GoUpstate.com

This is a printer friendly version of an article from www.goupstate.com
To print this article open the file menu and choose Print.

Back
Article published Mar 18, 2004
House moves to strengthen laws against same-sex unions

AMY GEIER EDGAR
and JIM DAVENPORT
Associated Press

COLUMBIA -- The South Carolina House gave key approval Wednesday to a bill that prevents local governments from extending health and other benefits to same-sex couples and strengthens current laws banning same-sex unions.Under the bill, marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, and same-sex unions performed in other states will not be recognized in South Carolina. It also prevents government benefits from being extended to any unmarried couple."South Carolina will go on record as strongly defining marriage as between a man and a woman," said Rep. Gloria Haskins, R-Greenville and a sponsor of the bill.The bill won second reading with a 103-7 vote and requires a routine third reading before heading to the Senate.House Minority Leader James Smith, D-Columbia, said he supports the definition of marriage but said the bill denies rights and benefits currently provided by some municipalities and county governments to gay couples."This is just an election year wedge (by Republicans) to distract the people of the state from their failure to meet our state's educational needs, public safety needs and health care needs," Smith said. "They don't want to talk about the real issues facing our state."House members agreed to curb debate by preventing new amendmentsfrom being added and requiring opponents and supporters alike to speak no longer than three minutes on those amendments.Rep. Todd Rutherford, D-Columbia, offered an amendment that would have allowed the state to recognize civil unions between same-sex couples. But that measure was tabled with a 94-18 vote.Later, Rutherford said the day's efforts were much like those of decades ago barring marriage between whites and blacks. "You can stand proud that you have been bigots just like they were back then," Rutherford said.House members "ought to be embarrassed about what it is that we are doing here today and how easy it was it was for us to jump on a group of citizens ... a group of people that have no defense in this body," he said.But supporters said marriage needs to be defended."It's about protecting the institution of marriage that has been the building block of society for thousands of years," said Rep. Jim McGee, R-Florence.