South Carolina Amendment 1

Last updated
Amendment 1
Flag of South Carolina.svg
November 7, 2006

Marriage Act
Results
Choice
Votes %
Check-71-128-204-brightblue.svgYes829,36077.97%
Light brown x.svgNo234,31622.03%
Valid votes1,063,67697.41%
Invalid or blank votes28,2762.59%
Total votes1,091,952100.00%
Registered voters/turnout2,452,71443.37%

South Carolina Marriage Referendum by county.svg
Sources: [1] [2]

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. [3] 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 [4] —Virginia being the only state to do so. [5] [6]

Contents

The text of South Carolina Amendment 1 states:

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 and its political subdivisions shall not create a legal status, right, or claim respecting any other domestic union, however denominated. This State and its political subdivisions shall not recognize or give effect to a legal status, right, or claim created by another jurisdiction respecting any other domestic union, however denominated. Nothing in this section shall impair any right or benefit extended by the State or its political subdivisions other than a right or benefit arising from a domestic union that is not valid or recognized in this State. This section shall not prohibit or limit parties, other than the State or its political subdivisions, from entering into contracts or other legal instruments. [4]

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 couples.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 Oregon Ballot Measure 36</span> Referendum banning same-sex marriage

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">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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 Arizona Proposition 107</span> Failed referendum on a statewide same-sex marriage ban

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 U.S. 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state</span>

This article summarizes the same-sex marriage laws of states in the United States. Via the case Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States legalized same-sex marriage in a decision that applies nationwide, with the exception of American Samoa and sovereign tribal nations.

<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> 2006 referendum

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">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">2006 Alabama Amendment 774</span>

The Amendment 774 of 2006, also known as Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment, is an amendment to the Alabama Constitution that makes it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions. The legislature passed Alabama Act 2005-35, which placed this amendment on the election ballot. The referendum was approved by 81% of the voters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 Georgia Amendment 1</span> Referendum banning same-sex marriage

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> Referendum banning same-sex marriage

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> Referendum banning same-sex marriage

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 04-2</span> Referendum banning same-sex marriage

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">North Dakota Constitutional Measure 1</span> 2004 referendum

North Dakota Constitutional Measure 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 Ohio Issue 1</span> Referendum banning same-sex marriage

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> Referendum banning same-sex marriage

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 Virginia Question 1</span> Amendment to the Constitution of Virginia

2006 Virginia Question 1, the Marshall-Newman Amendment is an amendment to the Constitution of Virginia that defines marriage as solely between one man and one woman and bans recognition of any legal status "approximat[ing] the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage". The amendment was ratified by 57% of the voters on November 7, 2006. It became part of the state Constitution as Section 15-A of Article 1. In 2014, the amendment was ruled unconstitutional in Bostic v. Schaefer.

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.

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

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.

<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. 1996-2006 General Election and Primary Results for Multi-County & Statewide Offices
  2. Voter Participation History (1998-2024)
  3. CNN.com Election 2006 - Ballot Measures Accessed 14 December 2006.
  4. 1 2 p.24 No.54 edition of the Journal of the Senate of the State of South Carolina. Archived 2008-10-03 at the Wayback Machine State of South Carolina. April 2005. Accessed 06 January 2007.
  5. Test case is urged by ACLU Archived 2013-01-02 at archive.today , by Bill Freehling, The Free Lance-Star, November 21, 2006. Accessed 15 December 2006.
  6. Potential Impact of the Proposed Marshall/Newman Amendment to the Virginia Constitution Archived 2017-03-20 at the Wayback Machine , by Melissa Glidden, Brenda Jackson-Cooper, and Leslie Nickel, Arnold & Porter, LLP, August 11, 2006. Accessed 15 December 2006.