islandpacket.com - The Island Packet Online

Search Everything in the Lowcountry and the Coastal Empire.

Marriage amendment makes quiet appearance

Add Comment

Depending on which side is speaking, State Amendment 1 on the Nov. 7 election ballot -- a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage -- either protects marriage or discriminates against some families.

But supporters and opponents agree on two points: It's been a really quiet campaign and the voting public will make the final decision.

If approved, it would amend the state constitution to dictate that the only lawful domestic union is a marriage between a man and a woman.

If defeated, same-sex unions still will be illegal, as South Carolina already has a law preventing them.

While nonprofit groups with differing views on the issue have spent money on signs and advertisements, most local lobbying has been grass roots -- conversations with friends and families, small gatherings, and churches urging "yes" votes from the pulpit.

"There hasn't been a lot of attention given to it," said John Keller, pastor of First Baptist Church on Hilton Head Island, which endorses the ban. "We're just trying to raise the issue on the importance of husbands and wives being the only type of recognized marriage. We believe it benefits children to be raised by a mother and a father."

Opponents have focused on spreading the message one conversation at a time. The South Carolina Equality Coalition, which is working to defeat the issue, estimates there are 250,000 lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in South Carolina. If each of them gains two votes, the coalition thinks the amendment can be defeated.

"This is my life, and I'm living it the only way I can," said Stan Stolarcyk, an islander who's been asking his friends to vote down State Amendment 1. "I'm an American. I pay my taxes just like everyone else. The government should not be engineering relationships."

The issue's journey to the statewide ballot began in 2005, when it overwhelmingly was approved by the state legislature to put it before the voters. The driving force was the Palmetto Family Council, which is affiliated with Focus on the Family.

Marie Connelly, special projects director for the council, says the amendment is a reaction to a national movement to recognize same-sex unions at the same level as traditional marriages.

By enshrining it into the state constitution, there is no risk of courts declaring South Carolina's existing marriage law unconstitutional, as was the case in Massachusetts, said Connelly. It also would prevent South Carolina from recognizing same-sex unions that occur elsewhere.

"I would call it the ultimate

clarification," said S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster, honorary chairman of the family council's campaign.

South Carolina is one of eight states where voters will consider a marriage amendment next week. Twenty other states have passed legislation in the wake of the Massachusetts court decision.

To Stolarcyk, the proposed amendment is contradictory to the purpose of the state constitution, which "is intended to protect people's rights, not take them away," he said.

And it's not just a gay issue, opponents say.

"The proposed amendment states only one form of union will be recognized by the state," Stolarcyk said. "You and I know that if we walk across this state, there's not just one type of family. You'd find grandmothers taking care of their children's children, single people who aren't married, common-law marriages. ... It's mean-spirited."

Questions exist as to whether the amendment could be interpreted so broadly that it would affect unmarried people by preventing them from inheriting assets, making medical decisions, having rights in domestic-violence situations or receiving medical insurance and other benefits from a partner who works for a public institution.

Although State Amendment 1 says S.C. residents can create contractual relationships, islander Pamela Ovens thinks many families won't have the legal knowledge or financial resources to do so.

"If a father who may be in a common-law marriage takes a child to the emergency room at the hospital for treatment, they will not have the civil right to decide on care," she said. "It will also affect transfer of Social Security and pension benefits, protection against death taxes, and child-custody rights."

But McMaster maintains that the amendment's only purpose is to solidify the definition of marriage.

"It does not take away the right to inherit property and things like that," he said. "This amendment would have no effect on that."

The (Columbia) State contributed to this report.

advertisement