U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions

The idea of extending marriage rights to same-sex couples did not become a political issue in the United States until the 1990s. During that decade, several Western European countries legalized civil unions, and in 1993 the Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled in Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993), that refusing to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples was sex-discrimination under that state's constitution. In response, voters passed Hawaii Constitutional Amendment 2. This amendment differed from future marriage amendments in other states as it did not ban same-sex marriage itself, but merely empowered the state legislature to enact such a ban. In November 1998, 69% of Hawaii voters approved the amendment, and the state legislature exercised its power to ban same-sex marriage. Only three constitutional bans on same-sex unions (in Alaska, Nebraska, and Nevada) were proposed between 1998 and 2003. All three amendments passed. In Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's November 2003 decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the court legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. Social and religious conservatives feared that their own state supreme courts would issue such rulings at some point in the future; in order to prevent this, they proposed additional constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. The following year, eleven constitutional referendums banning same-sex unions were placed on state ballots. On April 3, 2009, Nate Silver posted his model of the predicted years that each of the 50 states would vote against a marriage ban, with the last one being Mississippi in 2024. ==Purpose and motivation==

Constitutional bans on same-sex unions were advocated in response to the legalization of same-sex marriage in other jurisdictions, notably Canada and Massachusetts. Some amendments and some proposed amendments forbade a state from recognizing even non-marital civil unions and domestic partnerships, while others explicitly allowed for same-sex unions that were not called "marriages". Such amendments had two main purposes: • Preventing a state's courts interpreting their state's constitution to permit or require legalization of same-sex marriage. • Preventing a state's courts recognizing same-sex marriages that were legally performed in other jurisdictions. Some proponents of such amendments feared that states would be forced to recognize same-sex marriages celebrated in other jurisdictions. They pointed to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which requires each state to recognize the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of each other state. On the other hand, opponents argued that state constitutional amendments would do nothing to resolve this perceived problem. Traditionally, courts have held that a state is free to decline to recognize a marriage celebrated elsewhere if the marriage violates the state's strong public policy. (§134 of the First Restatement of Conflicts, on Marriage and Legitimacy (1934)). That tradition was broken in 1967 with the Loving v. Virginia case decided by a unanimous Supreme Court, which confirmed that the full faith and credit clause did require recognition of all legal marriages. Similarly, in Obergefell v. Hodges the Supreme Court ruled that the federal constitution required state recognition of same-sex marriages. All state constitutions are trumped by the federal constitution due to the Supremacy Clause. Conservative mobilization State referendums on constitutional bans of same-sex unions have at times been accused of having been used as a "get-out-the-vote" tactic by some Republicans and social conservatives. When voters see that a particular legislative initiative appears on the ballot, they are thought to feel more motivated to turn out to vote, enhancing ballot numbers for other candidates and issues of their party. The presence of these amendments on state ballots has been credited by some as supposedly providing a boost to Republicans in the 2004 election, and the 2004 Ohio amendment in particular has been cited as aiding President George W. Bush's reelection campaign by motivating evangelical social conservatives in the state to go to the polls. President George W. Bush's close political consultant, Karl Rove, has been an enthusiastic proponent and organizer of legislation banning same-sex unions. After the 2006 elections some activists argued that such referendums were starting to lose their potential to mobilize conservative voters. Kevin Cathcart, director of Lambda Legal pointed to the narrow defeat of Arizona's Proposition 107, which would have rendered civil unions as well as same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Nevertheless, that same election saw seven such amendments pass; these seven included an amendment in Virginia which banned civil unions as well as same-sex marriages. ==Variants==

Most U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions banned civil unions as well as same-sex marriage. ==Approved amendments==

Amendments that ban same-sex marriage Amendments that ban same-sex marriage and civil unions, but not other contracts Amendments that ban same-sex marriage, civil unions, and other contracts ==Repealed amendments==

• Arizona Proposition 107 – On November 7, 2006, Arizona rejected a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions by 51.8% of the vote. Two years later Arizona voters approved a more narrow amendment banning only same-sex marriage. • Minnesota Amendment 1 – On November 6, 2012, Minnesota rejected a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage with 51.90% of the electorate opposed. A majority of all votes cast would be required to amend the state constitution. ==Obergefell v. Hodges==

On June 26, 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell that state laws banning same-sex marriage violate the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, rendering such laws unconstitutional and invalidating the remaining 14 same-sex marriage bans still being fully or partially enforced. As of 2016, bills have been introduced in Virginia and other states to legislatively repeal the null-and-void amendments. ==See also==