ions.
In Alaska, Hawaii, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, and Oregon, civil marriage for same-gender couples is prohibited by the state constitutions.
Constitutional amendments banning same-gender civil marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships and related benefits have been adopted in Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, and Utah. Some of these constitutional amendments also ban civil unions and domestic partnerships and related benefits for opposite-gender couples. A federal judge struck down Nebraska's amendment in 2005.
States continue to consider constitutional amendments to prohibit same-gender civil marriage and other legal forms of relationship recognition.
Amendments to ban same-gender civil marriage in Alabama, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Tennessee await consideration by the voters of those states during the 2006 elections.
In early 2006, the Virginia legislature approved a measure to amend the state's 230-year-old bill of rights to prohibit same-gender civil marriage, thereby ensuring its position on the November 2006 ballot. Amendment bills await second votes by lawmakers in Washington in 2006 and Indiana in 2007.
In March 2006, the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted 201 to 125 to defeat a proposal to amend the state's bill of rights with a constitutional ban on same-gender civil marriage.
Efforts are underway in Arizona, California, and Florida to add amendments banning same-gender civil marriage to their respective ballots.
Legal challenges, interpretation questions, and scope of applicability of the amendments signal a growing trend in the public-policy arena.
On May 12, 2005, a federal judge struck down Nebraska's constitutional ban on same-gender civil marriage. Judge Joseph F. Bataillon ruled that the ban violated the US Constitution because it went “far beyond merely defining marriage as between a man and a woman,” noting that the “broad proscriptions could also interfere with or prevent arrangements between potential adoptive or foster parents and children, related persons living together, and people sharing custody of children as well as gay individuals.” The ruling also stated that the amendment “imposes significant burdens on both the expressive and intimate associational rights” of gay men and lesbians “and creates a significant barrier to the plaintiff's right to petition or to participate in the political process.”8 Judge Bataillon's ruling has been touted by opponents of same-gender civil marriage as an example of the need for a federal amendment to prohibit civil marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership for gays and lesbians. Plans to appeal the ruling to the 8th Circuit US Court of Appeals are underway.
In April 2005, Michigan's Attorney General Mike Cox issued a binding opinion instructing local governments, government entities, and public employers (such as school boards and university systems) to cease providing benefits for same-gender partners in future contracts in compliance with the state's 2004 marriage amendment.9 A suit filed against the state based on this interpretation resulted in Ingham County Circuit Judge Joyce Draganchuk's September 2005 ruling that the purpose of a 2004 constitutional amendment was to ban gay marriage and civil unions, not to keep public employers from offering benefits to gay employees.10 The ruling is currently under appeal.
Ohio's 2004 marriage amendment, regarded as the most restrictive in the nation, reads, “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.” As a result, judges around the state have dismissed or reduced charges in domestic violence cases, because Ohio's domestic violence law recognizes the relationship between an unmarried offender and vict