 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Definition of Marriage Initiative | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Results | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Source: [1] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
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 55% of votes. [2] In November 2024, over 64% of Colorado voters called Amendment J repealed the 2006 anti-gay clause within the state constitution. [3]
| Elections in Colorado |
|---|
 |
On November 3, 1992, Colorado voters approved Amendment 2, which added language to the state constitution that prohibited the state and all of its subdivisions from allowing "homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships" to provide the basis for any "claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination." In 1994, the Colorado Supreme Court found the amendment unconstitutional. [4] In 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Romer v. Evans that the amendment, because it "allows discrimination against homosexuals and prevents the state from protecting them", was "motivated by animus towards homosexuals" and violated their rights under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [5]
The amendment was drafted by Lieutenant Governor Jane Norton and her husband, former U.S. Attorney Michael J. Norton. [6] Lieutenant Governor Norton explained "If we really don't take a stand now, it's really a matter of time before we lose the uniqueness of marriage. If we lose the uniqueness of marriage, we lose a fundamental building block of society." [7]
The amendment provided that the only marriages recognized under the state constitution would be between a man and a woman whether licensed and celebrated as provided by law or established by common law by a couple who live together and hold themselves out publicly as husband and wife. [8]
At the time the amendment was adopted, the benefits of marriage in Colorado included collecting benefits such as pensions, life insurance, and workers' compensation without being designated as a beneficiary; jointly incurring and being held liable for debts; making medical treatment decisions for each other; protection from discrimination based on marital status in areas such as employment and housing; filing income taxes jointly; and ending a marriage and distributing property through a legal process.
Groups in favor of Amendment 43 contended that it would preserve the commonly accepted and historical definition of marriage and that the marriage of a man and woman provides an optimal environment for creating, nurturing, and protecting children and preserving families. They also aimed to prevent the state courts from expanding the definition of marriage to same-sex couples.
Groups opposed to the amendment argued that it was inappropriate to add the definition of marriage to the constitution's Bill of Rights, which defines individual rights. They also argued the amendment was itself an unconstitutional form of discrimination, and redundant in that same-sex marriage was already prohibited by both state and federal statute.
| Date of opinion poll | Conducted by | Sample size | In favor | Against | Undecided | Margin | Margin of Error | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | Denver Post | 625 voters | 51% | 43% | ? | ? | ? | [9] |
| September 2006 | POS (R) for Rocky Mountain News | ? | 58% | ? | ? | ? | ? | [10] |
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.
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with sexual orientation and state laws. It was the first Supreme Court case to address gay rights since Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), when the Court had held that laws criminalizing sodomy were constitutional.
This is a list of notable events in the history of LGBTQ rights that took place in the year 2004.
This is a list of notable events in the history of LGBT rights that took place in the year 1996.
This is a list of notable events in the history of LGBT rights that took place in the year 1993.
This is a list of notable events in the history of LGBT rights that took place in the year 1992.
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.
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.
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.
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. The amendment was later invalidated in June 2015 after the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, though the amendment remains in the Texas Constitution.
Kansas Amendment 1, which was put before voters on April 5, 2005, is an amendment to the Kansas Constitution that makes it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions. The referendum was approved by 70% of the voters.
Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862, was an Iowa Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the state's limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. The case had the effect of legally recognizing same-sex marriage in Iowa. In 2007, a lower court had granted summary judgment in favor of six same-sex couples who sued Timothy Brien, Polk County Recorder, for refusing to grant them marriage licenses.
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 legally recognized in Colorado since October 7, 2014. Colorado's state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was struck down in state district court on July 9, 2014, and by the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on July 23, 2014. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals had already made similar rulings with respect to such bans in Utah on June 25 and Oklahoma on July 18, which are binding precedents on courts in Colorado. On October 6, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the Tenth Circuit cases, and the Tenth Circuit lifted its stay. On October 7, the Colorado Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit cleared the way for same-sex marriages to begin in Colorado.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Colorado enjoy the same rights as non-LGBTQ people. Same-sex sexual activity has been legal in Colorado since 1972. Same-sex marriage has been recognized since October 2014, and the state enacted civil unions in 2013, which provide some of the rights and benefits of marriage. State law also prohibits discrimination on account of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations and the use of conversion therapy on minors. In July 2020, Colorado became the 11th U.S. state to abolish the gay panic defense.
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 is a list of notable events in the history of LGBTQ rights that took place in the year 2012.
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.
Amendment 2 was a ballot measure approved by Colorado voters on November 3, 1992, simultaneously with the United States presidential election. The amendment prevented municipalities from enacting anti-discrimination laws protecting gay, lesbian, or bisexual people.
