Content deleted Content added
GreenC bot (talk | contribs) m Rescued 4 archive links; remove 4 links. Wayback Medic 2.1 |
correction Tag: Redirect target changed |
||
(27 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
#REDIRECT [[U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions]] {{R from merge}} |
|||
{{featured list}}<onlyinclude><!-- See [[Wikipedia_talk:Featured_lists#Proposed_change_to_all_featured_lists]] for an explanation of this and other inclusion tags below --> |
|||
{{Further|U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions}} |
|||
[[File:Former U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions.svg|300px|thumb|'''[[U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions]] in the United States, by state''' |
|||
{{Legend|#2b0000|Former constitutional amendment bans same-sex marriage, civil unions, and any marriage-like contract between unmarried persons}} |
|||
{{Legend|maroon|Former constitutional amendment bans same-sex marriage and civil unions}} |
|||
{{Legend|red|Former constitutional amendment bans same-sex marriage}} |
|||
{{Legend|#d3d3d3|No state constitutional amendment banning legal recognition of same-sex unions ever adopted}}]] |
|||
[[File:Marriage amendment animation.gif|300px|thumb|'''The adoption of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning legal recognition of same-sex unions over time''']] |
|||
Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]'', U.S. states passed several different types of state [[constitutional amendment]]s banning legal recognition of same-sex unions in [[State constitution (United States)|U.S. state constitutions]], referred to by proponents as defense of marriage amendments.<ref>{{cite book |editor1-first=Michael |editor1-last=Walden |editor2-first=Peg |editor2-last=Thoms |title=Battleground: business |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UWIhthzfKfcC&pg=PA468 |year=2007 |publisher=[[Greenwood Publishing Group]] |volume=2 |isbn=978-0-313-34065-9 |page=468}}</ref> The amendments define marriage as a union between one man and one woman and prevent [[civil unions]] or [[same-sex marriage]]s from being legalized, though some of the amendments bar only the latter. The ''Obergefell'' decision in June 2015 invalidated these state constitutional amendments insofar as they prevented same-sex couples from marrying, even though the actual text of these amendments remain written into the state constitutions. |
|||
Thirty-one U.S. state constitutional amendments banning legal recognition of same-sex unions have been adopted. Of these, ten make only same-sex marriage unconstitutional; sixteen make both same-sex marriage and [[civil union]]s unconstitutional; two make same-sex marriage, civil unions, and other contracts unconstitutional; and one is unique. Hawaii's amendment is unique in that it does not make same-sex marriage unconstitutional; rather, it allows the state to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. Virginia's amendment prevents the state from recognizing private contracts that "approximate" marriage. Observers have pointed out that such language encompasses private contracts and medical directives.</onlyinclude><ref>{{cite news |url= http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2006/112006/11212006/237960 |title= Test case is urged by ACLU |first= Bill |last= Freehling |work= The Free Lance-Star |date= November 21, 2006 |accessdate= December 15, 2006}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.votenova.org/files/final1651081_3.pdf |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170320234237/http://www.votenova.org/files/final1651081_3.pdf |dead-url= yes |archive-date= March 20, 2017 |format= PDF |title= Potential Impact of the Proposed Marshall/Newman Amendment to the Virginia Constitution |first1= Melissa |last1= Glidden |first2= Brenda |last2= Jackson-Cooper |first3= Leslie |last3= Nickel |publisher= Arnold & Porter, LLP |date= August 11, 2006 |accessdate= December 15, 2006}}</ref> Furthermore, the [[Michigan Supreme Court]] has held that the state's amendment bans not only same-sex marriage and civil unions, but also domestic partnership benefits such as health insurance.<ref name=NatPride@Work>{{cite court |url= http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/OPINIONS/FINAL/SCT/20080507_S133429_164_natlpride3Nov07-op.pdf |format= PDF |litigants= National Pride At Work, Inc. et al. v. Governor of Michigan et al. |vol= 748 |reporter= N.W.2d |opinion= 524 |court= [[Michigan Supreme Court|Mich]] |date= 2008}}</ref> |
|||
This list only covers bans of civil unions, private contracts between same-sex couples and same-sex marriage in state constitutions; state statutes are not listed. The text of these amendments sometimes runs several paragraphs. In this event, excerpts of the most important phrases or sentences are included in this list. |
|||
State constitutional amendments are typically approved first by the legislature or special constitutional convention and then by the voters in a referendum. |
