States Facing Constitutional Amendments Banning Same-sex Marriage
Please click here for a
map of the states facing ballot initiatives.
Louisiana
House Bill 61 passed the state House May 18, 2004, by an 87-11 vote and the
state Senate June 9, 2004, by a vote of 31-6. Voters approved it Sept. 18,
2004, with 78 percent voting “yes” and 22 percent voting “no.”
The measure adds the following statement to the state constitution: “Marriage
in the state of Louisiana shall consist only of the union of one man and one
woman. No official or court of the state of Louisiana shall construe this
constitution or any state law to require that marriage or the legal incidents
thereof be conferred upon any member of a union other than the union of one
man and one woman. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that
of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized. No
official or court of the state of Louisiana shall recognize any marriage contracted
in any other jurisdiction which is not the union of one man and one woman.”
Louisiana already had a law stating that marriage can only be between a
man and woman, but supporters of the amendment want to protect that restriction
in the state constitution. The amendment would also prohibit state officials
and courts from recognizing out-of-state marriages and civil unions between
homosexuals.
There were several pre-election legal challenges to this measure. On Sept.
2, 2004, the state Supreme Court refused to hear the three actions challengers
brought to the proposed amendment. On Oct. 5, 2004, District Judge William
Morvant invalidated the amendment, saying it violated state law because it
had more than one purpose — the amendment aimed to ban both marriage
as well as civil unions for same-sex couples. The case is expected to be appealed.
Find
out what the latest situation is in Louisiana!
Active Groups:
Equality Louisiana
Forum
for Equality
Missouri
Senate Joint Resolution 29 passed the state senate on March 1, 2004 and the
state House on May 14, 2004. The measure amends the state constitution to
read, “That to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall
exist only between a man and a woman.”
This measure was approved by voters on August 3, 2004, with 70.7% of the
1,491,798 voters voting yes. The measure goes into effect on September 2,
2004.
Find
out what the latest situation is in Missouri!
Active Groups:
Constitution
Defense League
Promo For the Personal
Rights of Missourians
Arkansas
This citizen-initiated measure to amend the constitution needed 80,570 signatures
by July 2, 2004 to be placed on the 2004 ballot. Approximately 200,693 signatures
were turned in on July 1, 2004. The Secretary of State certified the signatures
on July 23, 2004. The measure would amend the state constitution to read,
“Marriage consists only of the union of one man and one woman. Legal
status for unmarried persons which is identical or substantially similar to
marital status shall not be valid or recognized in Arkansas, except that the
legislature may recognize a common law marriage from another state between
a man and a woman. The legislature has the power to determine the capacity
of persons to marry, subject to this amendment, and the legal rights, obligations,
privileges, and immunities of marriage.”
Find
out what the latest situation is in Arkansas!
Active Groups:
Arkansas Equality Network (no url)
Georgia
Senate Resolution 595 passed the state Senate on Feb. 16, 2004, and the state
House on March 31, 2004. The measure would amend the state constitution to
include the following statement: “(a) This state shall recognize as
marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the
same sex are prohibited in this state. (b) No union between persons of the
same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of
marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial
proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between
persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such
other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction
to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship
or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties’ respective rights
arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.”
The Georgia American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and several plaintiffs,
including two state legislators, challenged the measure Sept. 16, 2004. They
argue that the proposed amendment is “deceptive” and that it violates
the state constitution because it covers several issues other than marriage.
The lawsuit is before the Fulton County Superior Court.
Find
out what the latest situation is in Georgia!
Active Groups:
American Civil Liberties
Union of Georgia
Georgia
Equality
Lambda Legal
Marriage
Equality Georgia
Unitarian Universalist Involvement
Kentucky
Senate Bill 245 passed the state senate on March 11, 2004 by a 3304 vote
and the state house on April 12, 2004 by an 85-11 vote. The measure would
amend the state constitution to read, “Only a marriage between one man
and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal
status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried
individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”
Find
out what the latest situation is in Kentucky!
