While supporters championed the new law as protecting the sanctity of marriage, opponents and advocates blasted the legislation as discriminatory and those who voted for it as bigots.

"This isn't about gay marriage. It's election-year politics that's using this issue as a wedge," said Bert Easter, president of the Columbia-based S.C. Gay and Lesbian Pride Movement. "The politicians are grandstanding at the expense of the South Carolina gay and lesbian community."

Rep. Gary Simrill, R-Rock Hill, a staunch supporter of the bill, said the desire for such laws is not about discriminating against gays and lesbians, but to protect traditional marriage.

"This was important because of what is happening around the country, especially in Massachusetts," said Simrill, who wrote the original 1996 law that bars recognition of same-sex marriages in South Carolina and co-sponsored the new legislation.

The 1996 law declared any same-sex marriage to be "against the public policy" of the state. Now, with benefits restricted to unmarried people, specifically gays and lesbians, the new law serves as added protection should the South Carolina law come under legal attack, Simrill said.

'Election-year wedge'

House Minority Leader James Smith, D-Columbia, said he supports the definition of marriage but said the bill denies rights and benefits currently provided by some municipalities and county governments to gay couples.

"This is just an election-year wedge (by Republicans) to distract the people of the state from their failure to meet our state's educational needs, public safety needs and health care needs," he said. "They don't want to talk about the real issues facing our state."

Simrill called Smith's comments preposterous.

"In 1996, it wasn't election-year politics. It was in response to what was going on in Hawaii," Simrill said, referring to a lawsuit in that state that could have allowed gay couples the right to marry. "This new bill was in response to the attack on marriage by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. ... Clearly, the South Carolina legislature did not pick this fight. We are defending the sanctity of marriage. That was the whole point."

In Massachusetts, the high court there ruled a law banning gay couples from marrying was unconstitutional. It also set May 17 as the deadline for the state to begin offering marriage certificates to same-sex couples.

Rep. Todd Ruther-ford, D-Columbia, offered an amendment that would have al-lowed the state to recognize civil unions between same-sex couples. His measure was tabled with a 94-18 vote.

Later, Rutherford said the day's efforts were much like those of decades ago barring interracial marriages. "You can stand proud that you have been bigots just like they were back then," Rutherford said.

House members "ought to be embarrassed about what it is that we are doing here today and how easy it was for us to jump on a group of citizens ... a group of people that have no defense in this body," Rutherford said.

Easter, of the Pride Move-ment, praised Rutherford, Smith and the other five House members who voted against the bill.

"Those seven who voted nay were very brave," Easter said. "They recognize discrimination, know what it looks like, know what it feels like and will stand up to it time and time again."

But supporters said marriage needs to be defended.

"It's about protecting the institution of marriage that has been the building block of society for thousands of years," said Rep. Jim McGee, R-Florence.

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., an attorney, has said in the past that he doubts such laws would stand up if challenged in court, although he does support defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. Citing the full faith and credit clause in the U.S. Constitution that requires states to honor the judicial rulings of other states, Graham said state laws barring same-sex marriage would likely be found unconstitutional.

Andrew Siegel, a law professor at the University of South Carolina and a former law clerk with the U.S. Supreme Court, said such a ruling would not necessarily come automatically.

First, someone would need to successfully argue that the full faith and credit clause applies to marriage -- something that has not been clearly established, he said. Next, the state would claim its public policy barring the recognition of gay marriages has been clearly defined and would argue that "they are entitled to invoke a public policy exception to the full faith and credict clause." That request would also need to be defeated in order to overturn the state's law.

"There's likely to be litigation on many fronts, in many states on the full faith and credit issue within six months after Massa-chusetts begins performing gay marriages," Siegel said. "But I don't know that South Carolina will be a battle ground."

State laws barring gay marriage could also be challenged directly under the U.S. Constitu-tion under equal protection or due process rights, Siegel said.

"At this point, though, it doesn't look like there's any court prepared to rule on such under the federal constitution," Siegel said. "But that may be coming."

Contact Jason Cato at 329-4071 or mailto:jcato@heraldonline.com The Associated Press contributed to this report.