At the next election South Carolina voters are asked to include discrimination in the Constitution that has not been there since the old racial segregation laws were eliminated. Amendment No. 1 is a family discrimination amendment that goes much further than banning gay marriage. It will eliminate the potential for governmental bodies to provide domestic partnerships for both same-sex couples and heterosexual couples who are not married by state license (common law marriage).

It was reported recently that a majority of the Fortune 500 companies offer domestic partnerships to their employees. What this means is that those in committed relationships -- same-sex, or opposite-sex couples in some cases -- are eligible to enroll their domestic partner and children in the companies' benefit programs. This means that same-sex couples can protect their families by having access to health insurance, life insurance benefits, family leave, etc., just like heterosexual couples. Currently 13 states and the District of Columbia offer domestic partnerships.

Granted Amendment No. 1 is narrowly defined. It only pertains to those who work for the state or any governmental agency in the state under it. It is possible, however, that private companies, although not directly affected by the state's precedent, may exclude domestic partnerships if they do business with the state.

Another aspect of the amendment that should be considered is the negative impact it could have on the business climate. More likely, companies planning to move into our state, with all things being equal with another state, will look at this amendment as a sign of a prejudiced culture, and choose to locate elsewhere. South Carolina needs to be able to recruit and keep the best and brightest to remain competitive. According to the Brookings Institute, the leading indicator of a metropolitan area's success in today's high-technology business is the extent of its gay population. If talented individuals are kept away by our prejudice and intolerance, South Carolina will continue to struggle with competitiveness in the global economy.

Advertisement

Do we wish to put prejudice and denial of civil rights into our constitution again in the same manner that racial and interracial marriage was at one time? South Carolina already has a law that bans same-sex marriage. When the people and the politicians are enlightened to discover that the practice of denying these benefits is indeed discrimination against a segment of our population as a group, it is a lot easier to change a law than to change the constitution.

Estimates are that approximately 6 percent (about 250,000) of the population in South Carolina are gay/lesbian. Their contributions to our communities and state are enormous. The amendment will relegate them to second-class citizens.

Many opponents of same-sex marriage and civil unions and domestic partnerships say that Amendment No. 1 is needed to protect traditional marriage. Protect it from what? Does providing basic rights to same-sex partners have any effect on heterosexual marriage?

Even if you object to same-sex marriage, how can anyone accept that no legal protection for same-sex couples and their families will ever be provided, even in the form of domestic partnerships? South Carolina can never reach its full potential if we allow discrimination to exist in such a blatant and mean-spirited way.

Have we considered the moral implications of this amendment? Anytime a society denies fairness and justice to a portion of its population, it is against the moral values of most religions and surely the United States of America. All religions teach one form of the "Golden Rule," and our country has continually worked toward basic human rights for all people. In the Jewish and Christian Bible we are encouraged over and over to work for peace and integrity (righteousness) in our society.

Gay people want to be treated fairly and equally and with dignity and respect. They want their children to be protected and safe. They want to build lives together in a way that fosters a secure environment for their families and children. They do not seek to tear down "traditional marriage" even if they could.

This amendment is about discrimination against a minority of the citizens of the state. It is not about protecting traditional marriage. It is about fear of the unknown and of change. It is discrimination, nothing more, nothing less.

Defeating Amendment No. 1 is the first step in providing civil rights for all our people. Please seriously consider casting your vote against the amendment for the good of all South Carolinians.

Post a Comment   View All Comments liberalismkills Christian Exodus? Where do you get this crap from? I have heard of them (mostly from you - you seem to have the idea that they're a major force in conservative politics), but that's about it. As for demonstrating - if you can't see the cases I stated as stretching constitutional law to mean something other than was intended, then there's nothing else I can do. We'll just have to agree to disagree. liberalismkills Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:05 pm nonlemming Screw the church, sbuster. If they don't want to marry people, they souldn't have to. BUT there are other ways to be married legally. The arrogantly insinuated monopoly by so many religiously programmed is just mind-blowing to me. nonlemming Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:55 am AlanS "What I am not OK with is them stretching the meaning of very clear language to suit their purposes." You have yet to demonstrate that occuring. You seem to want them to stretch it to mean what you want it to mean. "And where you get that I am in any way in favor of a theocracy, I'll never know." Are you not a former member of Christian Exodus? AlanS Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:24 am Boatrocker Who gives a sh*t what some church sanctions? Church is not necessary to marriage, and churches do not run this country. Yet. Marriage, for legal purposes, is a contractual agreement, and should be treated as such. No more, no less. Whatever other emotional or spiritual baggage you drag into it are your business and not the states. Someone wants to marry their cocker spaniel- or their lawnchair, for that matter- let 'em. There is nothing gay marriage can do to "destroy" the "institution" if marriage, and heteros have done more to cheapen marriage than any gay guy or judge. Religious fools need to get over it. Boatrocker Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:21 am liberalismkills Again, (this is a complete waste of time talking to a brick wall) I'm OK with judges doing their duty. What I am not OK with is them stretching the meaning of very clear language to suit their purposes. And where you get that I am in any way in favor of a theocracy, I'll never know. Just because you say something ad nauseum doesn't mean it's true. liberalismkills Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:21 am Post a Comment   View All Comments