Active Groups:
Bluegrass Fairness
Fairness Campaign of Louisville
Kentucky Fairness
Alliance
Kentucky Fairness
Campaign
Michigan
A citizen-initiated measure to amend the state constitution needed 317,000
signatures to be placed on the 2004 ballot. Approximately 474,000 were turned
in July 5, 2004. The measure would amend the state constitution to include
the following statement: “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.”
The Board of State Canvassers deadlocked in a 2-2 decision Aug. 23, 2004,
on whether to certify the signatures. The issue will proceed to the state
Court of Appeals.
Find
out what the latest situation is in Michigan!
Active Groups:
Coalition
for a Fair Michigan
Michigan
Equality
Religious Coalition
for a Fair Michigan
Triangle Foundation
Mississippi
House Concurrent Resolution passed the state house on March 1, 2004 and the
state senate on April 7, 2004. The measure would amend the state constitution
to read, “Marriage may take place and may be valid under the laws of
this state only between a man and a woman. A marriage in another state or
foreign jurisdiction between persons of the same gender, regardless of when
the marriage took place, may not be recognized in this state and is void and
unenforceable under the laws of this state.”
Find
out what the latest situation is in Mississippi!
Active Groups:
Equality Mississippi
Montana
This citizen-initiated measure to amend the constitution needed 41.020 signatures
to be placed on the 2004 ballot. Approximately 70,000 were turned in on June
18, 2004. The measure would amend the state constitution to read, “Only
a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a
marriage in this state."
Find
out what the latest situation is in Montana!
Active Groups:
Montanans for
Family and Fairness
Pride, Inc
North Dakota
This citizen-initiated measure to amend the state constitution needed 25,588
signatures to be placed on the 2004 ballot. Proponents of the measure turned
in more than 42,000 signatures, and the Secretary of State certified the signatures
Sept. 1, 2004. The measure would amend the state constitution to include the
following statement: “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 effect."
Find
out what the latest situation is in North Dakota!
Active Groups:
Equality North Dakota
Ohio
A citizen-initiated measure to amend the state constitution needed 322,899
signatures to be placed on the 2004 ballot. Proponents turned in 391,000 signatures.
The Secretary of State has until Sept. 23, 2004, to certify these signatures.
The measure would amend the state constitution to include the following statement:
“Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid
in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state
and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status
for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the
design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."
Find
out what the latest situation is in Ohio!
Active Groups:
Lesbian Gay Community Center
of Greater Cleaveland
Ohioans for Growth
and Equality
Ohioans Protecting the
Constitution
Addtionally, voters in Cincinnatti will be voting on a Non-Discrimination
Referemdum on November 4, 2004.
In 1993 the voters of Cincinnati voted to add Article XI to the city charter.
This measure stated that, “The City of Cincinnati and its various Boards
and Commissions may not enact, adopt, enforce or administer any ordinance,
regulation, rule or policy which provides that homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual
orientation, status, conduct, or relationship constitutes, entitled, or otherwise
provides a person with the basis to have any claim of minority or protected
status, quota preference or other preferential treatment. This provision of
the City Charter shall in all respects be self-executing. Any ordinance, regulation,
rule or policy enacted before this amendment is adopted that violates the
foregoing prohibition shall be null and void and of no force or effect.”
This local law is the only one of its kind in the nation. The voters of Cincinnati
will vote on November 2, 2004 on whether to remove this provision from the
city charter.
Find
out what the latest situation is in Cincinatti!
Active Groups:
Citizens
to Restore Fairness
Oklahoma
House Bill 2259 passed the state senate on April 15, 2004 by a 38-7 vote
and the state house on April 22, 2004 by a 92-4 vote. The measure would amend
the state constitution to read,
“A. Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one
man and one woman. Neither this Constitution nor any other provision of
law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents
thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
B. A marriage between persons of the same gender performed in another
state shall not be recognized as valid and binding in this state as of the
date of the marriage.
