S.C. VOICES

South Carolina’s congressional delegation had a mixed reaction to President Bush’s call for a constitutional amendment defining marriage:

“The traditional institution of marriage is now under attack. If we don’t act, it’s only a matter of time until marriage as we have known it will be redefined. Defining marriage as being between a man and a woman should be an issue for the public at large, through their elected representatives, to decide. It should not be decided by a handful of judges and the city of San Francisco and then forced upon the rest of the country.”

— U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, aSeneca Republican

——————————

“I’m against gay marriage and for civil unions.”

— U.S. Sen. Fritz Hollings, a Charleston Democrat, who said he would reserve judgment on a constitutional amendment until he sees what is proposed

——————————

“I am so proud of the president for standing up for the sanctity of marriage. Throughout history, marriage has been defined as the union of a man and a woman. America must keep its moral compass, and we cannot allow a few activist judges and officials to subvert the will of the overwhelming majority.”

— U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson, a Springdale Republican

——————————

“Marriage has a specific role in society and a set of responsibilities that can’t be fulfilled by two people of the same sex. Marriage is the moral framework for sexual union, bringing children into the world and passing values from one generation to the next. Society has a vested interest in the success of marriage and the traditional family.”

— U.S. Rep. Jim DeMint, a Greenville Republican

——————————

“As the president stated, the ‘sanctity of marriage’ must be protected. The only way to ensure it is protected is by passing a constitutional amendment. In doing so, the citizens of this great country will have their voice heard rather than have overzealous courts dictate what is best for our nation.”

— U.S. Rep. Henry Brown, a Hanahan Republican

OTHER VOICES

Some South Carolinians’ first-blush reaction Tuesday to President Bush’s desire to ban gay marriages at the federal level was visceral:

“It’s clear he’s using marriage between same-sex couples as a pawn and a wedge issue during an election year. ... Generally, amendments have been used to encourage, protect and extend rights, not to deny rights — except during Prohibition — and we see how that turned out.”

— Ed Madden, a USC English professor and board member of the S.C. Gay and Lesbian Community Center in Columbia, a support organization for gays and lesbians

——————————

“I am just appalled that they are talking about a federal marriage amendment. Why does the federal government think they need to get involved? It’s always been a state issue. I think it’s dirty and underhanded to use our Constitution for his own benefit and political gain. ... Instead of affording protections, it denies protection for same-sex couples who may be in long-term, committed relationships. I think it’s against families.”

— Columbia family attorney Harriet Hancock, whose son is gay

From Staff Reports