Resources - South Carolina Marriage Amendment Campaign




		Will the amendment ban same-sex marriage in South Carolina? What will change in South Carolina if this amendment is passed? Will the amendment ban so-called 'civil unions' in South Carolina? When will South Carolinians vote on the amendment? What is the most important reason for protecting traditional marriage? Doesn't state law already limit marriage to one man and one woman? An amendment really isn't needed, is it? What is the difference between civil unions, domestic partnerships, and same-sex marriage? Won't this amendment invalidate contracts, visitation rights and wills for even unmarried heterosexual couples? Will a constitutional amendment take away hospitalization visiting rights of same sex partners? Does this amendment prohibit individuals from bequeathing their property through a will to whomever they wish? Will this amendment affect in anyway domestic violence laws? Shouldn't homosexuals have the right to marry? Isn't same-sex marriage the new civil right? Wouldn't a ban be like outlawing interracial marriage? How would a same-sex marriage affect my real marriage? What difference does it make? How will same sex marriage hurt children? Isn't it better for everyone, including children, that there is more marriage, not less? Some individuals hostile to this amendment are concerned that, if the amendment were to pass, they would not be able to obtain marital benefits while not being married. Is their concern legitimate? How would the South Carolina Marriage Amendment further protect the unique place of marriage? Isn't marriage a religious matter, not a government matter? Is the South Carolina Marriage Amendment a reasonable response to the problem of judicial activism and the ongoing efforts all across America to change our definition of marriage? Have any other countries legalized same-sex marriages? If so, what have they learned? What, if any, effect has Scandinavian same-sex marriages had on children? Will the amendment prevent private companies from hiring the people of their choice and make South Carolina less attractive to new families and employees? Will the South Carolina Marriage Amendment take away any benefits currently afforded to state or government employees? Should employers be concerned about this issue? Q. Will the amendment ban same-sex marriage in South Carolina? A. Yes. <back> Q. What will change in South Carolina if this amendment is passed? A. Absolutely nothing will change in South Carolina. Everything the amendment covers already is part of South Carolina law, including a ban on gay marriage and civil unions, so no laws or regulations as currently applied in South Carolina will change for anyone or any institution. This proves false the wild claims made by the gay rights lobby that, among other things, domestic violence cases might not be prosecuted or certain contracts would be prohibited if the amendment passes – or that would have happened long ago. But by amending South Carolina’s constitution, we protect South Carolina from activist judges, such as those who legalized gay marriage and civil unions in Massachusetts and Maryland, respectively, from doing the same thing here. <back> Q. Will the amendment ban so-called 'civil unions' in South Carolina? A. Yes, it will ban civil unions, domestic partnerships, and any other union, partnership or legal status that attempts to approximate traditional marriage. Legal contract rights will in no way be infringed upon. <back> Q. When will South Carolinians vote on the amendment? A. At the General Election on November 7, 2006. <back> Q. What is the most important reason for protecting traditional marriage? A. The most important reason to protect traditional marriage is for the well being of children. Traditional marriage provides the most stable and nurturing environment for the raising and education of children. A plethora of studies show that children benefit emotionally, physically, economically and educationally in a traditional, two-parent home. <back> Q. Doesn't state law already limit marriage to one man and one woman? An amendment really isn't needed, is it? A. Yes, because the only way to take the issue out of the hands of activist judges is a constitutional amendment. South Carolina passed a defense of marriage amendment, but homosexual groups have challenged several state DOMAs in federal courts, including California, Florida, and Washington. In light of the Supreme Court's 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, which found state laws against sodomy to be unconstitutional, more challenges to state DOMAs could occur where activist judges could strike them down. The only protection we have from activist courts is a constitutional amendment. <back> Q. What is the difference between civil unions, domestic partnerships, and same-sex marriage? A. There is none except for the name. Civil unions are marriage-like relationships that require a license from the government to enter and a divorce-like decree to end, thus making the partners legal spouses. Same-sex partners would have all the legal rights and benefits of marriage. The only thing they would not be able to do is officially use the word "marriage" to describe their relationship. <back> Q. Won't this amendment invalidate contracts, visitation rights and wills for even unmarried heterosexual