|||
{{refn|The mechanics differ: 17 states allow constitutional amendments to be proposed by popular initiative, all allow the legislature to start the process, and five allow special conventions to start the process. In all states, though, the amendment is approved by elected members of a constitutional convention or elected legislators at least once, with varying standards for approval of the measure. Voters then vote directly on the resulting referendum, except in [[Delaware]], where constitutional amendments are voted on and ratified only by the state legislature.<ref name="Lutz7">{{cite journal |title= Toward a Theory of Constitutional Amendment |last= |
|||
Lutz |first= Donald S. |journal= [[American Political Science Review]] |volume= 88 |issue= 2 |date=June 1994 |pages= 355–370. Page 360. Table 3. Covers State Constitutions active from 1970–9 |url= http://www.jstor.org/stable/2944709 }} {{subscription required}}</ref>|group=lower-alpha|name="Towards a Theory p7"}} In some states, one or both of these steps is repeated.{{refn|Amendments to the Nevada state constitution must be approved by the voters in two consecutive elections.<ref name="Gaydemo">{{cite web|url=http://www.gaydemographics.org/USA/elections/2000-2002.htm |title=Gay rights ballot initiatives |work=Gaydemographics.org |accessdate=November 30, 2006 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20061016201209/http://gaydemographics.org/USA/elections/2000-2002.htm |archivedate=October 16, 2006 }}</ref>|group=lower-alpha|name="NV amend process"}} The percentages shown in the list are results from the referendum stage, not the legislative stage. |
|||
==Former constitutional amendment bans same-sex marriage, civil unions, and any marriage-like contract between unmarried persons== |
|||
{| class="wikitable" style="border:#999; background:#fff;" |
|||
|- style="background:#bdbbd7; text-align:center;" |
|||
| style="width:100px; "| '''State''' |
|||
| style="width:75px; "| '''Year''' |
|||
| style="width:75px; "| '''Support vote %''' |
|||
| style="width:120px; "| '''Title''' |
|||
| style="width:455px; "| '''Amendment''' |
|||
| style="width:150px; "| '''Fate''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''[[Michigan]]'''||2004||59%<ref name="CNN ballot 2004" />||''[[Michigan State Proposal – 04-2 (2004)|State Proposal - 04-2]]''<ref name="MI results">{{cite web |url= http://miboecfr.nicusa.com/election/results/04GEN/90000002.html |title= 2004 General Election Results |publisher= Michigan Department of State |accessdate= December 19, 2006}}</ref>||To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.<ref name=NatPride@Work/><ref name="MI Constitution">{{cite web |url= http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(hexj4yfhisnsczqazqfg1x3a))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-Article-I-25 |work= Michigan State Constitution |title= Article I, section 25 |publisher= Michigan Legislature |accessdate= December 19, 2006}}</ref>||Ruled unconstitutional in ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]''. |
|||
|-style="background:#efefef;" |
|||
|- |
|||
|-style="background:#efefef;" |
|||
|'''[[Nebraska]]'''||2000||70%<ref name="NE result">{{cite web |url= http://www.sos.state.ne.us/elec/prev_elec/2000/pdf/416_and_417.pdf |format= PDF |title= Statewide General Election 2000 Results, Constitutional Amendments and Initiative Measures |publisher= Nebraska Secretary of State |pages= 21–22 |accessdate= December 17, 2006}}</ref>||''[[Nebraska Initiative Measure 416 (2000)|Initiative Measure 416]]''<ref name="NE result" />||Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska.<ref name="NE constitution">{{cite web |url= http://uniweb.legislature.ne.gov/LegalDocs/view.php?page=c0101029000 |work= Nebraska State Constitution |title= Article I, section 29 |publisher= Nebraska Legislative Documents Legislature |accessdate= December 15, 2006}}{{dead link|date=August 2013}}</ref>||Ruled unconstitutional in ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]''. |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''[[South Dakota]]'''||2006||52%<ref name="CNN ballot 2006" />||''[[South Dakota Amendment C (2006)|South Dakota Amendment C]]''<ref name="CNN ballot 2006" />||Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in South Dakota. The uniting of two or more persons in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other quasi-marital relationship shall not be valid or recognized in South Dakota.<ref name="SD HJR">{{cite web |url= http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2005/bills/HJR1001p.pdf |format= PDF |title= House Joint Resolution 1001 |publisher= South Dakota Legislature |year= 2005 |accessdate= January 6, 2007}}</ref> ||Ruled unconstitutional in ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]''. |
|||
|-style="background:#efefef;" |
|||
|- |
|||
|-style="background:#efefef;" |
|||
