2004 Michigan Proposal 04-2

Referendum banning same-sex marriage February 2026 September 2023 Proposal 2 Michigan Marriage Amendment 2,698,077 1,904,319 4,875,692 7,164,047 64.24 2004 Michigan Proposal 2 results map by county.svg County results Yes #47729E 70–80% 1px #AAAAAA solid #7D9CBB 60–70% 1px #AAAAAA solid #B6C8D9 50–60% 1px #AAAAAA solid No #DEDEBD 50–60% 1px #AAAAAA solid Sources:https://mielections.us/election/results/04GEN/ 2004 Michigan Election Results June 14, 2024 April 18, 2018 https://web.archive.org/web/20180418081940/http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/election/results/04GEN/ dead 2004 Voter Registration Totals Michigan Michigan Proposal 04-22004 General Election Results https://web.archive.org/web/20070222235213/http://miboecfr.nicusa.com/election/results/04GEN/90000002.html 2007-02-22 , Michigan Department of State. Accessed 19 December 2006. 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.CNN.com Election 2004 - Ballot Measures Accessed 30 November 2006. The amendment faced multiple legal challenges and was finally overturned in Obergefell v. Hodges by the U.S. Supreme Court. Contents The text of the amendment states:Michigan State Constitution, Article I, section 25, Michigan Legislature. Accessed 19 December 2006. 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. Results Proposal 04-2http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2004G.html 2004 General Election Turnout Rates United States Election Project June 4, 2013 dead https://web.archive.org/web/20130709145327/http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2004G.html July 9, 2013 2698077 1904319 63.36 7263024 Effects The amendment, which took effect on December 18, 2004, constitutionally banned same-sex marriages, which were never recognized by the state and was statutorily banned since 1996, and civil unions or civil union equivalents, which were never recognized by the state. Michigan became the 13th US state to ban same-sex marriage in its constitution and 8th US state to ban civil unions or civil union equivalents in its constitution. This preempted the state judiciary from requiring the state to legally recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions or civil union equivalents and preempted the Michigan Legislature from enacting a statute legalizing same-sex marriages or civil unions or civil union equivalents. Domestic partnerships in Michigan were legal in 3 counties and 4 municipalities when the amendment took effect on December 18, 2004. On March 16, 2005, Attorney General Mike Cox issued a formal opinion stating that the City of Kalamazoo's policy of providing same-sex domestic partner health insurance benefits to public employees for contracts did violate the amendment. In January 2006, the City of Kalamazoo responded to this opinion by ceasing to providing same-sex domestic partner health insurance benefits to public employees for contracts absent a court ruling that such benefits do not violate the marriage amendment. In May 2008, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the amendment bans not only same-sex marriage and civil unions, but also public employee domestic partnership benefits such as health insurance.National Pride at Work, Inc. v. Governor of Michigan 748 N.W.2d 524 However, the ruling had little effect since most public employers relaxed their eligibility criteria to not run afoul of the amendment.http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/05/ruling_on_samesex_benefits_wei.html Ruling on same-sex benefits weighed Mlive.com 2008-05-08 2013-11-02 dead https://web.archive.org/web/20131102232727/http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/05/ruling_on_samesex_benefits_wei.html 2013-11-02 On June 28, 2013, U.S. District Judge David M. Lawson issued a preliminary injunction blocking the state from enforcing its law banning local governments and school districts from offering health benefits to their employees' domestic partners. He wrote: "It is hard to argue with a straight face that the primary purpose—indeed, perhaps the sole purpose—of the statute is other than to deny health benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees. But that can never be a legitimate governmental purpose". He rejected the state's arguments that "fiscal responsibility" was the law's rationale.http://www.twincities.com/news/ci_23560975/mich-ban-domestic-partner-benefits-blocked Mich. ban on domestic partner benefits blocked Pioneer Press June 28, 2013 February 18, 2014 White Edhttp://www.scotusblog.com/2013/07/after-windsor-michigan-same-sex-partners-benefits-suit-advances/ After Windsor: Michigan same-sex partners benefits suit advances SCOTUSblog July 1, 2013 July 2, 2013 Lederman Marty On March 21, 2014, a federal judge ruled that Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and did not stay the ruling,White Ed Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage http://apnews.excite.com/article/20140321/DACMB52O0.html March 21, 2014 AP News March 21, 2014 although the ruling was later suspended. On November 6, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit overturned the lower court in DeBoer v. Snyder declaring that: When the courts do not let the people resolve new social issues like this one, they perpetuate the idea that the heroes in these change events are judges and lawyers. Better in this instance, we think, to allow change through the customary political processes, in which the people, gay and straight alike, become the heroes of their own stories by meeting each other not as adversaries in a court system but as fellow citizens seeking to resolve a new social issue in a fair-minded way. For these reasons, we reverse.Deboer v Snyder et al 14-1341 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT November 6, 2014 http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0275p-06.pdf June 3, 2015 On January 16, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to the same-sex marriage cases arising out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Oral arguments were held on April 28, 2015, and a ruling was made on June 26, 2015, allowing same-sex marriage in every state. Pre-decision opinion polls Date of opinion pollConducted bySample sizeIn favorAgainstUndecidedMarginMargin of ErrorSource August 2004 ? 705 likely voters 50% left 41% ? 9% pro ? NATIONAL PRIDE AT WORK, INC. v. GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, See also Civil union in the United States Domestic partnership in the United States LGBT rights in Michigan Same-sex marriage in Michigan Same-sex marriage in the United States References External links The Money Behind the 2004 Marriage Amendments -- National Institute on Money in State Politics https://web.archive.org/web/20120328224424/http://www.followthemoney.org/press/ReportView.phtml?r=236&ext=17 2012-03-28 Category:U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions Category:2004 in LGBTQ history Category:LGBTQ rights in Michigan Michigan Proposal 2 Category:Michigan ballot proposals Category:Same-sex marriage ballot measures in the United States Proposal 2