John McCravy, James Burns, William Chumley, Steven Long, Josiah Magnuson and Richard Martin introduced a bill that would redefine marriage as a union between a man and a woman because marriage equality would be a 'parody marriage.'
The notion of 'parody marriage' isn't easy to understand. Let's see what the bill says.
- A- According to the Marriage and Constitution Restoration Act, a “parody marriage” is “any form of marriage that does not involve one man and one woman.”
The bill reads: “Marriage between a 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.
“All forms of parody marriage and all self-asserted sex-based identity narratives and sexual orientations that fail to check out the human design are part of the religion of Secular Humanism.”
So the bill urges the South Carolina to "no longer respect, endorse, or recognize any form of parody marriage policy because parody marriage policies are nonsecular."
Marriage between a man and a woman is Secular Humanism. The Supreme Court of the United States sees Secular Humanism as a religion.
As a result, the bill argues that the recognition of same-sex marriages goes against religion and thus violates the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.
- B- Also the bill urges the State of South Carolina to "no longer enforce, recognize, or respect any policy that treats sexual orientation as a suspect class because all such statutes lack a secular purpose.”
If you don't get it, here is a simple explanation. 1 + 1 = 1.
- 1- Normally, secularism is not being religious.
But apparently Secular Humanism is a religion. (???)
- 2- The marriage between a man and a woman (= Secular Humanism marriage) is therefore religious.
But the marriage between two same-sex people celebrated at the same places, including in churches, under the same conditions, by the same officials is not Secular Humanism, and so isn't religious. (why ??????)
B- Suspect Class:
For example, discrimination based on + class 'sexual orientation', 'gender identity'.
- 1- They oppose protections based on a specific class. (Protections is an example, it can be something else). You could think they oppose all discrimination, against all types of people. But they are against discrimination except for LGBTQ people. (?????????????)
“Pure prejudice is what that is. Pure outright prejudice,” said Jeff March, president of SC Pride, according to wach.com.
“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.”
In South Carolina a group of legislators:
- tries to redefine marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
- calls on South Carolina to no longer recognize or respect any policy that addresses sexual orientation as a suspect class
- and thus wants to allow discrimination against LGBTQ people