Marriage Bills Actually a Threat to Families
From THE STATE (Columbia SC), page A11, by ED MADDEN, Guest columnist
26 February 2004
Republican legislators in the S.C. House are working very hard to destroy families they don't like.
Addressing the supposed "threat" of same-sex marriage, two House bills prohibit recognition of same-sex marriages, unions or domestic partnerships made in other states. The bills also prohibit any kind of same-sex partner or family benefits for public employees.
Rather than "defending" marriage, as proponents suggest, these sweeping bills actually attack South Carolina families, and they could undermine corporate and social policies that protect them, now and in the future. Worse, the legal impact of the bills is unknown, as sponsors admit. The economic and political impact could be destructive.
Proponents want to erect a comprehensive barrier against any kind of legal or social protection for same-sex couples and their families. Rep. Gloria Haskins, R-Greenville, who sponsored one bill, told The Herald-Journal of Spartanburg that she didn't want same-sex couples to have "the benefits and privilege of family."
Rep. Marty Coates, R-Florence, who sponsored the other, told the same newspaper that his bill would deny any insurance benefits to same-sex couples who work for entities of the state – including universities, counties and local municipalities – or "all political subdivisions," as Rep. John Graham Altman, R-Charleston, proposed in an amendment.
According to the 2000 census, more than 15,000 South Carolinians live in same-sex households, which are found in every county of the state. (Experts suggest this figure may undercount by as much as 62 percent, since many would fear self-identification.) Almost 30 percent of the gay couples and almost 40 percent of the lesbian couples in South Carolina are raising children at home (with the rate likely higher among lesbians of color).
Attacking families and children because some legislators don't like their parents, these bills undermine the possibility of legal or social stability for such families by prohibiting "benefits" associated with marriage from ever being extended to same-sex couples and their families.
No matter how "pro-family" supporters portray these bills, such legislation is both anti-family and anti-child. Such legislation is also potentially disastrous economic policy.
Major companies across the nation recognize that anti-gay policies hurt business. Earlier this month, business leaders in Cincinnati, including the city's biggest employers, announced that anti-gay policies in the city have hurt business by discouraging business relocation, undermining recruitment of talented workers and devastating tourism and convention business. Cincinnati tourism officials estimate a loss of $46 million in convention business since the city passed an anti-gay ordinance in 1993.
Over 60 percent of Fortune 500 companies include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policies, and many are taking further steps toward workplace equality by offering partner benefits.
While the proposed bills provide exceptions for private agreements, Coates admitted in The State that it is not clear how the bills would affect companies doing business with state government. The ambiguity of the language might force major companies contracting with the state to reduce or revoke benefits they provide their employees.
USC law professor Roy Stuckey told The State the legislation might cause complications with adoptions and other legal issues, and others have suggested it might affect any legal contracts made by same-sex couples, since the bills recognize only private agreements "valid under the laws of this state."
Anti-gay politicians also dismiss real stories of same-sex families who face economic or emotional hardship. Oran Smith of the Palmetto Family Council, speaking at a subcommittee hearing, called such stories "emotional smokescreens," suggesting, disingenuously, that all the basic rights of property, custody and hospital visitation can be taken care of by a few pieces of paper.
It's nice to know that even opponents of gay marriage acknowledge that there are basic rights of equality in property, inheritance, child custody and medical care – all legal "benefits" associated with marriage.
If civil unions, domestic partnerships or marriages were legally recognized, no church would ever be required to perform a ceremony. And such unions would not undermine the "traditional" marriages of those who so vigorously support this legislation.
Instead, couples and families currently under legislative attack would find their emotional and economic commitments recognized, their children and families protected. And that – unlike these bills – sounds like policy that would truly contribute to the economic and social stability of the state.
--
Mr. Madden is an associate professor at the University of South Carolina and a volunteer at the South Carolina Gay and Lesbian Community Center in Columbia.