Proponents of a referendum on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages and civil unions in South Carolina won big in the Statehouse last month, seizing a 36-1 majority in the Senate after cruising to a 95-3 victory earlier in the House.

But its backers, who shoved aside Senate tradition to force a quick floor vote, might have inadvertently steered the measure toward its first bump: A likely court challenge to the wording of the ballot under the state's "one-question rule."

Linda Ketner, chairman of the South Carolina Equality Coalition, an umbrella group representing 24 organizations that support gay causes, says that the "one-question rule" was the most obvious legal tool on the agenda for meetings this weekend in Columbia on plans for opposing the November 2006 referendum.

The flaw, according to gay-rightsadvocates, is that the Statehouse-produced ballot question combines two separate legal matters: a ban on gay marriage and a ban on civil unions.

The most recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, taken March 18-20, found 68 percent of Americans opposed same-sex marriage, but also showed the country is evenly split on the subject of civil unions.

"The argument might have some legs," said Eldon Wedlock Jr., a professor of constitutional law at the University of South Carolina Law School. "It depends on how the court views it. It's really an issue of interpretation."

Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, said Friday he had never considered the issue of the "one question rule" in relation to the constitutional amendment referendum question. "This question that is being raised is a question that should have been raised in the subcommittee and committee process," he said. "Unfortunately, that was cut short."

In March, McConnell railed against the bill's primary backer in the Senate, Sen. John Hawkins, after the Spartanburg Republican led a revolt that pulled the gay marriage bill out of committee and forced a vote on the measure.

"I've been up there 25 years. I've never seen a committee run over like that," said McConnell, who entered into the Senate record a three-page statement criticizing Hawkins. "If you're going to put something in the constitution, you have to be as precise and accurate and thorough as you can be. And it really bothered me that this was on the speed track.

"Once Sen. Hawkins started pressing that panic button, these people were in a stampede to pass that bill. This is just not the way to handle a constitutional amendment, and there was absolutely no reason to hurry. You can't even vote on this until a year from the coming November."

South Carolina already bans same-sex marriages, but Hawkins took charge of a group of Republicans who sought to eliminate the possibility that gay couples might someday seek benefits here based on marriages or civil unions recognized in other states. The binding public referendum, which must be held during a statewide general election, would then be ratified by the Legislature.

Hawkins said Sunday that the "one-question rule" was not considered in the Senate's reworking of the original House language, but that it wouldn't have been given a second thought had someone raised the point. The Spartanburg attorney said Wedlock "comes at this with an extreme liberal bias" and stated the one-question objection was without merit. "It's about one general subject, and that's marriage. We just go on to say you can't get around the one-man-one-woman rule with a 'marriage-lite.'"

McConnell and Hawkins clashed after the Senate leader put Sen. Robert Ford, D-Charleston, in charge of the subcommittee reviewing the bill. McConnell said he felt that Ford, who opposed the bill, would make sure all sides were represented, but he never doubted that the bill would pass.

McConnell said the bill's legislative backers created a "red herring" rumor that Ford was going to kill the bill and then sought to benefit politically from it. "These people were trying to grandstand to some very conservative-type folks that this thing was in trouble and they were going to save it."

Hawkins, who described McConnell as "a friend and a mentor" said he was simply being responsive to the will of the people. "Instead of saying, 'Why not wait?' I say 'Why not pass it?' When you've got that kind of support, why not pass the bill this year?"

Outmaneuvered and out-voted, McConnell focused instead on amending the "inartfully drawn" referendum bill so that the resulting law would not inadvertently prohibit the right of people of the same sex to enter into leases, business partnerships and other standard contracts. He ultimately voted in favor of the bill, even though the contract language "should have been refined in the committee and subcommittee process, not worked out at the last minute."

Said Wedlock: "That's always bad. (Emotional bills that aren't carefully reviewed) are always flawed. They don't get the staff attention they need.

"There are several different types of relationships that people can enter into," Wedlock said. "Do we want to ban them? What about adoption? That's a domestic union. Are we not going to recognize adoptions anymore?"