couples? A. Opponents of marriage amendments used this same tired and invalid argument in every state where an amendment has passed. In fact, just recently, Seth Kilbourn, who heads the marriage project for the Human Rights Campaign, admitted that their strategy in every state has been to claim 'that amendments go too far, that the effects are unknown, that you should be careful what you put in the constitution.' He admits it is a failed strategy. Clearly, the approach taken by opponents to the amendment has nothing to do with the actual language of the amendment or any valid legal arguments. It is simple deception and the people of South Carolina, like their counterparts in 19 other states, will not be deceived <back> Q. Will a constitutional amendment take away hospitalization visiting rights of same sex partners? A. No. The fact is that a hospital patient can allow or disallow anyone they would like to visit. This argument is a scare tactic that has no validity. <back> Q: Does this amendment prohibit individuals from bequeathing their property through a will to whomever they wish? A: No. The amendment says nothing about the right of anyone to bequeath whatever he/she wants to another individual. All these matters are the subjects of legal instruments, which have their operation completely independent of the nature of the relationship of the affected parties. A judge asked to enforce any of these contracts or legal instruments need not give the first moment's consideration to what kind of personal relationship the parties have. The question won't be asked if they are married or not, if there is a will involved. If there is no will, then the state legislature has already dictated in state law how the estate will be distributed. <back> Q. Will this amendment affect in anyway domestic violence laws? A. Absolutely not. This argument has no validity. At least two appeals courts in Ohio, where this argument was presented, have rejected it. <back> Q. Shouldn't homosexuals have the right to marry? No one in society has ever had the right to marry anyone they want. No individual ever had the right to redefine marriage for the rest of us. Every citizen has equal access to marriage, and everyone is equally suject to its restrictions. In our nation, each person must meet five criteria in order to get married: 1. You cannot already be married. 2. You must be an adult and marry an adult. 3. You cannot marry a close family member. 4. You must marry a human. 5. Your spouse must be of the opposite sex. Everyone abides by these same rules, and anyone who meets all five criteria can enter into marriage. Same-sex marriage advocates subtly distort the law in order to justify their cause. They claim, falsely, that the right to marry lies in any couple, when in fact it lies in the individual. Not any conceivable configuration of people have the right to marry because rights belong to individuals - not groups. In reality, homosexuals have the exact same right to marry as we all do. The debate is not about who has access to marriage - we all do. It is about defending what marriage is and always has been. <back> Q. Isn't same-sex marriage the new civil right? Wouldn't a ban be like outlawing interracial marriage? A. No. The idea that marriage was created to oppress and discriminate against homosexuals is preposterous. Interracial laws were used to separate the races. Marriage is about joining the sexes. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman, which is the best foundation for children. A consequence of the South Carolina Marriage Amendment is to send a positive message to our children that we believe this is the best arrangement for their well-being. African Americans understand more than any group in America what it means to have civil rights violated. Most African Americans, however, strongly oppose same-sex marriage. Well-known civil rights leaders of the 1960s reject the idea that the battle for same-sex unions has any moral equivalence to the struggle for basic human rights. The comparison with slavery is a stretch in that some slave masters were gay, in that gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution and in that they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote. Rev. Jesse Jackson Remarks in an address at Harvard Law School What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage. Walter Fauntroy Former DC Delegate to Congress Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC Family in Focus 2/27/04 The defense of marriage is not about discrimination. As an African-American, I know something about discrimination. The institution of slavery was about the oppression of an entire people. The institution of segregation was about discrimination. The institution of Jim Crow laws, including laws against interracial marriage, was about discrimination. The traditional institution of marriage is not discrimination. And I find it offensive to call it that. Marriage was not created to oppress people. It was created for children. It boggles my mind that people would compare the traditional institution of marriage to slavery. Senate Testimony of Reverend Richard Richardson St. Paul African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church The Black Ministerial Alliance of Greater Boston Children's Services of Roxbury, Inc. Boston, MA <back> Q. How would a same-sex