C. Any person knowingly issuing a marriage license in violation of this
section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”
Find
out what the latest situation is in Oklahoma!
Active Groups:
Oklahoma Freedom and Equality
Coalition
Oregon
This citizen-initiated measure to amend the constitution needed 100,840 signatures
to be placed on the 2004 ballot. Approximately 244,000 were turned in on June
30, 2004 The measure would amend the state constitution to read, "It
is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage
between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage."
Find
out what the latest situation is in Oregon!
Active Groups:
Basic Rights Oregon
No on Constitutional Amendment
36
Unitarian Universalist Involvement
Utah
House Joint Resolution passed the State House on February 24, 2004 by a 56-16
vote and the state senate on March 3, 2004 by a 20-7 vote. The measure would
amend the state constitution to read, “(1) Marriage consists only of
the legal union between a man and a woman.(2) No other domestic status or
union, however denominated, between persons is valid or recognized or may
be authorized, sanctioned, or given the same or substantially equivalent legal
effect as a marriage.”
Find
out what the latest situation is in Utah!
Active Groups:
Don’t Amend
Alliance
Equality Utah
Tennessee
[House Joint Resolution passed the state house on May 6, 2004 by an 85-5
vote and the state senate on May 19, 2004 by a 28-1 vote. The measure must
be reapproved by the legislature during the 2005/06 session. The measure would
amend the state constitution to read, “The historical institution and
legal contract solemnizing the relationship of one man and one woman shall
be the only legally recognized marital contract in this state. Any policy
or law or judicial interpretation, purporting to define marriage as anything
other than the historical institution and legal contract between one man and
one woman, is contrary to the public policy of this state and shall be void
and unenforceable in Tennessee. If another state or foreign jurisdiction issues
a license for persons to marry and if such marriage is prohibited in this
state by the provisions of this section, then the marriage shall be void and
unenforceable in this state.”
The soonest this measure could appear on the ballot is 2005.
Find
out what the latest situation is in Tennessee!
Active Groups:
None known
Wisconsin
Assembly Joint Resolution 66 passed the state Assembly on March 5, 2004 by
a 68-27 vote and the state senate on March 11, 2004 by a 20-13 vote. The measure
needs to be re-approved by the state legislature during the 2005 session.
The measure would amend the state constitution to read, “Only a marriage
between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in
this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage
for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.”
The soonest this measure could appear on the ballot is 2005.
Find
out what the latest situation is in Wisconsin!
Active Groups:
Action Wisconsin
Massachusetts
House Bill 3190 was passed by the state constitutional convention (joint
session of the house and senate) on March 29, 2004 by a 105-92 vote. It must
be voted on again by the state constitutional convention during the 2005/2006
session. The measure would amend the state constitution to read: "The
unified purpose of this Article is both to define the institution of civil
marriage and to establish civil unions to provide same-sex persons with entirely
the same benefits, protections, rights, privileges and obligations as are
afforded to married persons, while recognizing that under present federal
law same-sex persons in civil unions will be denied federal benefits available
to married persons. It being the public policy of this commonwealth to protect
the unique relationship of marriage, only the union of one man and one woman
shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in the commonwealth. Two persons
of the same sex shall have the right to form a civil union if they otherwise
meet the requirements set forth by law for marriage. Civil unions for same
sex persons are established by this Article and shall provide entirely the
same benefits, protections, rights, privileges and obligations that are afforded
to persons married under the law of the commonwealth. All laws applicable
to marriage shall also apply to civil unions.
This Article is self-executing, but the general court may enact laws not
inconsistent with anything herein contained to carry out the purpose of this
Article."
The soonest this measure could appear on the ballot is 2006.
Find
out what the latest situation is in Massachusetts!
Active Groups:
Gay & Lesbian Advocates
& Defenders
Mass Equality
Massachusetts Freedom
to Marry Coalition
Religious Coaltion for
the Freedom to Marry
Unitarian Universalist Involvement
Most information on these pages is from HRC.
For more information on the happenings in these states, please see the links
for more information and for active groups.
| 
