 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Michigan Marriage Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Results | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sources: [1] [2] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Elections in Michigan |
|---|
 |
Michigan Proposal 04-2 [3] of 2004, is an amendment to the Michigan Constitution that made it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions. The referendum was approved by 59% of the voters. [4] The amendment faced multiple legal challenges and was finally overturned in Obergefell v. Hodges by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The text of the amendment states: [5]
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.
| Choice | Votes | % |
|---|---|---|
 Yes | 2,698,077 | 58.63 |
| No | 1,904,319 | 41.37 |
| Total votes | 4,602,396 | 100.00 |
| Registered voters/turnout | 7,263,024 | 63.36 |
The amendment, which took effect on December 18, 2004, constitutionally banned same-sex marriages, which were never recognized by the state and was statutorily banned since 1996, and civil unions or civil union equivalents, which were never recognized by the state. Michigan became the 13th US state to ban same-sex marriage in its constitution and 8th US state to ban civil unions or civil union equivalents in its constitution. This preempted the state judiciary from requiring the state to legally recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions or civil union equivalents and preempted the Michigan Legislature from enacting a statute legalizing same-sex marriages or civil unions or civil union equivalents. Domestic partnerships in Michigan were legal in 3 counties and 4 municipalities when the amendment took effect on December 18, 2004.
On March 16, 2005, Attorney General Mike Cox issued a formal opinion stating that the City of Kalamazoo's policy of providing same-sex domestic partner health insurance benefits to public employees for contracts did violate the amendment. In January 2006, the City of Kalamazoo responded to this opinion by ceasing to providing same-sex domestic partner health insurance benefits to public employees for contracts absent a court ruling that such benefits do not violate the marriage amendment. In May 2008, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the amendment bans not only same-sex marriage and civil unions, but also public employee domestic partnership benefits such as health insurance. [7] However, the ruling had little effect since most public employers relaxed their eligibility criteria to not run afoul of the amendment. [8]
On June 28, 2013, U.S. District Judge David M. Lawson issued a preliminary injunction blocking the state from enforcing its law banning local governments and school districts from offering health benefits to their employees' domestic partners. He wrote: "It is hard to argue with a straight face that the primary purpose—indeed, perhaps the sole purpose—of the statute is other than to deny health benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees. But that can never be a legitimate governmental purpose". He rejected the state's arguments that "fiscal responsibility" was the law's rationale. [9] [10]
On March 21, 2014, a federal judge ruled that Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and did not stay the ruling, [11] although the ruling was later suspended.
On November 6, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit overturned the lower court in DeBoer v. Snyder declaring that:
When the courts do not let the people resolve new social issues like this one, they perpetuate the idea that the heroes in these change events are judges and lawyers. Better in this instance, we think, to allow change through the customary political processes, in which the people, gay and straight alike, become the heroes of their own stories by meeting each other not as adversaries in a court system but as fellow citizens seeking to resolve a new social issue in a fair-minded way. For these reasons, we reverse. [12]
On January 16, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to the same-sex marriage cases arising out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Oral arguments were held on April 28, 2015, and a ruling was made on June 26, 2015, allowing same-sex marriage in every state.
| Date of opinion poll | Conducted by | Sample size | In favor | Against | Undecided | Margin | Margin of Error | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| August 2004 | ? | 705 likely voters | 50% | 41% | ? | 9% pro | ? | [13] |
The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), also referred to by proponents as the Marriage Protection Amendment, was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would legally define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. The FMA would also prevent judicial extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples.
The availability of legally recognized same-sex marriage in the United States expanded from one state (Massachusetts) in 2004 to all fifty states in 2015 through various court rulings, state legislation, and direct popular votes. States each have separate marriage laws, which must adhere to rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States that recognize marriage as a fundamental right guaranteed by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as first established in the 1967 landmark civil rights case of Loving v. Virginia.
Ballot Measure 36 was a 2004 initiative in the U.S. state of Oregon. It amended the Oregon Constitution to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. The initiative passed with 1,028,546 votes in favor, and 787,556 votes against in the November 2, 2004 general election. It is one of a number of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. However, unlike other similar ballot measures passed on or near the same election date, the amendment did not explicitly ban civil unions between same-sex couples.
Utah Constitutional Amendment 3 was an amendment to the Utah state constitution that sought to define marriage as a union exclusively between a man and woman. It passed in the November 2, 2004, election, as did similar amendments in ten other states.
Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions of several different types passed, banning legal recognition of same-sex unions in U.S. state constitutions, referred to by proponents as "defense of marriage amendments" or "marriage protection amendments." These state amendments are different from the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which would ban same-sex marriage in every U.S. state, and Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act, more commonly known as DOMA, which allowed the states not to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. The amendments define marriage as a union between one man and one woman and prevent civil unions or same-sex marriages 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.
In the United States, domestic partnership is a city-, county-, state-, or employer-recognized status that may be available to same-sex couples and, sometimes, opposite-sex couples. Although similar to marriage, a domestic partnership does not confer any of the myriad rights and responsibilities of marriage afforded to married couples by the federal government. Domestic partnerships in the United States are determined by each state or local jurisdiction, so there is no nationwide consistency on the rights, responsibilities, and benefits accorded domestic partners.
