COLUMBIA, S.C. _ The day after Valentine's Day, six South Carolina legislators introduced a bill to the state House that would amend the definition of what constitutes marriage in the Palmetto State.
The "Marriage and Constitution Restoration Act" was introduced Feb. 15 and would draw a line between what its sponsors deem is "marriage" and what is considered "parody marriage."
According to the bill, " 'parody marriage' means any form of marriage that does not involve one man and one woman. 'Marriage' means a union of one man and one woman."
By that definition, any LGBT marriage would be a "parody marriage." That wasn't well received by Jeff March, president of SC Pride.
"Pure prejudice is what that is. Pure outright prejudice," March said, according to wach.com.
The State House representatives sponsoring the bill are all Republicans, and include:
_ Steven Wayne Long, Spartanburg District 37
_ William M. "Bill" Chumley, Spartanburg District 35
_ James Mikell "Mike" Burns, Greenville District 17
_ John R. McCravy, III, Greenwood District 13
_ Josiah Magnuson, Spartanburg District 38
_ Richard "Rick" Martin, Newberry District 40
Their bill would "prohibit the state from respecting, endorsing, or recognizing any 'parody marriage' policy or policies that treat sexual orientation as a suspect class; and for other purposes," according to its summary on scstatehouse.gov.
Essentially, the bill would make it so South Carolina would not legally recognize any marriage not between one man and one woman.
"It's true that people can do whatever they want in their own homes, but they can't force that on the state," Long said, according to wach.com.
The bill goes on to read, "Marriage between and man and a woman arose out of the nature of things and marriage between a man and a woman is natural, neutral, and noncontroversial, unlike parody forms of marriage."
The sponsors of the bill argue that "parody marriages" and "sexual orientation policies" have created a legal mess for the state of South Carolina and that they have turned into a "legal weapon" being used against people who object to "parody marriages."
They go on to say that while there has been no "land rush on gay marriage," it has had other detrimental effects. Specifically, "the persecution of nonobservers," and an effort by believers and practitioners of "parody marriage" to "infiltrate and indoctrinate minors in public schools to their religious world view which is questionably moral, plausible, obscene."
The bill was referred to Committee on Judiciary on Feb. 15. Should it be passed into law as currently written it would mean:
_ South Carolina would no longer respect, endorse, or recognize any form of "parody marriage" policy.
_ South Carolina would no longer enforce, recognize, or respect any policy that treats sexual orientation as a suspect class.
_ South Carolina will continue to enforce, endorse, and recognize marriages between a man and a woman.
"We're not trying to impersonate anyone here. We are trying to be the equal of everyone here. It's written with hate. I can't imagine there are state officials that put this in writing," March said, according to wach.com.
