ransom said.

Eighteen states have passed constitutional amendments barring gay marriage. Similar proposals are on the ballots in three other states next year, and more than a dozen are considering them.

Staff writers Aaron Gould Sheinin and Jennifer Talhelm contributed.Reach Bandy at (803) 771-8648 or lbandy@thestate.com