South Carolina voters will decide in
November 2006 whether to amend the state constitution to define marriage
as existing solely between a man and a woman.
The state House of Representatives passed legislation Tuesday that
concurred with language the Senate had requested.
The constitutional amendment, which will be presented to voters at
the next general election, states the that a marriage in South Carolina
will be defined as being between one man and one woman. The amendment
would also forbid the recognition of any legal status, right or claim
recognizing domestic unions by courts in South Carolina or elsewhere.
One gay York County resident who plans to marry his partner next
month said the move saddened him, and a state lawmaker who has long
opposed such legislation called Tuesday's action ridiculous.
Rep. Gary Simrill, R-Rock Hill, one of the bill's main sponsors and a
longtime opponent of same-sex marriage, said an amendment "will bolster
the legislation's intent."
In 1996, Simrill introduced state legislation that barred recognition
of same-sex marriages or unions performed in other states.
Last year, Simrill sponsored a bill that denied benefits to same-sex
partners and blocked same-sex couples from jointly adopting children.
The ultimate say on the issue
With existing laws virtually shutting out gays and lesbians in South
Carolina from legal marriage and rights that come with such unions,
Simrill views a constitutional amendment as the ultimate say on the
issue.
"It not only gives you the will of what the Legislature intended, but
also what the will of the people is," he said.
Rep. Greg Delleney, R-Chester, another main sponsor of the amendment
bill, has no doubt the measure will pass. "It's never failed in any
state where it's been introduced," Delleney said.
In the November 2004 general election, 13 states passed
constitutional amendments defining marriage as being between a man and a
woman.
In addition to South Carolina, Delleney said another 10 states are
now in process.
Civil unions will be included in the state constitutional amendment,
because "civil union is just another word for gay marriage. It's just a
counterfeit parallel relationship," Delleney said.
Rep. Todd Rutherford, D-Columbia, referred to Tuesday's actions as
"bigoted legislation" that he thinks is unconstitutional.
"At what point did being gay become something we need to protect
ourselves from?" asked Rutherford, who was not present for the vote. "My
God, we don't have things about terrorism in this constitution. I think
it's just ridiculous."
Vermont has recognized civil unions between same-sex couples since
1999, and the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 2003 ruled that state's ban
on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.
"If marriage is redefined, our religious liberty is in peril,"
Delleney said. "Our traditional values are at peril."
Barry Turner, a gay man who lives in York, considers himself to be a
traditionalist.
"But because of my sexual orientation, I'm forced to be considered
liberal because I want rights for myself," Turner said.
He and his partner have been planning a wedding for months, with
about 130 invitations mailed recently.
"I don't understand why people want to penalize us for how we were
born," Turner said. "The only reason they're doing this is because they
aren't gay. If it was them being singled out, I think they would be
acting differently.
"We're just like everybody else," Turner continued. "We love each
other and want to be like everyone else."
Canada, Holland and Belgium are the only countries that recognize
same-sex marriages.
Federal bills to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as
being solely between a man and a woman have failed to get through
Congress.
Jason Cato • 329-4071
jcato@heraldonline.com
