The gay amendment

[cashflyer]

Pat will love this...

South Carolina seeks to make amendments to either it's State constitution or to it's laws to more clearly define marriage and prohibit same-sex unions.

I think it's a waste of effort and money, since we already have a same-sex prohibition on the books. But hey, it's an election year and politicians have to be doing something, right?


Here is the original SC Code:

South Carolina Code of Laws
(Unannotated)

Title 20 - Domestic Relations

CHAPTER 1.

MARRIAGE

ARTICLE 1.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

SECTION 20-1-10. Persons who may contract matrimony.

(A) All persons, except mentally incompetent persons and persons whose marriage is prohibited by this section, may lawfully contract matrimony.

(B) No man shall marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, stepmother, sister, grandfather's wife, son's wife, grandson's wife, wife's mother, wife's grandmother, wife's daughter, wife's granddaughter, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister, mother's sister, or another man.

(C) No woman shall marry her father, grandfather, son, grandson, stepfather, brother, grandmother's husband, daughter's husband, granddaughter's husband, husband's father, husband's grandfather, husband's son, husband's grandson, brother's son, sister's son, father's brother, mother's brother, or another woman.

SECTION 20-1-15. Prohibition of same sex marriage.

A marriage between persons of the same sex is void ab initio and against the public policy of this State.

The amendment changes the wording, but it pretty much states the same thing and adds parts about not extending the legal rights of marriage to such unions.

Here is the amendment:

A BILL

TO AMEND SECTION 20 1 15, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION OF SAME SEX MARRIAGES, TO PROVIDE THAT THIS SECTION MAY BE CITED AS THE “SOUTH CAROLINA DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT”, TO PROVIDE THAT SAME SEX MARRIAGES IN ANY OTHER JURISDICTION HAVE NO LEGAL FORCE OR EFFECT IN THIS STATE, TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY TO EXTEND OR RECOGNIZE STATUTORY BENEFITS OF A LEGAL MARRIAGE TO NONMARITAL RELATIONSHIPS AND TO FURTHER PROVIDE THAT ANY PUBLIC ACT, RECORD, OR JUDICIAL PROCEEDING OF THIS STATE THAT EXTENDS SUCH BENEFITS TO NONMARITAL RELATIONSHIPS HAS NO LEGAL FORCE OR EFFECT IN THIS STATE, TO PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS FOR BENEFITS ENJOYED BY ALL PERSONS, MARRIED OR UNMARRIED, AND FOR PRIVATE AGREEMENTS VALID UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE, AND TO PROVIDE THAT BENEFITS OF A LEGAL MARRIAGE EXTENDED TO NONMARITAL RELATIONSHIPS IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION HAVE NO LEGAL FORCE OR EFFECT IN THIS STATE.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:

SECTION 1. Section 20 1 15 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

“Section 20-1-15. (A) This section may be cited as the “South Carolina Defense of Marriage Act”.
(B) A marriage between persons of the same sex is void ab initio and against the public policy of this State.
(C) Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex in any other jurisdiction must be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this State and must not be recognized by this State.
(D) The recognition or extension by this State of the specific statutory benefits of a legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is against the strong public policy of this State. Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of this State that extends the specific statutory benefits of legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is void ab initio. Nothing in this subsection may be construed to:
(1) prohibit the extension of specific benefits otherwise enjoyed by all persons, married or unmarried, to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes, including the extension of benefits conferred by any statute that is not expressly limited to married persons;
(2) affect the validity of private agreements that are otherwise valid under the laws of this State.
(E) Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state, country, or other jurisdiction outside this State that extends the specific benefits of legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes must be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this State and must not be recognized by this State.”

SECTION 2. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
XX

[cashflyer]

And, just to get things rolling, here is some more commentary:


I tend to agree that this is driven by their desire for "married" benifits such as taxation as a family, eligibility for insurance, etc. I agree because these are the most frequent issues brought up in news coverage of the debate.

But to the average voter, I think this is about more than money and benifits. (In reality, I don't think letting them "marry" and get spousal benifits would cause a bit of harm to government programs or raise our taxes.) To the average voter, I believe this is more about acceptance of a lifestyle that many view as immoral.