|'''[[Virginia]]'''||2006||57%<ref name="VA result">{{cite web|url=http://www2.sbe.virginia.gov/web_docs/Election/results/2006/Nov/htm/index.htm |title=Official Results, 2006 election |publisher=Virginia State Board of Elections |accessdate=December 30, 2006 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070202004357/http://www2.sbe.virginia.gov/web_docs/Election/results/2006/Nov/htm/index.htm |archivedate=February 2, 2007 }}</ref>||''[[Marshall-Newman Amendment]]''<ref name="VA result" />||That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.<ref name="VA Constitution">{{cite web|url=http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/documents/2006_Constitutional_Amendments/2006ques_marriage_APPROVED.pdf |format=PDF |title=Proposed Constitutional Amendment, Article I, Section 15-A |work=November 2006 Proposed Amendments |publisher=Virginia State Board of Elections |accessdate=December 30, 2006 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20061214010734/http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/documents/2006_Constitutional_Amendments/2006ques_marriage_APPROVED.pdf |archivedate=December 14, 2006 }}</ref>||Ruled unconstitutional in ''[[Bostic v. Schaefer]]''. |
|||
|- |
|||
|} |
|||
==Former constitutional amendment bans same-sex marriage and civil unions== |
|||
{| class="wikitable" style="border:#999; background:#fff;" |
|||
|- style="background:#bdbbd7; text-align:center;" |
|||
| style="width:100px; "| '''State''' |
|||
| style="width:75px; "| '''Year''' |
|||
| style="width:75px; "| '''Support vote %''' |
|||
| style="width:120px; "| '''Title''' |
|||
| style="width:455px; "| '''Amendment''' |
|||
| style="width:150px; "| '''Fate''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''[[Alabama]]'''||2006||81%<ref name="ADF AL">{{cite web|url=http://www.domawatch.org/stateissues/alabama/index.html |work=DOMAwatch.org |title=Alabama |publisher=Alliance Defense Fund |year=2006 |accessdate=January 6, 2007 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20050308041706/http://www.domawatch.org/stateissues/alabama/index.html |archivedate=March 8, 2005 }}</ref>||''[[Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment|Sanctity of Marriage Amendment (Amendment 774)]]''<ref name="774 RATIFIED">{{cite web |url= http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeOfAlabama/Constitution/1901/CA-1470311.htm |title= Amendment 774 Ratified |publisher= Alabama State Legislature |accessdate= January 6, 2006}}</ref>||No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to parties of the same sex... A union replicating marriage of or between persons of the same sex in the State of Alabama or in any other jurisdiction shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state as a marriage or other union replicating marriage. || Ruled unconstitutional in ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]''.<br>Ruled unconstitutional in ''[[Searcy v. Strange]]''. |
|||
|-style="background:#efefef;" |
|||
|- |
|||
|-style="background:#efefef;" |
|||
|'''[[Arkansas]]'''||2004||75%<ref name="CNN ballot 2004" />||''[[Arkansas Constitutional Amendment 3 (2004)|Constitutional Amendment 3]]''<ref name="AR 2004 amend">{{cite web |url= http://www.sos.arkansas.gov/elections/elections_pdfs/initiatives_amendments_1938-2004.pdf |format= PDF |title= Arkansas Initiatives & Amendments, 1938–2004 |page= 20 |publisher= Arkansas Secretary of State |accessdate= December 18, 2006}}{{dead link|date=August 2013}}</ref>||(1) Marriage consists only of the union of one man and one woman. (2) Legal status for unmarried persons which is identical or substantially similar to marital status shall not be valid or recognized in Arkansas.<ref name="AR constitution">{{cite web|url=http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/data/constitution/ArkansasConstitution1874.pdf |format=PDF |work=Arkansas State Constitution |title=83rd Amendment |publisher=Arkansas Legislature |accessdate=December 18, 2006 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20081003133712/http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/data/constitution/ArkansasConstitution1874.pdf |archivedate=October 3, 2008 }}</ref>|| Ruled unconstitutional in ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]''. |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''[[Florida]]'''||2008||62%<ref name="CNN ballot 2008" />||''[[Florida Amendment 2]]''<ref name="FL DOS">{{cite web |url= http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/fulltext/pdf/41550-1.pdf |format= PDF |title= Initiative Information: Florida Marriage Protection Amendment |publisher= Florida Department of State |author= Division of Elections |accessdate= November 11, 2008}}</ref>||Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.<ref name="FL DOS"/>|| Ruled unconstitutional in ''[[Brenner v. Scott]]''. |
|||
|-style="background:#efefef;" |
|||
|- |
|||
|-style="background:#efefef;" |
|||
