2006 Arizona Proposition 107

Last updated
Arizona Proposition 107 (2006)
Flag of Arizona.svg
November 7, 2006

Arizona Marriage Amendment
Results
Choice
Votes %
Check-71-128-204-brightblue.svg Yes721,48948.20%
Light brown x.svg No775,49851.80%
Total votes1,496,987100.00%

2006 Arizona Prop 107 by county.svg

Arizona Proposition 107 was a proposed same-sex marriage ban, put before voters by ballot initiative in the 2006 general election. If passed, it would have prohibited the state of Arizona from recognizing same-sex marriages or civil unions. The state already had a statute defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman and prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. [1]

Contents

This proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution failed, with 48.2% voting in favor and 51.8% opposed, making Arizona the first U.S. state to defeat a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Several states approved similar measures between 1998 and 2006. [2]

The proposition was backed by the Protect Marriage Arizona coalition, which included the Center for Arizona Policy and United Families Arizona. The proposition was primarily opposed by the Arizona Together coalition, which included the Arizona Human Rights Fund and the Human Rights Campaign.

Voters approved a more limited constitutional amendment which banned same-sex marriage but not state-recognized civil unions or domestic partnerships, 2008 Arizona Proposition 102, in 2008 with 56% of the vote.

Official title and text

An Initiative Measure

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona; amending the Constitution of Arizona; by adding Article XXX; relating to the protection of marriage

To preserve and protect marriage in this state, only a union between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage by this state or its political subdivisions and no legal status for unmarried persons shall be created or recognized by this state or its political subdivisions that is similar to that of marriage.

Electoral results

Statewide

Proposition 107
ChoiceVotes %
Light brown x.svg No775,49851.8
Yes721,78948.2
Total votes1,496,987100.00

By county

County [3] YesNo
Apache County 50% (8,661)50% (8,740)
Cochise County 56% (19,422)44% (15,490)
Coconino County 40% (15,139)60% (22,279)
Gila County 52% (8,526)48% (7,775)
Graham County 69% (5,221)31% (2,369)
Greenlee County 57% (1,151)43% (885)
La Paz County 52% (1,921)48% (1,772)
Maricopa County 48% (421,568)52% (449,065)
Mohave County 57% (25,429)43% (19,254)
Navajo County 56% (14,194)44% (11,246)
Pima County 42% (115,915)58% (158,721)
Pinal County 52% (28,873)48% (26,882)
Santa Cruz County 45% (3,473)55% (4,204)
Yavapai County 52% (36,992)48% (34,346)
Yuma County 55% (15,004)45% (12,470)
Total48% (721,489)52% (775,498)

See also

Related Research Articles

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 (gay) or other unmarried homosexual couples.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2000 California Proposition 22</span> Referendum in California on same-sex marriage ban

Proposition 22 was a law enacted by California voters in March 2000 stating that marriage was between one man and one woman. In November 2008, Proposition 8 was also passed by voters, again only allowing marriage between one man and one woman.

Same-sex marriage in California has been legal since June 28, 2013. The U.S. state first issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples on June 16, 2008 as a result of the Supreme Court of California finding in the case of In re Marriage Cases that barring same-sex couples from marriage violated the Constitution of California. The issuance of such licenses was halted from November 5, 2008 through June 27, 2013 due to the passage of Proposition 8—a state constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriages. The granting of same-sex marriages recommenced following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, which restored the effect of a federal district court ruling that overturned Proposition 8 as unconstitutional.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions</span>

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.

The Tennessee Marriage Protection Amendment, also known as Tennessee Amendment 1 of 2006, is a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions. The referendum was approved by 81% of voters. It specified that only a marriage between a man and a woman could be legally recognized in the state of Tennessee. This prohibited same-sex marriages within the state, reinforcing previously existing statutes to the same effect until it was overturned by the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling in June 2015.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 Colorado Amendment 43</span> 2006 Colorado ballot measure

Colorado Amendment 43 was a referendum approved by the voters in 2006 that added a new section to Article II of the Colorado Constitution to define marriage in Colorado as only a union between one man and one woman. It passed with 56% of the vote.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1998 Alaska Measure 2</span>

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2005 Texas Proposition 2</span>