This country was founded by people who believed in God, and who had conservative values. But it was also founded as a place of religious freedom. And with true religious freedom comes the freedom to choose any other religion or no religion. That freedom brings into play not only God and Jesus, but Moses, Budda, Allah, Ganesha, Shiva, and others not appearing in this episode.

So are we a country that is still "one nation under God" as founded? I guess not. Maybe "one nation under Gods". Still, I am not aware of a single religion that is accepting of homosexual unions. This means the morality of every major religion deems "marriage" as 1m + 1f.

So are we (as a country) a moral people? I like to believe so.

Should we be tolerant of homosexuals? Probably. Sure. Why not.
But, should we accept them?

There is a big difference between tolerance and acceptance, and statutorily acknowledging these unions is forced acceptance.

[slakjaw]

But to the average voter, I think this is about more than money and benifits. (In reality, I don't think letting them "marry" and get spousal benifits would cause a bit of harm to government programs or raise our taxes.) To the average voter, I believe this is more about acceptance of a lifestyle that many view as immoral.

I agree with that!

[widebody911]

Interesting that they have to codify the obvious

No man shall marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, stepmother, sister, grandfather's wife, son's wife, grandson's wife, wife's mother, wife's grandmother, wife's daughter, wife's granddaughter, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister, mother's sister, or another man.

So, it was legal up until now?

[pmajka]

Separation of Church and state.

Let the states recognize it, But the Church of ROME will never yeild!

Now where did i drop that lit match?

[cashflyer]

Originally posted by widebody911
Interesting that they have to codify the obvious

No man shall marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, stepmother, sister, grandfather's wife, son's wife, grandson's wife, wife's mother, wife's grandmother, wife's daughter, wife's granddaughter, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister, mother's sister, or another man.

So, it was legal up until now?

No, it was not. But if you don't spell it out then you can't prevent it. I bet your state has a similarly worded statute for the same reason.

[Jeff Higgins]

Whew; I don't see nuthin' 'bout cousins...

[mtelliott]

These things are put out by the conservative party to drive their constituents to the polls. If not for these tactics, they would not be going to the polls to vote due to disgust with the current party.

[Scooter]

Originally posted by cashflyer
I think it's a waste of effort and money, since we already have a same-sex prohibition on the books. But hey, it's an election year and politicians have to be doing something, right?

There is a BIG difference between amending the State's Constitution vs. amending the code. Codes can be easily amended in each legislative session, but amending the Costitution is a lot more permanent, because of the difficulty to amend. Also, a code has the possibilty of being overruled by activist judges, whereas activist judges cannot overrule the State's Constitution.

So, you may see it as a "waste of time", but it may actually be necessary to avoid unwanted results.

[cashflyer]

I did not realize the difference or the reasoning. Thanks!

[Flatbutt1]

It is my opinion that the government should not be involved in this issue.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Good to see they've got their priorities straight instead of wasting their time debating trivial issues like U.S. exit strategy from Iraq, containing North Korea's nuclear program, figuring out what to do about Iran's nuclear program, the genocide in Darfur, the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan, looming civil war in Iraq (with implications for destabilizing the entire Middle East), alternative energy, global climate change or (naturally) any reports of one of their own engaging in criminal sexual promiscuity with little boys.

[scottmandue]

Originally posted by flatbutt
It is my opinion that the government should not be involved in this issue.

I agree, can we please get the government out of the bed room and working on real issues like what Jeff posted.

[Moneyguy1]

Amen. Could not agree more.

[Scooter]

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
Good to see they've got their priorities straight instead of wasting their time debating trivial issues like U.S. exit strategy from Iraq, containing North Korea's nuclear program, figuring out what to do about Iran's nuclear program, the genocide in Darfur, the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan, looming civil war in Iraq (with implications for destabilizing the entire Middle East), alternative energy, global climate change or (naturally) any reports of one of their own engaging in criminal sexual promiscuity with little boys.

You do realize that we are talking about the South Carolina legislature and constitution, don't you? Last time I checked, South Carolina legislature did not have anything to do with the "trivial issues" mentioned above.