|'''[[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]]'''||2004||76%<ref name="CNN ballot 2004" />||''[[Georgia Constitutional Amendment 1 (2004)|Constitutional Amendment 1]]''<ref name="GA results">{{cite web |url= http://www.sos.state.ga.us/elections/election_results/2004_1102/judicial.htm#qa |title= Official Results of the November 2, 2004 General Election |publisher= Georgia Secretary of State |accessdate= December 18, 2006}}</ref>||(a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state. (b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage.<ref name="GA Constitution">{{cite web |url= http://www.sos.state.ga.us/ELECTIONS/2003_constitution.pdf |format= PDF |work= Constitution of the State of Georgia |title= Article I, section IV |publisher= Georgia Secretary of State |accessdate= December 18, 2006}}</ref>|| Ruled unconstitutional in ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]''. |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''[[Idaho]]'''||2006||63%<ref name="CNN ballot 2006" />||''[[Idaho Amendment 2 (2006)|Idaho Amendment 2]]''<ref name="CNN ballot 2006" />||A marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.<ref name="ID const">{{cite web |url= http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/constretr?sctid=003030328.K |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20060923094047/http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/constretr?sctid=003030328.K |dead-url= yes |archive-date= September 23, 2006 |title= Article III, Section 28 |work= Idaho Constitution |publisher= Idaho State Legislature |accessdate= January 6, 2007}}</ref>|| Ruled unconstitutional in ''[[Latta v. Otter]]''. |
|||
|-style="background:#efefef;" |
|||
|- |
|||
|-style="background:#efefef;" |
|||
|'''[[Kansas]]'''||2005||70%<ref name="KS 2005 amend">{{cite web |url= http://www.kssos.org/elections/elections_statistics.html |title= Election Statistics |publisher= Kansas Secretary of State |accessdate= December 22, 2006}}</ref>||''[[Kansas proposed amendment 1 (2005)|Proposed Amendment 1]]''<ref name="LJWorld">{{cite news|url=http://6news.ljworld.com/section/gaymarriage/storypr/195146 |title=Gay marriage ban in public's hands |first=Scott |last=Rothschild |work=Lawrence Journal-World |date=February 3, 2005 |accessdate=December 22, 2006 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20060523041937/http://6news.ljworld.com/section/gaymarriage/storypr/195146 |archivedate=May 23, 2006 }}</ref>||(a) Marriage shall be constituted by one man and one woman only. All other marriages are declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state and are void. (b) No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage.<ref name="KS Constitution">{{cite web |url= http://skyways.lib.ks.us/KSL/ref/constitution/art15.html |work= Kansas Constitution |title= Article XV, section 16 |accessdate= December 22, 2006}}</ref> || Ruled unconstitutional in ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]''.<br>Ruled unconstitutional in ''[[Marie v. Moser]]''. |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''[[Kentucky]]'''||2004||75%<ref name="CNN ballot 2004" />||''[[Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1 (2004)|Constitutional Amendment 1]]''<ref name="KY results">{{cite web|url=http://elect.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/3A2A50FF-35A2-44ED-BCFD-EFA7028E14EC/0/2004state.txt |title=2004 Election Night Tally Results |publisher=Kentucky State Board of Elections |accessdate=December 18, 2006 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090304222626/http://elect.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/3A2A50FF-35A2-44ED-BCFD-EFA7028E14EC/0/2004state.txt |archivedate=March 4, 2009 }}</ref>||Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.<ref name="KY Constitution">{{cite web |url= http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Legresou/Constitu/233A.htm |work= Kentucky Constitution |title= Section 233A |publisher= Kentucky Legislature |accessdate= December 18, 2006}}</ref> || Ruled unconstitutional in ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]''. |
|||
|-style="background:#efefef;" |
|||
|- |
|||
|-style="background:#efefef;" |
|||
|'''[[Louisiana]]'''||2004||78%<ref name="CNN ballot 2004" />||''[[Louisiana Constitutional Amendment 1 (2004)|Constitutional Amendment 1]]''<ref name="LA results">{{cite web|url=http://www.sos.louisiana.gov:8090/cgibin/?rqstyp=elcms4&rqsdta=091804 |title=Results for Election Date: 9/18/04 |publisher=Louisiana Secretary of State |accessdate=December 19, 2006 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20060203221159/http://www.sos.louisiana.gov:8090/cgibin/?rqstyp=elcms4&rqsdta=091804 |archivedate=February 3, 2006 }}</ref>||Marriage in the state of Louisiana shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. No official or court of the state of Louisiana shall construe this constitution or any state law to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any member of a union other than the union of one man and one woman. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.<ref name="LA Constitution">{{cite web |url= http://senate.legis.state.la.us/Documents/Constitution/Article12.htm |work= Louisiana Constitution |title= Article 12, section 15 |publisher= Louisiana State Senate |accessdate= December 19, 2006}}</ref>|| Ruled unconstitutional in ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]''. |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''[[North Carolina]]'''||2012||61%<ref>{{cite news |title=NC approves amendment on gay marriage |last=Waggoner |first=Martha |agency=Associated Press |publisher=Google News |url=https://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jMc52sVsFTFWWyrhx6CZZlko3Omg |date=May 8, 2012 |accessdate=May 8, 2012}}{{dead link|date=August 2013}}</ref>||''[[North Carolina Amendment 1]]''||Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2011/Bills/Senate/PDF/S514v5.pdf |title=Session Law 2011-409, Senate Bill 514 |year=2011 |publisher=[[North Carolina General Assembly]] |format=PDF |accessdate=May 8, 2012}}</ref>|| Ruled unconstitutional in ''[[General Synod of the United Church of Christ v. Cooper]]'' |
|||
|-style="background:#efefef;" |
|||
|- |
|||
|-style="background:#efefef;" |
|||
|'''[[North Dakota]]'''||2004||73%<ref name="CNN ballot 2004" />||''[[North Dakota Constitutional Measure 1 (2004)|North Dakota Constitutional Measure 1]]''<ref name="ND results">{{cite web|url=http://web.apps.state.nd.us/sec/emspublic/gp/electionresultssearch.htm?cmd=Search&searchType=STATE&electionDate=11022004&showMap=N |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080213200550/http://web.apps.state.nd.us/sec/emspublic/gp/electionresultssearch.htm?cmd=Search&searchType=STATE&electionDate=11022004&showMap=N |dead-url=yes |archive-date=February 13, 2008 |title=Election Results, 2004 General Election |publisher=North Dakota Secretary of State |work=Election Management System |accessdate=December 20, 2006 }}</ref>||Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.<ref name="ND Constitution">{{cite web |url= http://www.legis.nd.gov/constitution/const.pdf |format= PDF |work= North Dakota Constitution |title= Article XI, section 28 |accessdate= December 20, 2006}}</ref>||Ruled unconstitutional in ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]''. |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''[[Ohio]]'''||2004||62%<ref name="CNN ballot 2004" />||''[[Ohio State Issue 1 (2004)|State Issue 1]]''<ref name="OH 2004 amend">{{cite web |url= http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/ElectionsVoter/results2004.aspx?Section=balLang |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20060622002458/http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/ElectionsVoter/results2004.aspx?Section=balLang |dead-url= yes |archive-date= June 22, 2006 |title= Official Ballot Language |publisher= Ohio Secretary of State |accessdate= December 21, 2006}}</ref>||Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.<ref name="OH Constitution">{{cite web |url= https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/laws/ohio-constitution?Part=15&Section=11 |work= Ohio Constitution |title= Article XV, section 11 |accessdate= December 21, 2006}}</ref>|| Ruled unconstitutional in ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]''. |
|||
|-style="background:#efefef;" |
|||
|- |
|||
|-style="background:#efefef;" |
|||
|'''[[Oklahoma]]'''||2004||76%<ref name="CNN ballot 2004" />||''[[Oklahoma State Question 711 (2004)|State Question 711]]''<ref name="OK 2004 amend">{{cite web|url=http://www.ok.gov/~elections/04gen.html |title=General Election, November 2, 2004, Summary Results |publisher=Oklahoma State Election Board |accessdate=December 22, 2006 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070402075001/http://www.ok.gov/~elections/04gen.html |archivedate=April 2, 2007 }}</ref>||A. Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. Neither this Constitution nor any other provision of law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. C. Any person knowingly issuing a marriage license in violation of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.<ref name="OK Constitution">{{cite web|url=http://www.domawatch.org/stateissues/oklahoma/index.html |work=Oklahoma Constitution |title=Article II, section 35 |publisher=domawatch.org |accessdate=December 22, 2006 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20050310145842/http://www.domawatch.org/stateissues/oklahoma/index.html |archivedate=March 10, 2005 }}</ref>||Ruled unconstitutional in ''[[Bishop v. Oklahoma]]''. |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''[[South Carolina]]'''{{refn|South Carolina's Amendment explicitly disavows a Virginia-type regime that would affect private contracts: "This section shall not prohibit or limit parties, other than the State or its political subdivisions, from entering into contracts or other legal instruments."