Ballot Measure 2 of 1998 is a ballot measure, since ruled unconstitutional, that added an amendment to the Alaska Constitution that prohibited the recognition of same-sex marriage in Alaska. The Ballot measure was sparked by the lawsuit filed by Jay Brause and Gene Dugan, after the two men were denied a marriage license by the Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics. In Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics, 1998 WL 88743, the Alaska Superior Court ruled that the state needed compelling reason to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples and ordered a trial on the question. In response, the Alaska Legislature immediately proposed and passed Resolution 42, which became what is now known as Ballot Measure 2. Ballot Measure 2 passed via public referendum on November 3, 1998, with 68% of voters supporting and 32% opposing. The Bause case was dismissed following the passage of the ballot measure.
Wisconsin Referendum 1 of 2006 was a referendum on an amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution that would invalidate same-sex marriages or any substantially similar legal status. The referendum was approved by 59% of voters during the general elections in November 2006. All counties in the state voted for the amendment except Dane County, which opposed it. The constitutional amendment created by Referendum 1 has been effectively nullified since June 26, 2015, when the United States Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that state-level bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.
Nebraska Initiative 416 was a 2000 ballot initiative that amended the Nebraska Constitution to make it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriage, same-sex civil unions or domestic partnerships. The referendum was approved on November 7, 2000, by 70% of the voters. The initiative has since been struck down in federal court and same-sex marriage is now legally recognized in the state of Nebraska.
Georgia Constitutional Amendment 1 of 2004, is an amendment to the Georgia Constitution that previously made it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions. The referendum was approved by 76% of the voters.
Florida Amendment 2 is an amendment made to the constitution of the U.S. state of Florida in 2008. It added Article I, Section 27 to the constitution, which defines marriage as a union only between one man and one woman, and thus bans the creation of similar unions, such as civil unions or same-sex marriage.
Same-sex marriage has been legal in Utah since October 6, 2014. On December 20, 2013, the state began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples as a result of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah's ruling in the case of Kitchen v. Herbert, which found that barring same-sex couples from marrying violates the U.S. Constitution. The issuance of those licenses was halted during the period of January 6, 2014 until October 6, 2014, following the resolution of a lawsuit challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriage. On that day, following the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to hear an appeal in a case that found Utah's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the state to recognize same-sex marriage.
Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Nevada since October 9, 2014, when a federal district court judge issued an injunction against enforcement of Nevada's same-sex marriage ban, acting on order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit had ruled two days earlier that the state's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Same-sex marriage was previously banned by an amendment to the Constitution of Nevada approved in 2002. The statutory and constitutional bans were repealed in 2017 and 2020, respectively.
Same-sex marriage has been legal in Michigan since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015. The U.S. state of Michigan had previously banned the recognition of same-sex unions in any form after a popular vote added an amendment to the Constitution of Michigan in 2004. A statute enacted in 1996 also banned both the licensing of same-sex marriages and the recognition of same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.
Same-sex marriage has been legal in Arizona since October 17, 2014. The U.S. state had denied marriage rights to same-sex couples by statute since 1996 and by an amendment to its State Constitution approved by voters in 2008. On October 17, Judge John W. Sedwick ruled in two lawsuits that Arizona's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, and enjoined the state from enforcing its ban, effective immediately. Attorney General Tom Horne said the state would not appeal that ruling, and instructed county clerks to comply and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in North Carolina since October 10, 2014, when a U.S. District Court judge ruled in General Synod of the United Church of Christ v. Cooper that the state's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples was unconstitutional. Governor Pat McCrory and Attorney General Roy Cooper had acknowledged that a recent ruling in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court's decision not to hear an appeal in that case established the unconstitutionality of North Carolina's ban on same-sex marriage. State legislators sought without success to intervene in lawsuits to defend the state's ban on same-sex marriage. North Carolina was the 28th U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage.
North Carolina Amendment 1 is a partially overturned legislatively referred constitutional amendment in North Carolina that amended the Constitution of North Carolina to add ARTICLE XIV, Section 6, which prohibit the state from recognizing or performing same-sex marriages, civil unions or civil union equivalents by defining male–female marriage as "the only domestic legal union" considered valid or recognized in the state. It did not prohibit domestic partnerships in the state and also constitutionally protected same-sex and opposite-sex prenuptial agreements, which is the only part that is still in effect today. On May 8, 2012, North Carolina voters approved the amendment, 61% to 39%, with a voter turnout of 35%. On May 23, 2012, the amendment took effect.
This article contains a timeline of significant events regarding same-sex marriage in the United States. On June 26, 2015, the landmark US Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges effectively ended restrictions on same-sex marriage in the United States.
The U.S. state of Texas issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples and recognizes those marriages when performed out-of-state. On June 26, 2015, the United States legalized same-sex marriage nationwide due to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling Article 1, Section 32, of the Texas Constitution provided that "Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman," and "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage." This amendment and all related statutes have been ruled unconstitutional and unenforceable. Some cities and counties in the state recognize both same-sex and opposite-sex domestic partnerships.
Same-sex marriage has been legal in the U.S. state of Georgia since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015. Attorney General Sam Olens announced that Georgia would "adhere to the ruling of the Court", and the first couple married just one hour after the ruling was handed down. Previously, Georgia had banned same-sex marriage both by statute and its State Constitution.
