South Carolinians will be hearing a lot this week about changing the state constitution to ban same-sex marriages — something state law already does.

The S.C. House is likely to approve the constitutional amendment on Wednesday.

But whether South Carolinians actually get to vote on the issue could be in the hands of one Democratic state senator who doesn’t believe the constitution is the place to legislate moral values.

“I’m not going to let others trample on the rights of gays and lesbians,” said Sen. Robert Ford, D-Charleston, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee that gets first crack at the proposed amendment.

Supporters are confident they can pass the amendment in the Senate — if they can pry the measure out of Ford’s committee.

“I’m dumbfounded that anyone would vote against this,” said Sen. Mike Fair, R-Greenville.

Ford — who vows to be even-handed with the amendment — nevertheless already has plans to keep it bottled up in committee with a lengthy series of public hearings that don’t begin for another month.

That would be just fine with many of his colleagues.

“There is no appetite in the Senate to take it up,” said Sen. Darrell Jackson, D-Richland.

Like many legislators, Jackson, a Columbia minister, personally opposes gay marriage. But, he said, “We have to be careful when legislating moral character.”

EXTRA PROTECTION

In 1996, the General Assembly adopted a law banning gay marriage. But backers have said that statute — limiting marriage to a union between a man and a woman — does not go far enough.

Advocates see the proposed constitutional amendment, approved 17-1 by the House Judiciary Committee last week, as an attempt to strengthen the S.C. law, which also prevents other states’ same-sex marriages from being recognized here.

Putting it in the constitution makes it more difficult to come back later and change it.

The proposed amendment is directed against states such as Massachusetts, where same-sex weddings have been sanctioned.

“This amendment gives us one extra layer of protection against a federal judiciary gone wild,” said state Rep. John Graham Altman, R-Charleston, a member of the judiciary panel.

More than a dozen states have similarly changed their constitutions, and another 23 are in the process of doing it.

Rep. James Smith, D-Richland, was the lone opponent of the measure in the House committee.

“Personally, I’m opposed to gay marriage,” he said. “Marriage is between a man and a woman. But I don’t believe it ought to be written into our constitution.”

Smith, the former Democratic leader in the House, called the amendment a political ploy to benefit Republicans.

“It’s largely a get-out-the-vote effort designed to play on people’s fears and biases for the purpose of political gain. I’m not going to participate in it.”

The proposed constitutional amendment requires approval by two-thirds of the House and Senate, the signature of Gov. Mark Sanford, and finally a simple majority vote of the people.

Rep. Greg Delleney, R-Chester, the measure’s chief sponsor, said the resolution would clear the House by a substantial margin. Few disagree.

“This tells other courts, like the U.S. Supreme Court, that marriage ought to be defined the way it has always been defined since Genesis,” Delleney said.

If adopted by the General Assembly, the amendment would be submitted to the people for a vote in 2006, a gubernatorial election year.

“This gives the people an opportunity to express their opinion and to see if they support the ban,” Delleney said.

SLOW PROCESS

The proposed constitutional amendment has been sitting in the Senate committee for close to two months. Ford plans to hold seven public hearings on the amendment — most bills rarely get more than one hearing. The first wouldn’t come until March 31.

That schedule could push any consideration of the amendment dangerously close to the June 2 adjournment of the Legislature.

“I’m going to be fair to all,” Ford promised. “I go into this with an open mind.”

Ford said if a “right-winger” who supports the amendment was chairman of his committee, “they would have had no hearings at all.”

Advocates for gay and lesbian rights oppose the amendment.

“I don’t approve of amending my constitution to write in discrimination,” said Bert Easter, former president of the S.C. Gay and Lesbian Pride Movement. “That is wrong and not in the spirit of a why we elected these representatives.”

Many Democrats — such as Senate Democratic leader John Land of Manning — would be happy if the issue just went away.

“It’s something that’s hard to vote against; let’s face it.”

Reach Bandy at (803) 771-8648 or lbandy@thestate.com