<ref name="SC journal" />|group=lower-alpha|name="SCamend"}}||2006||78%<ref name="CNN ballot 2006" />||''[[South Carolina Amendment 1 (2006)|South Carolina Amendment 1]]''<ref name="CNN ballot 2006" />||A marriage between one man and one woman is the only lawful domestic union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This State...shall not recognize...any other domestic union, however denominated.<ref name="SC journal">{{cite journal |url= http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/sj05/20050413.pdf |format= PDF |title= A Joint Resolution to Propose an Amendment to Article XVII of the Constitution of South Carolina, 1895, Relating to Miscellaneous Matters, by Adding Section 15, so as to Provide that a Marriage of One Man and One Woman Is the Only Lawful Domestic Union that Shall Be Valid or Recognized in This State |page= 24 |issue=54 |journal= Journal of the Senate of the State of South Carolina |publisher= State of South Carolina |date=April 2005 |accessdate= January 6, 2007 |archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20081003133715/http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/sj05/20050413.pdf |archivedate= October 3, 2008 }}</ref>|| Ruled unconstitutional in ''[[Condon v. Haley]]''. |
|||
|-style="background:#efefef;" |
|||
|- |
|||
|-style="background:#efefef;" |
|||
|'''[[Texas]]'''||2005||76%||''[[Texas Proposition 2 (2005)|Proposition 2]]''||(A) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. (B) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.|| Ruled unconstitutional in ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]''. |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''[[Utah]]'''||2004||66%<ref name="CNN ballot 2004" />||''[[Utah Constitutional Amendment 3|Constitutional Amendment 3]]''<ref name="UT 2004 amend">{{cite web|url=http://elections.utah.gov/2004_canvass_amendments.pdf |format=PDF |title=Utah 2004 canvass amendments |work=2004 General Election Results |publisher=State of Utah Elections Office |accessdate=December 15, 2006 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20060923034509/http://www.elections.utah.gov/2004_canvass_amendments.pdf |archivedate=September 23, 2006 }}</ref>||Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.<ref name="UT Constitution">{{cite web|url=http://le.utah.gov/~code/const/CO_02.htm |work=Utah State Constitution |title=Article I, section 29 |publisher=Utah Legislature |accessdate=December 15, 2006 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070106152700/http://le.utah.gov/~code/const/CO_02.htm |archivedate=January 6, 2007 }}</ref>||Ruled unconstitutional in ''[[Kitchen v. Herbert]]''. |
|||
|-style="background:#efefef;" |
|||
|- |
|||
|-style="background:#efefef;" |
|||
|'''[[Wisconsin]]'''||2006||59%<ref name="CNN ballot 2006" />||''[[Wisconsin Referendum 1 (2006)|Wisconsin Referendum 1]]''<ref name="CNN ballot 2006" />||Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.<ref name="DOMA Watch Wisconsin">{{cite web|url=http://www.domawatch.org/stateissues/wisconsin/index.html |work=DOMAwatch.org |title=Wisconsin |publisher=Alliance Defense Fund |year=2006 |accessdate=January 6, 2007 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20050310145716/http://www.domawatch.org/stateissues/wisconsin/index.html |archivedate=March 10, 2005 }}</ref> || Ruled unconstitutional in ''[[Wolf v. Walker]]''. |
|||
|- |
|||
|} |
|||
==Former constitutional amendment bans same-sex marriage== |
|||
{| class="wikitable" style="border:#999; background:#fff;" |
|||
|- style="background:#bdbbd7; text-align:center;" |
|||
| style="width:100px; "| '''State''' |
|||
| style="width:75px; "| '''Year''' |
|||
| style="width:75px; "| '''Support vote %''' |
|||
| style="width:120px; "| '''Title''' |
|||
| style="width:455px; "| '''Amendment''' |
|||
| style="width:150px; "| '''Fate''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''[[Alaska]]'''||1998||68%<ref name="Relig Tol AK">{{cite web |url= http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar9.htm |title= Homosexual (same-sex) marriages in Alaska |last= Robinson |first= B.A |publisher= [[Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance]] |accessdate= November 30, 2006}}</ref>||''[[Alaska Ballot Measure 2 (1998)|Ballot Measure 2, Joint Resolution 42]]''<ref name="Relig Tol AK" />||To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman.<ref name="AK Constitution">{{cite web |url= http://www.legis.state.ak.us/cgi-bin/folioisa.dll/acontxt/query=*/doc/%7B@21%7D? |title= Section 1.25: Marriage |work=Alaska State Constitution |publisher= Alaska Legislature |accessdate= November 30, 2006}}</ref>|| Ruled unconstitutional in ''[[Hamby v. Parnell]]''. |
|||
|-style="background:#efefef;" |
|||
|- |
|||
|-style="background:#efefef;" |
|||
