The charged debate behind the first referendum on the Nov. 7 ballot - the one asking voters whether "a marriage between one man and one woman is the only lawful domestic union that shall be valid or recognized" - can be heard in the shorthand used by those for and against it.

Supporters call it the "South Carolina marriage amendment."

Opponents call it the "family discrimination amendment."

The origins of the upcoming vote took root in 2003, when the Massachusetts Supreme Court granted same-sex marriages the same rights and responsibilities of traditional marriages.

South Carolina lawmakers already had passed a ban on gay marriage, in 1996, but some feared that the Massachusetts court ruling, or some other future court ruling, could weaken the Palmetto state's ban.

Their proposed solution? A constitutional amendment.

Both sides agree that the amendment's success or failure at the polls won't trigger any immediate change. If it passes, it would re-enforce the state's existing law. If it fails, those pushing for more rights for homosexual couples still must take their fight for equality to other fronts.

College of Charleston political science professor Bill Moore said the amendment's biggest effect may be to rally some of the Republicans' core supporters.

"To have that on the ballot is partly politically motivated to turn out the conservative Christian vote in November," he said. "If you were to do a thermometer test, this would be the issue that people do have the strongest opinions on, either for or against. It certainly is a polarizing issue in either direction."

The argument for

To S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster, the proposed amendment is necessary to protect the institution of marriage as it is traditionally understood - a union between one man and one woman.

"The concern is that a court in this state, whether it be a state court or a federal court, in interpreting the law or any statute may conclude that marriage is not limited to one man and one woman," he said.

"The people in this state, I believe, view the institution of marriage as extremely important in that it should be kept a strong institution in exactly its current form, the form in which it has existed for centuries. To change that would be to weaken the institution and to harm society."

McMaster is the honorary chairman for the pro-amendment campaign being waged by The Palmetto Family Council, a Columbia-based nonprofit group.

Oran Smith, the council's executive director, said the legal side is part of its argument, but the group also is emphasizing a sociological side.

"The gold standard for raising children is to have a mom and a dad, a mom and dad being a male and female," he said. "If we're going to shoot for that as a society, then we think we should not create families that are motherless or fatherless by design.

"There are situations where there are fathers with no mothers and mothers with no fathers who are doing Herculean work. Even those folks say they would like to have a father as well and a mother as well."

State Rep. John Graham Altman, the Charleston Republican who helped lead the push for the referendum, said it seemed unlikely that a judge ever would rule that homosexual marriage was legal in this state, "but we thought we'd put up as many barriers as we could."

Altman said he expects the referendum to pass by a large margin, partly because of what happened in the legislature. "We were geared up for a big battle on the floor. We were primed and ready, but there was no battle."

While some have described the campaign as quiet, both sides expect a flurry of mailings and other advertisements as election day nears.

"I think, for the most part, they're holding their fire until we see the whites of their eyes," Smith said. "It will get louder as we go into the last three or four weeks."

The argument against

Ilene Kahn moved from New York to Mount Pleasant a year ago and became active in Democratic politics here. When she learned about the amendment, she was disturbed, partly because she has a gay son and a gay stepson, neither of whom live in the state.

"I can't believe they want to place an amendment to the constitution to take away people's rights," she said. "This is regressing in time and not allowing South Carolina to advance into the 21st century."

She said she doesn't think voters understand the amendment and how it could affect more than homosexuals. Asha Leong, who is managing the anti-amendment campaign for the South Carolina Equality Coalition, said it could affect heterosexuals in common law marriages as well.

"When Ohio passed an amendment similar to ours, men charged with battering their girlfriends were evading prosecution because they were not legally married to the women they were abusing," Leong said.

"The truth is no one knows exactly what is going to happen after the election, but there are many things that could happen that have not been addressed by the legislature or the ballot question."

Warren Redman-Gress lives in West Ashley with his long-time male partner, whom he married in Canada, and serves as director of the Alliance for Full Acceptance. He agreed that a danger to the amendment is the possibility of unforeseen repercussions.

"This amendment would enshrine an atmosphere of intolerance in our state and say there are people in our state that we are going to restrict, and that's not been the history of our constitution," he said.

It isn't just homosexual advocates and their allies who are uncomfortable with the amendment.

Rev. Monty Knight, pastor of First Christian Church in West Ashley and also head of the Charleston chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said he plans to vote no because he sees the amendment treading across the line separating church from state.

"I think it is a First Amendment issue. I think marriage in a secular society such as ours is a civil contract, and there's a difference between a civil contract and a moral commitment," he said.

While he approves of civil contracts for homosexual and heterosexual couples, he has refused to marry some heterosexual couples in his church because their understanding of marriage didn't meet his Christian standards. "I suggested they find somebody else," he said.

Voters in seven other states also will consider a marriage amendment next month, and 20 states already have passed similar legislation or amendments.

The ballot question

1. Must Article XVII of the Constitution of this State be amended by adding Section 15 so as to provide that in this State and its political subdivisions, a marriage between one man and one woman is the only lawful domestic union that shall be valid or recognized; that this State and its political subdivisions shall not create, recognize, or give effect to a legal status, right, or claim created by another jurisdiction respecting any other domestic union, however denominated; that this amendment shall not impair any right or benefit extended by the State or its political subdivisions other than a right or benefit arising from a domestic union that is not valid or recognized in this State; and that this amendment shall not prohibit or limit the ability of parties other than the State or its political subdivisions from entering into contracts or other legal instruments?

Explanation of above:

This amendment provides that the institution of marriage in South Carolina consists only of the union between one man and one woman. No other domestic union is valid and legal. The State and its political subdivisions are prohibited from creating or recognizing any right or claim respecting any other domestic union, whatever it may be called, or from giving effect to any such right or benefit recognized in any other state or jurisdiction.

However, this amendment also makes clear it does not impair rights or benefits extended by this State, or its political subdivisions not arising from other domestic unions, nor does the amendment prohibit private parties from entering into contracts or other legal instruments.

Reach Robert Behre at rbehre@postandcourier.com or 937-5771.