Isabella Carter
The topic of whether or not the constitution should be amended to ban same-sex marriage has been a subject of debate in the United States for several decades. While some states have passed constitutional amendments banning the legal recognition of same-sex unions, other states and countries have legalized civil unions or same-sex marriage. Public opinion polls show varying levels of support and opposition to same-sex marriage, with a general trend towards increasing acceptance over time. The debate involves legal, religious, and social dimensions, with proponents of same-sex marriage framing the issue as a matter of civil rights and equal protection under the law, while opponents argue for maintaining traditional definitions of marriage and the role of the state in upholding these definitions.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Public opinion on same-sex marriage bans | Varies across states, with Mississippi and Alabama being the only two states with a majority opposed to same-sex marriage in 2017 |
| Support for same-sex marriage | Beginning in 2010, polls have shown majority support for legal recognition of same-sex marriage across the US |
| Constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage | Thirty-one US state constitutional amendments banning legal recognition of same-sex unions have been adopted, with Nevada becoming the first state to repeal its ban in 2020 |
| Court rulings on same-sex marriage | The US Supreme Court struck down all state bans on same-sex marriage in 2015 in Obergefell v. Hodges, ruling that state bans violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause |
| Political stance on same-sex marriage | Leaders of the civil rights movement, such as Julian Bond and John Lewis, have expressed support for same-sex marriage, with the NAACP pledging its support and declaring it a civil right |
| Legislative process for amendments | State constitutional amendments are typically approved by the legislature and/or a special constitutional convention, followed by voter approval in a referendum |
| Impact of court interpretations | Some states amended their constitutions to explicitly ban same-sex marriage to prevent courts from interpreting their constitutions to permit or require the legalization of same-sex marriage |
| Federal Marriage Amendment | Proposed federal amendment to ban same-sex marriage in all US states, approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2006 but ultimately defeated in both houses of Congress |
Explore related products
$6.27 $19.99
What You'll Learn
Public opinion on same-sex marriage
Polls from the 2000s reflect a more divided public opinion on same-sex marriage. A 2003 Wirthlin poll found that 57% of Americans supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as heterosexual, while a 2006 APR poll showed that 33% favoured amending the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, with 49% preferring state-level decisions. An ABC News poll from 2006 reported 42% support for amending the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. However, a Gallup poll from the same year showed a near-even split, with 50% in favour of the ban and 47% opposed.
By 2010, polls indicated a shift towards majority support for legal recognition of same-sex marriage. A Gallup poll in 2014 recorded 55% support for allowing marriage for same-sex couples, the highest percentage measured by the organization. A 2012 Fox News poll found that 53% opposed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, while only 38% supported it. Similarly, a 2012 United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection poll showed that only 24% of Americans agreed with passing a nationwide ban, regardless of state law.
Despite the growing support for same-sex marriage, some states continued to advocate for constitutional bans. In 2014, the Alabama House of Representatives called for a constitutional convention to propose an amendment banning same-sex marriage nationwide. However, in 2020, Nevada became the first state to repeal its amendment banning same-sex marriage. Additionally, civil rights organizations like the NAACP have pledged their support for same-sex marriage, equating it with civil rights and equal protection under the law.
Amending State Constitutions: When and Why?
You may want to see also
The Federal Marriage Amendment
In his State of the Union address in 2004, President Bush alluded to the recent court decision in Massachusetts, which ordered the state to recognize same-sex marriages. Bush expressed concern about "activist judges" redefining marriage without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. This led to discussions about the FMA, with Bush expressing his support for the amendment for the first time.
The FMA was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2006 but was ultimately defeated in both houses of Congress. Public opinion on the FMA has varied over time and across different states. Some polls, such as a 2006 ABC News poll, found that around 42% of Americans supported amending the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. In contrast, other polls, like a Gallup poll in 2014, showed majority support (55%) for legal recognition of same-sex marriage.
Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, thirty-one U.S. state constitutional amendments had banned legal recognition of same-sex unions. These amendments aimed to prevent civil unions or same-sex marriages from being legalized. However, the Obergefell decision invalidated these state constitutional amendments, striking down all state bans on same-sex marriage.
The debate surrounding the FMA and same-sex marriage involves legal, religious, and social dimensions. While some proponents of the FMA argue that marriage should be limited to heterosexual unions, others point to civil rights and equal protection under the law. Notable figures in the civil rights movement, such as Julian Bond and John Lewis, have expressed their support for same-sex marriage, equating it to civil rights.
Constitutional Changes: May 7th Amendments Explained
You may want to see also
State-level amendments
In the United States, the debate over same-sex marriage has long been a contentious issue, with opponents seeking to amend state constitutions to restrict marriage to heterosexual unions. Thirty-one state constitutional amendments have been adopted, banning the legal recognition of same-sex unions. These amendments vary in scope, with some targeting only same-sex marriage, while others include civil unions or other contracts in their prohibitions. For example, Virginia's amendment goes beyond marriage, preventing the state from recognizing private contracts that "approximate" marriage.