|'''[[Arizona]]'''||2008||56%<ref name="CNN ballot 2008">{{cite news |url= http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/ballot.measures/ |publisher= CNN|title= Election 2008: Ballot Measures |accessdate= November 10, 2008}}</ref>||''[[Arizona Proposition 102 (2008)|Arizona Proposition 102]]''<ref name="AZ SOS">{{cite web |url= http://www.azsos.gov/election/2008/Info/PubPamphlet/Sun_Sounds/english/Prop102.htm |title= 2008 Ballot Proposition Guide |publisher= Arizona Secretary of State |first= Jan |last= Brewer |date=September 2008 |accessdate= November 11, 2008}}</ref>||Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.<ref name="AZ SOS" /> || Ruled unconstitutional in ''[[Connolly v. Jeanes]]''. |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''[[California]]'''||2008||52%<ref name="CNN ballot 2008" />||''[[California Proposition 8 (2008)|California Proposition 8]]''<ref name="Prop 8 text">{{cite web|url=http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf#prop8 |format=PDF |title=Text of Proposed Laws |publisher=California Secretary of State |page=128 |accessdate=November 10, 2008 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20081106092932/http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf |archivedate=November 6, 2008 }}</ref>||Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.<ref name="Prop 8 text" />||Ruled unconstitutional in ''[[Hollingsworth v. Perry]]''. |
|||
|-style="background:#efefef;" |
|||
|- |
|||
|-style="background:#efefef;" |
|||
|'''[[Colorado]]'''||2006||56%<ref name="CNN ballot 2006">{{cite news |url= http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/ballot.measures/ |publisher= CNN |title= Election 2006: Ballot Measures |accessdate= December 14, 2006}}</ref>||''[[Colorado Amendment 43 (2006)|Colorado Amendment 43]]<ref name="CO Bluebook 2006">{{cite web|url=http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/lcsstaff/bluebook/Bluebook2006.pdf |format=PDF |title=Analysis of the 2006 Ballot Proposals |work=Research Publication No. 554 |publisher=Legislative Council of the Colorado General Assembly |page=13 |accessdate=December 14, 2006 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070206074459/http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/lcsstaff/Bluebook/BlueBook2006.pdf |archivedate=February 6, 2007 |df= }}</ref>||Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.<ref name="CO Bluebook 2006" /> || Ruled unconstitutional in ''[[Brinkman v. Long]]''. |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''[[Missouri]]'''||2004||72%<ref name="Wash Post MO 1">{{cite news |url= http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38861-2004Aug4.html |title= Gay Marriage Ban in Mo. May Resonate Nationwide |last= Cooperman |first= Alan |work= [[Washington Post]] |date= August 5, 2004 |accessdate= December 14, 2006 |quote= Missouri's Amendment was the first such referendum voted on since same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts.}}</ref>||''[[Missouri Constitutional Amendment 2 (2004)|Constitutional Amendment 2]]''<ref name="MO SOS">{{cite web |url= http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2004ballot/ |title= Elections: 2004 Ballot Measures |publisher= Missouri Secretary of State}}</ref>||To be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman.<ref name="MO const.">{{cite web|url=http://www.moga.state.mo.us/const/A01033.HTM |title=Article I, Bill of Rights, Section 33 |work=[[Missouri Constitution]] |publisher=Missouri General Assembly |accessdate=December 14, 2006 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20060925001406/http://www.moga.state.mo.us/const/A01033.HTM |archivedate=September 25, 2006 |df= }}</ref>|| Ruled unconstitutional in ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]''. |
|||
|-style="background:#efefef;" |
|||
|- |
|||
|-style="background:#efefef;" |
|||
|'''[[Mississippi]]'''||2004||86%<ref name="CNN ballot 2004">{{cite news |url= http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/ballot.measures/ |publisher= CNN |title= Election 2004: Ballot Measures |accessdate= November 30, 2006}}</ref>||''[[Mississippi Amendment 1 (2004)|Mississippi Amendment 1]]''<ref name="CNN ballot 2004" />||Marriage may take place and may be valid under the laws of this state only between a man and a woman.<ref name="DOMA Watch MS">{{cite web|url=http://www.domawatch.org/stateissues/mississippi/index.html |work=DOMAwatch.org |title=Mississippi |publisher=Alliance Defense Fund |year=2006 |accessdate=December 14, 2006 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20050310150134/http://www.domawatch.org/stateissues/mississippi/index.html |archivedate=March 10, 2005 }}</ref>|| Ruled unconstitutional in ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]''. |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''[[Montana]]'''||2004||67%<ref name="CNN ballot 2004" />||''[[Montana Initiative 96 (2004)|Montana Initiative 96]]''<ref name="CNN ballot 2004" />||Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.<ref name="Montana Constitution">{{cite web |url= http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/Constition/XIII/7.htm |title= Article XIII: General Provisions, Section 7: Marriage |work= Montana Constitution |publisher=Montana Legislature |accessdate= December 12, 2012}}</ref>|| Ruled unconstitutional in ''[[Rolando v. Fox]]''. |
