COLUMBIA--South Carolina voters are a crucial step
closer to being able to vote on whether to change the state constitution to ban
same-sex marriages.
The Senate overwhelmingly approved the bill to have a referendum by a 37-1
vote Wednesday. First, though, the measure was amended to maintain the right of
same-sex partners to enter into legal contracts. The amendment grants partners
the ability to receive death benefits and make medical decisions for each other.
The measure's passage was inevitable; the question was whether supporters
would address the contract issue.
Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell said last week the measure went too
far, leaving it susceptible to a court challenge. His concerns were nearly
drowned out by the same tide of support that fast-tracked the measure through
the House and Senate."The amendment was proof that the bill was inartfully
drawn," the Charleston Republican said after the vote. "The people have a
clear-cut issue to vote on now that we made it clear we are not invading the
right of contract."
The proposed constitutional amendment, which would appear on the November
2006 ballot, was changed to read in part, "A marriage between one man and one
woman is the only lawful domestic union that shall be valid or recognized in
this state." Another sentence deals with the contract issue.
Same-sex marriage is illegal, but supporters argue the amendment is necessary
to protect the law from "activist judges" who could strike it down.
The measure now goes back to the House, which must consider the Senate's
changes.
The House likely will sign on because the bill's main goal of defining
marriage is intact. The House passed its version 96-3. But Speaker David Wilkins
said it is not guaranteed that two-thirds of House members will accept the
Senate version.
"The House is pretty committed to its version," the Greenville Republican
said. "We will review it but I just don't know if we will (concur)."
Linda Ketner, chairwoman of the South Carolina Equality Coalition, praised
the Senate's changes but said the bill still violates human rights.
"This is definitely a step in the right direction when you are reducing the
amount of discrimination in the amendment," Ketner said. But it still violates
equal protection provisions of the constitution, she said.
The coalition, an umbrella organization of human rights groups, doesn't plan
to concede. It is developing an aggressive campaign for the 2006 election.
"Tomorrow is our first day of a battle to stop this amendment," Ketner said.
"We'll fight very hard on the ballot and probably in the courts as well."
Sen. Robert Ford, the lone vote against the measure, told members on the
floor that the fight wouldn't be pretty.
"It's not going to be a Sunday-school campaign ... and when they fight back
some people are going to get hurt," warned Ford, a Charleston Democrat.
During debate, Ford tried to convince members the constitutional amendment
unfairly picks on the gay community.
"This is not needed," he said, "since we already have the strongest ban on
gay marriage in the United States."
Ford's words fell on deaf ears.
Sen. Jake Knotts expressed doubts that the gay community could sway any
votes.
"There's a lot of things that need to be said in the community before the
2006 election if they think they are going to turn this thing around," said
Knotts, a West Columbia Republican. "If there's ever been anything that's not
possible, this is (it)."
ROLL CALL
A "yes" vote approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages.
It passed 37 to 1.
Yes
Ray Cleary, R-Murrells Inlet; Chip Campsen, R-Isle of Palms; Larry
Grooms-R-Bonneau; John Matthews, D-Bowman; Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston; Bill
Mescher, R-Pinopolis; Randy Scott, R-Summerville
No
Robert Ford, D-Charleston
Not voting
Clementa Pinckney, D-Ridgeland
John Frank covers state politics and the Legislature from Columbia. Contact
him at jbfrank@postandcourier.com or (803)
799-9051.