Hawaii's constitutional amendment stands out as it does not directly ban same-sex marriage but empowers the state legislature to enact such a prohibition. In 1998, 69% of Hawaii voters approved this amendment, and the legislature promptly banned same-sex marriage. This unique approach has been a model for other states seeking to restrict marriage definitions. From 1998 to 2003, Alaska, Nebraska, and Nevada followed suit, proposing and passing constitutional bans on same-sex unions.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's 2003 decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health was a pivotal moment in the same-sex marriage debate. The court ruled that the state's constitution required the recognition of same-sex marriages, marking the first time a state supreme court took such a stance. This decision sparked concern among social and religious conservatives, who feared that other state supreme courts would follow suit. As a result, there was a push for additional constitutional bans on same-sex marriage to prevent its legalization in other states.
While some states have actively sought to ban same-sex marriage, others have taken a more nuanced approach. California, for instance, witnessed a back-and-forth battle between supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage. In 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, amending the state constitution to ban gay marriage. However, this amendment was later found to be unconstitutional, and same-sex marriage was once again permitted in the state.
The landscape of state-level amendments banning same-sex marriage began to shift in 2015 with the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. This ruling invalidated all state constitutional amendments that prevented same-sex couples from marrying, marking a significant victory for marriage equality. Nevada made history in 2020 by becoming the first state to repeal its amendment banning same-sex marriage, demonstrating a continued shift in public opinion and policy regarding marriage rights for same-sex couples.
Exploring the 25th Amendment: Understanding Presidential Succession
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Defense of Marriage Act
DOMA specifically stated that "the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife", and that "in determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife". This had the effect of denying many benefits and recognition to same-sex couples that opposite-sex couples enjoyed, including access to a spouse's employment benefits, the recognition of the marriage itself, the rights of inheritance, joint tax returns and exemptions, and the right to cohabit together in college or military housing.
Supporters of DOMA believed that opposite-sex marriage was the only appropriate method for family formation and procreation. One of the major arguments from proponents of DOMA was that same-sex marriage could lead to alternative family formations and could even result in incestuous relationships and polygamous marriages. On the other hand, opponents of DOMA claimed that the definition of marriage as only between one man and one woman was discriminatory on the basis of sex, and equated homosexuality with incest and polygamy.
In 2013, in United States v. Windsor, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down DOMA's definition of marriage as only between one man and one woman. Furthermore, in 2015 in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court struck down the section of DOMA that allowed individual states to not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. On July 8, 2010, Tauro issued his rulings in both Gill and Massachusetts, granting summary judgment for the plaintiffs and finding that Section 3 of DOMA violates the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The Citizenship Rights of the Formerly Enslaved
You may want to see also
Supreme Court rulings
The topic of same-sex marriage has been a contentious issue in the United States, with various Supreme Court rulings impacting the recognition and legality of these marriages over the years.
State-Level Recognition
In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, legalized same-sex marriage in the state. This decision could be reversed by an amendment to the state constitution, but none has been passed to date. Similarly, in 2008, the California Supreme Court, in In Re Marriage Cases, ruled that the state's constitution required the recognition of same-sex marriages. However, this decision was short-lived as Proposition 8, passed in the same year, amended the California Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. This amendment was later found to be unconstitutional, and same-sex marriage was reinstated in California.
Federal Level Recognition
In 2015, the landmark case of Obergefell v. Hodges reached the United States Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision required all states and territories to recognize and perform same-sex marriages on the same terms as opposite-sex marriages. Prior to this ruling, same-sex marriage had already been established in 36 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam through various means, including statutes, court rulings, and voter initiatives.
Challenges and Opposition
Despite the Obergefell decision, there have been ongoing challenges and opposition to same-sex marriage. Kim Davis, a county government official, infamously refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, resulting in legal action and emotional distress damages awarded to the affected couples. Davis petitioned the Supreme Court to rehear the case, but her request was denied. Additionally, in 2020, Nevada became the first state to repeal its amendment banning same-sex marriage, while other states have introduced legislation or passed resolutions urging the reversal of same-sex marriage rights.
The shifting political landscape and the rightward shift of the Supreme Court have also raised concerns among LGBTQ+ advocates about the potential reversal of marriage rights. In 2025, there were at least nine states that introduced legislation aimed at blocking new marriage licenses for LGBTQ+ individuals or urged the Supreme Court to reverse its decision on same-sex marriage.
The US Constitution: Amendments, an Impossible Dream?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) is an amendment that would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. It was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2006 but was ultimately defeated in both houses of Congress.
Some proponents of amending the constitution to ban same-sex marriage argue that it would prevent states from being forced to recognize same-sex marriages celebrated in other jurisdictions. They also believe that it would communicate to citizens that marriage is about procreation and promote the optimal setting for rearing children.
Opponents of amending the constitution to ban same-sex marriage believe that it would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and infringe on civil rights. They also argue that public opinion varies widely between different states, and that each state should make its own laws on marriage.