marriage affect my real marriage? What difference does it make? A. While it may not affect your marriage directly, it will have an effect on children raised in these relationships and society as a whole. Even research that purports to support children being raised in same-sex relationships admits that it is, at best, similar to divorce or step-parent arrangements, which have been shown to be not as good for children as traditional, two-parent families. But it is also clear that gay marriage would make any man-woman marriage less special and important. If any combination of sexes and persons can meet the requirements for a publicly sanctioned license and legal relationship, then man and woman marriage as a standard to be reached, a goal to be sought, and a lifelong relationship to be admired and celebrated, is clearly diminished. Married people today are already not trying as hard as they should to keep their marriages vibrant and alive. Diminishing man-woman status won’t help that problem. Without traditional marriage protected, traditionally married couples may have to work harder to protect their own marriages from inattention or disrespect. <back> Q How will same sex marriage hurt children? A.Same-sex marriage will inevitably lead to same-sex families, which intentionally deny children either a mother or a father.The same-sex marriage debate isn't merely an academic question. Its outcome will have real consequences on real people. Our first duty is to protect those who cannot protect themselves. A loving and compassionate society will always come to the aid of motherless and fatherless families, but a loving and compassionate society will never deliberately create them. Same-sex couples intentionally deny children either a mother or a father, and children need both to develop into healthy adults. Males and females parent differently, and these differences are essential in helping a child grow into a healthy adult. A father's love is very different from a mother's love, and no same-sex couple could ever provide both. Gender differences are real, and children need more than a pair of unisex bodies to grow into healthy adulthood. An analysis of over 100 studies on parent-child relationships found that having a loving and nurturing father is just as important for a child's happiness, social development, academic success and general well-being as having a loving and nurturing mother. Fathers help their children feel secure, grow in confidence, and develop a healthy curiosity of the world around them. They increase children's academic readiness and performance, contribute to strong cognitive, motor and verbal development, help kids make wise choices and curb violence in boys. Mothers provide warm, nurturing care for children, assuring them that they are loved. They have a natural connection to children that develops in the womb. Mothers stress equity and security and help children develop an understanding of risks and their consequences. Both father-love and mother-love are needed to raise children from infancy to healthy adulthood. <back> Q. Isn't it better for everyone, including children, that there is more marriage, not less? A. Government should do everything it can to support and encourage the absolutely best possible environment for children to develop. Without a doubt, that is a two-parent, father and mother, traditional family. A loving and compassionate society has never intentionally created motherless and fatherless families. <back> Q. Some individuals hostile to this amendment are concerned that, if the amendment were to pass, they would not be able to obtain marital benefits while not being married. Is their concern legitimate? A. You can't have it both ways. In South Carolina, if you would like to receive the benefits of marriage, first you have to get married. This point of law will become even stronger if our legislature removes the concept of Common Law Marriage from the books. Sometimes when public officials and institutions move to offer marriage-like benefits to employees in unmarried relationships, they will do it secretly or with little public notice. For example, last summer in Ohio, the Ohio State University Board of Trustees became sadly representative of this fact. In apparent violation of Ohio's "Sunshine Laws" and with no public notice or debate, the trustees voted to offer "domestic partner" benefits to their employees. Ohio newspapers and even their attorney general harshly criticized the university for its lack of openness in taking such a controversial and divisive step. The University of South Carolina quietly took the same step recently as well. <back> Q. How would the South Carolina Marriage Amendment further protect the unique place of marriage? A. It would strictly limit the benefits of marriage to those who are married and keep them from being given to unmarried heterosexual or homosexual individuals, if the intent was to approximate the design of marriage, thereby circumventing marriage laws and accessing its benefits through a back door. <back> Q. Isn't marriage a religious matter, not a government matter? A. One of government's most crucial roles is to enhance the health and welfare of the people. Our government sanctions marriage between one man and one woman because it is the best means to protect and provide for children - a legitimate purpose for