Amendment 1 on Tuesday's ballot would amend the state constitution to assert that the institution of marriage in South Carolina consists only of the union between one man and one woman. While it also explicitly declares that the amendment does not impair rights or benefits extended by the state or prohibit private parties from entering into contracts, it likely would have that effect in some cases.

One glaring example is that it would prohibit civil unions and partner benefits for public employees, such as those who work for the state university system. Public employees would not be permitted to buy family health coverage for their partners, and public hospitals could interpret the amendment to bar partners from family visitation.

The amendment does not apply to private employers or private contracts, but it would mean state employees would be denied the possibility of obtaining benefits available in the private sector. That's discriminatory on its face.

Proponents of this amendment insist that it would not affect the ability of two people, whatever their gender, from drawing up contracts and other legal documents that would give them the approximate legal privileges of a married couple. For example, they could give each other power of attorney, name each other in their respective wills and designate their partners as beneficiaries of insurance policies.

But if this amendment has no effect on the formation of legal unions, why amend the state constitution to include it? It offers no new provisions that aren't already part of state law. In 1996, the General Assembly prohibited both same-sex marriage and the recognition of such marriages conducted in other states.

The amendment also would do little in the long run to ensure that same-sex marriages are not legalized or recognized here. If this amendment or others like it come before the Supreme Court and the high court finds them unconstitutional, that ruling would trump any state amendment.

Passage of this amendment would prevent the state Legislature from changing current law without another constitutional amendment. Does anyone think there is widespread support for abolishing the same-sex marriage ban currently in effect?

We think the motivation behind this amendment is to send a message that South Carolina won't grant same-gender relationships legal recognition under any circumstances. Approval of this amendment would single out a specific group of people for denial of privileges afforded the majority of South Carolinians.

Despite what opponents say, we do not think passage of this amendment would shore up the institution of marriage. The high divorce rate in this country is a result of many factors, but "gay marriage" is not among them.

Nor would its defeat affect the authority of religious institutions to determine which unions to sanctify.

In any event, we think that marriage is best defined by state law, and we see no reason for voters to approve Amendment 1 in Tuesday's election.

IN SUMMARY
So-called same-sex marriage amendment is unnecessary and discriminatory toward one group.