Proposition 2 was a referendum for a state constitutional amendment placed on the ballot by the Texas legislature and approved by the voters at the November 8, 2005 general election. The measure added a new provision to the Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 32, which provides 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." Texas thus became the nineteenth US state to adopt constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. It was the most populous state to adopt a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage until California passed its ban in November 2008.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nebraska Initiative 416</span> Ballot measure in Nebraska banning state recognition of same-sex partnerships

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 Arkansas Amendment 3</span>

Constitutional Amendment 3 of 2004, is an amendment to the Arkansas Constitution that makes it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions. The referendum was approved by 75% of the voters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 8</span> Ballot proposition and state constitutional amendment passed in November 2008

Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment intended to ban same-sex marriage; it passed in the November 2008 California state elections and was later overturned in court. The proposition was created by opponents of same-sex marriage in advance of the California Supreme Court's May 2008 appeal ruling, In re Marriage Cases, which followed the short-lived 2004 same-sex weddings controversy and found the previous ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court in 2010, although the court decision did not go into effect until June 26, 2013, following the conclusion of proponents' appeals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California elections</span>

The California state elections, November 2008 were held on November 4, 2008 throughout California. Among the elections taking place were those for the office of President of the United States, all the seats of California's delegation to the House of Representatives, all of the seats of the State Assembly, and all of the odd-numbered seats of the State Senate. Twelve propositions also appeared on the ballot. Numerous local elections also took place throughout the state.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 Arizona Proposition 102</span> Electoral amendment to the Arizona state constitution

Arizona Proposition 102 was an amendment to the constitution of the state of Arizona adopted by a ballot measure held in 2008. It added Article 30 of the Arizona Constitution, which says: "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state." The amendment added a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage to existing statutory bans in place since 1996. In October 2014, Article 30 of the Arizona Constitution was struck down as unconstitutional in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, and is no longer enforced by the state of Arizona, which now allows and recognizes same-sex marriages.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 Florida Amendment 2</span> Ballot measure in Florida

Florida Amendment 2 is an amendment made to the Constitution 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.

Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal. 4th 364, 93 Cal. Rptr. 3d 591, 207 P.3d 48 (2009), was a decision of the Supreme Court of California, the state's highest court. It resulted from lawsuits that challenged the voters' adoption of Proposition 8 on November 4, 2008, which amended the Constitution of California to outlaw same-sex marriage. Several gay couples and governmental entities filed the lawsuits in California state trial courts. The Supreme Court of California agreed to hear appeals in three of the cases and consolidated them so they would be considered and decided. The supreme court heard oral argument in the cases in San Francisco on March 5, 2009. Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar stated that the cases will set precedent in California because "no previous case had presented the question of whether [a ballot] initiative could be used to take away fundamental rights".

Same-sex marriage in Arizona has been legal 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">November 2012 California elections</span>

The California state elections was held on Election Day, November 6, 2012. On the ballot were eleven propositions, various parties' nominees for the United States presidency, the Class I Senator to the United States Senate, all of California's seats to the House of Representatives, all of the seats of the State Assembly, and all odd-numbered seats of the State Senate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">North Carolina Amendment 1</span> 2012 state amendment

North Carolina Amendment 1 was a legislatively referred constitutional amendment in North Carolina that amended the Constitution of North Carolina to prohibit the state from recognizing or performing same-sex marriages or civil unions. The amendment did not prohibit domestic partnership agreements, but defined male–female marriage as "the only domestic legal union" considered valid or recognized in the state. 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 Virginia ballot measures</span>

The 2006 Virginia State Elections took place on Election Day, November 7, 2006, the same day as the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate elections in the state. The only statewide elections on the ballot were three constitutional referendums to amend the Virginia State Constitution. Because Virginia state elections are held on off-years, no statewide officers or state legislative elections were held. All referendums were referred to the voters by the Virginia General Assembly.

References

  1. "Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 25 – Marital and Domestic Relations". 2007-09-18.
  2. Geis, Sonya (November 20, 2006). "New Tactic In Fighting Marriage Initiatives". Washington Post. Retrieved October 28, 2012.
  3. "Arizona Secretary of State: 2006 general election results". Archived from the original on July 30, 2008. Retrieved 2008-08-01.