|||
|-style="background:#efefef;" |
|||
|- |
|||
|-style="background:#efefef;" |
|||
|'''[[Nevada]]'''||2000, 2002<ref name="NV amend process" group=lower-alpha/> |
|||
||69.6%; 67.1%<ref name="NV amend process" group=lower-alpha />||''[[Nevada Question 2 (2002)|Nevada Question No. 2]]''<ref name="Gaydemo" />||Only a marriage between a male and female person shall be recognized and given effect in this state.<ref name="NV Constitution">{{cite web |url= http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Const/NvConst.html#Art1Sec21 |title= Article 1, Sec: 21: Limitation on recognition of marriage |work= Constitution of the State of Nevada |publisher= Nevada Legislature |accessdate= November 30, 2006}}</ref>|| Ruled unconstitutional in ''[[Sevcik v. Sandoval]]. |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''[[Oregon]]'''||2004||57%<ref name="CNN ballot 2004" />||''[[Oregon Ballot Measure 36 (2004)|Oregon Ballot Measure 36]]''<ref name="OR Voter Guide">{{cite web |url= http://oregonvotes.org/pages/history/archive/nov22004/guide/meas/m36_bt.html |work= Oregon Voter's Guide |title= Measure 36 |publisher= Oregon Secretary of State |year= 2004 |accessdate= December 14, 2006}}</ref>||Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.<ref name="OR Constitution">{{cite web |url= http://www.leg.state.or.us/orcons/orcons.html |work= Constitution of the State of Oregon |title= Article XV (Miscellaneous) Section 5a |publisher= Oregon Legislature |accessdate= December 14, 2006}}</ref>|| Ruled unconstitutional in ''[[Geiger v. Kitzhaber]]''. |
|||
|-style="background:#efefef;" |
|||
|- |
|||
|-style="background:#efefef;" |
|||
|'''[[Tennessee]]'''||2006||81%<ref name="CNN ballot 2006" />||''[[Tennessee Amendment 1 (2006)|Tennessee Amendment 1]]''<ref name="TN SOC 2006">{{cite web|url=http://www.state.tn.us/sos/election/ConstitutionAmendments.pdf |format=PDF |title=Constitutional Amendment Issues |publisher=Tennessee Secretary of State |accessdate=December 14, 2006 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20061213212717/http://www.state.tn.us/sos/election/ConstitutionAmendments.pdf |archivedate=December 13, 2006 }}</ref>||The historical institution and legal contract solemnizing the relationship of one man and one woman shall be the only legally recognized marital contract in this state.<ref name="TN SOC 2006" />|| Ruled unconstitutional in ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]''. |
|||
|- |
|||
|} |
|||
==Failed amendments== |
|||
* [[Arizona Proposition 107]] – On November 7, 2006, Arizona rejected a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions by 52% of the vote. Two years later Arizona voters approved a more narrow amendment banning only same-sex marriage. |
|||
* [[Minnesota Amendment 1]] – On November 6, 2012, Minnesota rejected a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage with 53% of the electorate opposed. A majority of all votes cast would be required to amend the state constitution. |
|||
==Notes== |
|||
{{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} |
|||
==References== |
|||
{{Reflist|30em}} |
|||
==External links== |
|||
{{sister project links|same-sex union}} |
|||
{{refbegin}} |
|||
*{{cite web|last=O'Connell |first=Sue |title=The Money Behind the 2004 Marriage Amendments |publisher=The Institute on Money in State Politics |date=January 27, 2006 |url=http://www.followthemoney.org/press/Reports/200601271.pdf |format=PDF |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120207142253/http://www.followthemoney.org/press/Reports/200601271.pdf |archivedate=February 7, 2012 }} |
|||
*{{cite web|last=Moore |first=Megan |title=The Money Behind the 2006 Marriage Amendments |publisher=The Institute on Money in State Politics |date=July 23, 2007 |url=http://www.followthemoney.org/press/Reports/200707231.pdf |format=PDF |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120307202414/http://www.followthemoney.org/press/Reports/200707231.pdf |archivedate=March 7, 2012 }} |
|||
{{refend}} |
|||
{{Same-sex marriage in the United States}} |
|||
{{USStateLists}} |
|||
[[Category:LGBT-related lists]] |
|||
[[Category:U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions| ]] |
|||
[[Category:States of the United States law-related lists|Same Sex Unions]] |
Latest revision as of 08:41, 24 September 2020
- From a merge: This is a redirect from a page that was merged into another page. This redirect was kept in order to preserve the edit history of this page after its content was merged into the content of the target page. Please do not remove the tag that generates this text (unless the need to recreate content on this page has been demonstrated) or delete this page.
- For redirects with substantive page histories that did not result from page merges use {{R with history}} instead.