North Dakota Constitutional Measure 1

Last updated
Constitutional Measure 1
Flag of North Dakota.svg
November 2, 2004

North Dakota Definition of Marriage Initiative
Results
Choice
Votes %
Check-71-128-204-brightblue.svgYes223,57273.23%
Light brown x.svgNo81,71626.77%
Valid votes305,288100.00%
Invalid or blank votes00.00%
Total votes305,288100.00%
Registered voters/turnout482,72263.24%

2004 North Dakota Constitutional Measure 1 results map by county.svg
Yes
  80–90%
  70–80%
  60–70%

North Dakota Constitutional Measure 1 [1] of 2004, is an amendment to the North Dakota Constitution that makes it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions. The referendum was approved by 73% of the voters. [2]

Contents

The text of the amendment states:

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. [3]

Results

Measure 1 [4]
ChoiceVotes %
Check-71-128-204-brightblue.svg Yes223,57273.23
No81,71626.77
Total votes305,288100.00
Registered voters/turnout482,72263.24

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">2004 Oregon Ballot Measure 36</span>

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Utah Constitutional Amendment 3</span>

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.

<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">2004 Mississippi Amendment 1</span>

Amendment 1 of 2004 is an amendment to the Mississippi Constitution that prohibited same-sex marriages from being conducted or recognized in Mississippi. The Amendment passed a public referendum on November 2, 2004 with 86% of voters supporting and 14% opposing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 Montana Initiative 96</span>

Initiative 96 of 2004 is a ballot initiative that amended the Montana Constitution to prevent same-sex marriages from being conducted or recognized in Montana. The Initiative passed via public referendum on November 2, 2004 with 67% of voters supporting and 33% opposing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 Wisconsin Referendum 1</span>

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 South Dakota Amendment C</span>

South Dakota Amendment C of 2006 is an amendment to the South Dakota Constitution to make it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages, or to recognize civil unions, domestic partnerships, or other quasi-marital relationships regardless of gender. The referendum was approved on 7 November 2006 by 52% of the state's voters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">South Carolina Amendment 1</span> South Carolinian anti-same-sex marriage constitutional amendment

South Carolina Amendment 1 of 2006 amended the South Carolina Constitution to make it unconstitutional for the U.S. state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions. The referendum was approved by 78% of voters. Unlike the other sixteen such state amendments, South Carolina's explicitly disavows any effort to prevent private contracts between same-sex partners from being recognized—Virginia being the only state to do so.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 Idaho Amendment 2</span>

Idaho Amendment 2 of 2006 is an amendment to the Idaho Constitution that made it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions.

<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">2004 Georgia Amendment 1</span> Amendment to the Georgia Constitution

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 Kentucky Amendment 1</span>

Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1 of 2004, is an amendment to the Kentucky Constitution that made 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">2004 Louisiana Amendment 1</span> 2004 ballot measure

Louisiana Constitutional Amendment 1 of 2004, is an amendment to the Louisiana Constitution that makes it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions. The referendum was approved by 78% of the voters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 Michigan Proposal 2</span>

Michigan Proposal 04-2 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. The amendment faced multiple legal challenges and was finally overturned in Obergefell v. Hodges by the U.S. Supreme Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 Ohio Issue 1</span>

Section 15.11 is a provision in the Ohio Constitution that makes it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions. Approved as a constitutional amendment in 2004 under the name of "Issue One", it received support from 61.7% of voters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 Oklahoma State Question 711</span> Amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution

Oklahoma Question 711 of 2004, was an amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman, thus rendering recognition or performance of same-sex marriages or civil unions null within the state prior to its being ruled unconstitutional. The referendum was approved by 76 percent of the voters.

Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859, was a federal lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska and decided on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. It challenged the federal constitutionality of Nebraska Initiative Measure 416, a 2000 ballot initiative that amended the Nebraska Constitution to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages, civil unions, and other same-sex relationships.

<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.

References

  1. Election Results, 2004 General Election Archived 2008-02-13 at the Wayback Machine , North Dakota Secretary of State Election Management System. Accessed 20 December 2006.
  2. CNN.com Election 2004 - Ballot Measures Accessed 30 November 2006.
  3. North Dakota Constitution Archived 2007-01-04 at the Wayback Machine , Article XI, section 28. Accessed 20 December 2006.
  4. "2004 General Election Turnout Rates". United States Election Project. June 4, 2013. Archived from the original on July 9, 2013.