government. The institution of marriage existed long before the state gave rights to married couples. Government merely recognized an institution already present in the social order. Throughout time and across cultures, marriage has been the primary institution for the procreation, upbringing and education of children and, thus, for government's continued viability. <back> Q. Is the South Carolina Marriage Amendment a reasonable response to the problem of judicial activism and the ongoing efforts all across America to change our definition of marriage? A. This amendment is a very reasonable response. Its passage would represent great progress in protecting the institution of marriage for the citizens of South Carolina, both for us and for our children. The passage of this amendment would place South Carolina right in the mainstream company of 213 million Americans whose states have already moved to recommit themselves to the American definition of marriage through the passage of Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) statutes, and the total of 18 states that have passed their version of a marriage protection amendment. <back> Q. Have any other countries legalized same-sex marriages? If so, what have they learned? A. Norway, Sweden, and Denmark legalized same-sex marriages in the late 1990s. Canada has just legalized it in 2005. They have learned that allowing same-sex marriage has drastically weakened the institution of marriage for everyone, including those in traditional marriages. Once marriage was redefined, other family forms were deemed acceptable. The "happiness" of the partners involved was elevated to the detriment of the welfare of the children in these non-traditional living arrangements. Stanley Kurtz of the Hoover Institution, in his Feb.2, 2004, Weekly Standard article titled, "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia", documented how ten years of same-sex marriage in those Scandinavian countries have further undermined marriage there. Traditional marriage is now viewed as outdated, and virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable. (Weekly Standard, Vol. 9, No. 20, Kurtz, p. 26) If same-sex marriage is legalized, it will erode the institution of marriage in the United States, as well. Before homosexual marriage was legalized in Scandinavia most couples married before the birth of their second child together. Since legalization, 80% of first-born children are born out of wedlock and 60% of all subsequent children thereafter are born to unwed parents. <back> Q. What, if any, effect has Scandinavian same-sex marriages had on children? A. They have seen serious consequences for their children and grandchildren. Scandinavian children have a higher risk of bearing children outside of marriage and their grandchildren are more likely to live in a single-parent home. This is of grave concern since women and children in married households are less likely to be abused or live in poverty. Over the last generation, social science research has confirmed that married mothers and fathers give children the best start in life. Mothers and fathers play distinct roles in the upbringing and education of their children. When we arrive at a point where heterosexual marriage is deemed just another choice among many arrangements, the institution best suited to raise and educate our children will no longer be a unique institution. And, as Scandinavia has learned, our children will bear the greatest burden of this experimental deviation from the true marriage model we already know serves them best. <back> Q. Will the amendment prevent private companies from hiring the people of their choice and make South Carolina less attractive to new families and employees? A. This amendment will not apply to private employers. The federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 protects the right of private companies to provide employee benefits to anyone they choose. And no South Carolina laws or amendments can override it. It's deceitful to say so. <back> Q: Will the South Carolina Marriage Amendment take away any benefits currently afforded to state or government employees? A: Any legal contracts in force at the time of passage remain legal until the contract expires, as with any other legal contract in the commonwealth regardless of the parties. Legally binding contracts cannot be nullified by the passage of any law. So since most of the state universities contract their employment through union negotiations, those union contracts remain valid until expiration, thereby allowing any domestic partner benefits to continue. If passed, the amendment will prohibit South Carolina or its political subdivisions from subsequently attempting to change or recognize a change in the definition of marriage. Because state universities are considered state institutions, they would not be allowed to create their own definition of marriage or attempt to approximate it after the passage of the amendment. <back> Q. Should employers be concerned about this issue? A. Absolutely. According to the Corporate Resource Council in its White Paper, "Why Supporting Marriage Makes Business Sense," "Since married employees are generally happier, healthier, and more dependable than single or cohabiting employees, employers should adopt policies that promote stable marriages for their employees. <back>