Dear Barbara,

The week before my partner, Carlos, died eleven years ago I went to the funeral home where we had prearranged services two years prior to his death to make sure that there was nothing else that needed to be done in advance of the inevitable. We had already provided the funeral director with the will, living will and power of attorney that gave me the "right" to make all decisions regarding the disposal of Carlos' remains. It was then that I asked the funeral director if there would be any problem with carrying out Carlos' wishes since his mother and father would be present for the services. He said that since there would be "family" present that I would no longer be their contact person for the arrangements and that he would need to speak with Carlos' mother. I mentioned the legal documents that we had provided two years earlier and he replied that they did not have time to get a legal determination as to whether I had any right to make those decisions and that they would deal only with Carlos' family.

One week later your newspaper received from me the language that Carlos wanted used in his obituary. The only revision that was made to the language prior to publication was the deletion of any reference to me as a survivor because your paper also did not consider me to be family...even though I had loved and cared for Carlos for eight years. As you might recall, I was unaware that this revision had been made until I saw it in the paper the next morning.

In your endorsement of Amendment 1 this morning you justify your support of the amendment by stating that it won't prevent gay people from making private agreements and contracts to provide for their own protection. What you fail to state in your support of this injustice is that South Carolina law doesn't require anyone other than the parties to the private agreements to abide by them once they are made. Neither funeral directors, judges, emergency room administrators nor anyone else is bound by those private agreements. You make it sound so simple, but it just isn't that simple. By suggesting that we somehow have an alternative means of protection, you are giving false information to voters who don't know any better.

You had the opportunity to meet with members of our community recently when we asked to speak directly to the Editorial Board about the amendment and you declined.  You said that you had no interest in meeting with anyone other than the legislators who authored the amendment. Why is it that you deem it essential to interview opposing candidates in an election, but you only sought support for your own prejudice when it came to this controversial amendment?

I had truly believed until this morning that we had progressed on these issues since that day in 1995 when your editor refused to allow me to speak privately with her about Carlos ' obituary. I was instead forced to stand in front of everyone in your lobby and publicly discuss what I still consider to be the most despicable act that anyone has every perpetrated on me. We clearly haven't progressed in eleven years and I am profoundly disappointed in you and in every person who participated in your decision to endorse Amendment 1.

 I wish that you would ask your readers this one question on my behalf... After you finish voting on my family, when do I get to vote on yours?

Charlie Smith

1625 McClain Street

Charleston, SC

For months I have been trying to put into simple words precisely where the inequality lies between spousal rights and the rights that gay partners have to make private agreements such as those regarding health care, child care and support and estate issues. This issue was the core of the letter that I wrote to Barbara Williams earlier this week. The example I used makes the inequality clear, but we need a simple and clear statement that makes it as easy to understand the inequality. I offer this...spouses have both the right to demand and the right to receive benefits under SC law simply by virtue of their legal status as a spouse. Gay partners have the right to demand benefits due them under private agreements, but they have absolutely no right to receive them under the law. This is the inequality.