x-sender: governor.haley@sc.lmhostediq.com x-receiver: governor.haley@sc.lmhostediq.com Received: from mail pickup service by IQ12 with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 14:11:22 -0500 thread-index: AdAE9cX2nDK7+q3fRbyKybm6sVqSsQ== Thread-Topic: Same sex marriage From: To: Subject: Same sex marriage Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 14:11:22 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message Importance: normal Priority: normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.1.7601.17609 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Nov 2014 19:11:22.0895 (UTC) FILETIME=[C5FD39F0:01D004F5] CUSTOM Mr. Marvin B. Gootee 3504 Prosperity Highway Prosperity SC 29127 mbgootee@yahoo.com 803-944-7019 JUDI Same sex marriage Dear Governor Haley, I am a citizen of Saluda County who is a conservative active member of the Republican Party. I recently had the chance to review the article shown in the following link regarding recent developments in the religious community with regard to same sex marriage. http://patriotupdate.com/2014/11/pastors-launch-initiative-separate-religious-marriage-rites-state-sanctioned-civil-unions/ Their idea of disassociating the religious matrimonial bonds offered by the various religions from any tie to whatever civil laws are in effect in the various states seems to me an intelligent and appropriate response on their part and is to be commended. At the same time, it would seem to me to suggest that there should be a movement on the part of the state governments to render the same sort of change to our civil laws regarding marriage particularly with the possibility of judicial activism forcing the matter on the State of South Carolina in the near future. May I suggest that your staff look at the possibility of convincing state legislators to change the appropriate references in Title 20 to redefine any reference to marriage to the words "civil union" and any reference to divorce to "civil disunion". It would probably require a thorough search of other statutes (property, criminal actions, etc.) to make appropriate changes thereto. There may also be changes to other references such as pastor, preacher, etc. This allows marriage to continue as the holy alliance of a man and a woman that it is intended to be and allows the state to deal with any sorts of "civil unions" to be defined now and in the future in the legalistic structure for the protection of those unions. It is possible that we may be looking at any combination of unions including multiple partners that our wayward society may find acceptable in the future. Please consider my request as a sincere and achievable attempt to protect the institution of marriage in the way that civil society intended it to be. Congratulations on all that you have done for the citizens of our state and on your recent reelection.