Calling it a pre-emptive strike, Simrill said he's glad such a law exists here to protect the sanctity of marriage. He said that's especially important with continued pressure to legalize gay unions in states across the nation.

However, gay rights supporters in the state say the issue is widely misunderstood and that the discrimination is unfair.

"It isn't to make a mockery of the institution of marriage, but make ourselves equal within the protected rights of marriage," said Charles, a gay Rock Hill resident who asked that his full name not be used. "Sadly, it is many of those same rights that we are restricted from that the straight community take advantage of."

On Tuesday, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that state's ban on gay marriage was in violation of that state's constitution.

"I'm in protest to what the Massachusetts court did, but I'm not surprised. I'm just thankful South Carolina had the forethought to pass this legislation," Simrill said. "Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period."

The S.C. law declares any same-sex marriage is "against the public policy" of the state.

Simrill doubts the S.C. Supreme Court would ever follow the ruling in Massachusetts, "but you never know," he said.

His bill was written in response to a pending court case in Hawaii that could have legalized same-sex marriages and forced other states to recognize such marriages under the U.S. Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause. The clause requires states to honor public acts, records and judicial proceedings of other states.

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a staunch opponent of same-sex marriages, does not believe the S.C. law would stand up in court. If any state law banning recognition of the full faith and credit clause were allowed to stand, it could have potential negative effects, he said. One of those could be a state declining to recognize legal adoptions from another state.

"I do not believe it's in the short-term or long-term interest of the nation to change the institution of marriage to suit the gay agenda," Graham said. "But the constitution of the United States requires states to honor the laws of another state."

Like Simrill, Graham sees the push for legalizing gay marriages becoming more intense. That could lead to a federal constitutional amendment stating that a marriage can only be between opposite sexes, Graham said.

"There will eventually be a constitutional showdown over this issue," Graham said. "Mainstream America will speak out and insist we as America define marriage as between a man and a woman."

In May, a group of lawmakers reintroduced legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives that would change the constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. The Federal Marriage Amendment, which was introduced in 2002 but failed to get the necessary support, would permanently deny marriage rights to same-sex couples in the United States.

A USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll conducted in October showed the nation was almost evenly split over the issue of gay marriage. Half of those surveyed said gay marriages would be an improvement or have no effect, while 48 percent said such unions would change society for the worse.

In May, a Gallup poll asked Americans whether they would support civil unions between gay couples. Responses were split down the middle -- 49 percent for, 49 percent against.

Bert Easter, president of the S.C. Gay and Lesbian Pride Movement, said the issue is an important one for many gays and lesbians in South Carolina.

"We would like the same rights, responsibilities and advantages that marriage would bring," said Easter, whose group also runs a gay and lesbian community center in Columbia. "And these are rights and responsibilities that aren't radical."

They include issues such as Social Security benefits and the right to visit an injured or sick partner in the hospital, said Easter, who's been in a committed relationship for 8 years.

"Without that piece of paper," Easter said of a marriage certificate, "gays and lesbians are not treated the same by the community or the government, but we pay taxes like everyone else. It's not fair."

Another gay Rock Hill man, who's been in a committed relationship for 18 years, scoffed at the notion that a legal marriage is needed to justify a relationship.

"What self-respecting gay couple would wish to receive the 'right' to marry? The abuses heaped upon the institution of marriage by heterosexual couples have tarnished it to the point that to receive such a 'right' seems more a curse than a blessing," said the man, who asked not to be named. "The purity of long-term, nourishing homosexual relationships would be debased, corrupted by the legal right to marry."

No state recognizes same-sex marriage, but in 2000 Vermont became the first to legally recognize civil unions between gay couples. Though separate from legal marriage, civil unions provide the same benefits and responsibilities of marriage.

In June, a court in Canada ruled that nation's legal definition of marriage as being a union between a man and a woman was unconstitutional. The law was changed to read marriage is a "union between two people."

Contact Jason Cato at 329-4071 or mailto:jcato@heraldonline.com