Rep. John Graham Altman III, R-Charleston, co-sponsored the original bill in the House. Altman said he didn't think a court would rule that same-sex marriage and civil unions represent multiple questions, but conceded that he would have preferred the simpler House version of the bill to the Senate's language.

On Friday, Altman said the Senate added its amendments "to appease the militant homosexuals," and that the changes "were what (homosexuals) wanted."

Ford, whose only hearings on the bill came after it was taken out of his subcommittee, said cultural conservatives in the Senate over-reached by assuming that gay marriage was a can't-miss political move that would draw voters to the polls in 2006. "It was a drastic mistake. Those gays are serious."

Ford criticized fellow Democrats for ducking what he called a civil rights issue and predicted that those who underestimated the power of gay-rights advocates would pay a political price -- perhaps in the form of ad campaigns and private investigations into their own sexual histories.

Ketner said there would be no general campaign of private investigations aimed at their opponents. "If we hire (private investigators), it will be to verify a rumor only." How many rumors? Since January, she said, she has received rumors about more than 35 lawmakers, mentioning two by name.

"There's a lot of interest in whether we're going to 'out' people," Ketner said. "That's not part of (our plan). But there are heterosexual hypocrites out there. If they are going to live in glass houses and throw stones, that's the kind of thing we're going to expose. The gloves are off."

Altman said he did not "view with alarm the warnings of the militant homosexuals. If they think this is improperly drawn, bring the lawsuit. It's going to be challenged, because the only way the homosexuals can win is in court.

"And suppose if they sued and won? We'd just do it again. The homosexuals want preferential treatment, and the people aren't going to give it to them. I think if the militant homosexuals would give it a rest for a while, they would be better off. When people want to flaunt their differences, they have to expect to be treated differently."

Ketner said opponents of same-sex marriage treat gay people as second-class citizens. Without marriage or civil union rights, same-sex partners are denied benefits, pay taxes heterosexual couples don't and lack child custody protections.

"When conservatives say, 'Why don't they just shut up about things?' that's why," Ketner said. "We're good, decent people, and we deserve better. Listen, it's easier to pass as straight -- and I know, I did it for years -- but there's no happiness without integrity."

Longtime Republican political consultant Richard Quinn of Columbia says he has not been following the issue closely, but he disputed the idea that GOP lawmakers were sure to benefit from the referendum and its culture-war implications.

"Does it stimulate voter turnout? Yes," Quinn said. "Does it always serve the political interest of one side or the other? That's unpredictable. Politics moves in surprising ways."

 

ON THE BALLOT -- HOW IT'S WORDED

November 2006 South Carolina constitutional referendum on gay marriage and civil unions:

"Must Article XVII of the Constitution of this State be amended by adding Section 15 so as to provide that in this State and its political subdivisions, a marriage between one man and one woman is the only lawful domestic union that shall be valid or recognized; that this State and its political subdivisions shall not create, recognize, or give effect to a legal status, right, or claim created by another jurisdiction respecting any other domestic union, however denominated; that this amendment shall not impair any right or benefit extended by the state or its political subdivisions other than a right or benefit arising from a domestic union that is not valid or recognized in this State; and that this amendment shall not prohibit or limit the ability of parties other than the State or its political subdivisions from entering into contracts or other legal instruments?"

POLL DATA

"Do you think marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"

Period	Should be valid	Should not be valid	Unsure
March 18-20, 2005	28	68	4
July 19-21, 2004	32	62	6
March 3-7, 2004	33	61	6
Feb. 16-17, 2004	32	64	4
Feb. 6-8, 2004	36	59	5
December 2003	31	65	4
June 2003	39	55	6
January 2000	34	62	4
March 1996	27	68	5

"Which of the following arrangements between gay or lesbian couples do you think should be recognized as legally valid: same-sex marriages, civil unions but not same-sex marriages, or neither same-sex marriages nor civil unions?

Period	Same-sex marriages	Civil unions	Neither	Unsure
March 18-20, 2005	20	27	45	8
Nov. 19-21, 2004	21	32	43	4

 

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Margin of error 5 percent.