Banning same-sex marriage restricts our rights

Tara Jennings "Promoting hatred and bigotry in the name of God is what destroys society, not the marriage of two loving people of the same gender." - Raymond Miller.

Before I begin, I realize I may alienate myself from some of you with this column. Same-sex marriages are a hotly debated topic, and I fully expect to hear from some readers (and coworkers) who may not appreciate my view. All I ask is that you read this with an open mind and remember I am just trying to open your eyes to a severe injustice that was committed Tuesday.

I believe everyone has a right to believe and live as they want, but I have a problem with people trying to impose those beliefs on others who may not feel the same way.

On Tuesday, an overwhelming number of people voted in favor of Amendment 1 to the S.C. Constitution. The Amendment passed almost 12 to 1 (12,017 to 1,289) in Cherokee County. Yes the people have spoken but I believe we have restricted the rights of our residents.

According to the U.S. Constitution, all citizens are afforded the same rights.

Single gay and lesbian citizens are awarded the same rights as single heterosexual citizens. It would be considered discriminatory for the state not to hire a lesbian woman because of her sexual preference, for instance.

However, when we cross over into the world of marriage, it becomes socially acceptable to discriminate against samesex couples, as evidenced by Tuesday's vote in favor of Amendment 1.

I understand that many of you want to keep marriage an institution between men and women recognized by God. If we don't want to call same-sex unions "marriage" then that's fine. Keep marriage in the church. Individual churches should be able to make their own decisions regarding same-sex couples. But whatever we call it - civil unions or marriage - gay and lesbian citizens should be granted the same rights from the state as given to heterosexual citizens.

I am a Christian, but I don't feel Christians, or Muslims, or Scientologists, or Jehovah Witnesses should impose religious beliefs on me or anyone else living freely in the great U.S.A.

Whether you or I believe same-sex unions are acceptable is one thing; the state, however, should remain neutral and treat all citizens equally.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously decided on Oct. 25, 2006, in the matter of Lewis and Winslow et al. v. Harris, that it is unconstitutional for the state to maintain "an unequal legal scheme of benefits and privileges that disadvantages same-sex couples."

That's what happened here in South Carolina Tuesday.

With nearly half of all marriages ending in divorce, the former marriage penalty tax, and the government assistance received by single mothers, I believe the establishment of marriage has long been threatened - regardless of whether same-sex marriages are permitted or not.

For those who believe that allowing same-sex marriages will threaten the sanctity and tradition of marriage and our society, remember that the concept of marriage has evolved over the years.

At one time, an adult man could marry a 12-year-old girl. Years ago marriages were arranged by parents and people of different races, religions or economic classes could not marry. Husbands could have multiple wives and treat those wives as property. And no matter how physically or emotionally abusive, divorce was not possible.

According to the Website www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm, it was only after the civil war that African-Americans were allowed to marry in all areas of the U.S. It was only after a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1967 that mixed race couples could marry anywhere in the U.S.

For more information on these topics, visit www.aclusc.org or www.logcabin.com.