# North Carolina Amendment 1

"none" is preferred when the title is sufficiently descriptive; see [[WP:SDNONE]]
Elections in North Carolina :
Federal government
U.S. President
1792
1796
1800
1804
1808
1812
1816
1820
1824
1828
1832
1836
1840
1844
1848
1852
1856
1860
1868
1872
1876
1880
1884
1888
1892
1896
1900
1904
1908
1912
1916
1920
1924
1928
1932
1936
1940
1944
1948
1952
1956
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2008
Dem
Rep
2012
2016
Dem
2020
Dem
Rep
2024
Dem
Rep
U.S. Senate
1789
1792
1795
1798
1799
1800
1804
1805 (sp)
1806
1810
1812
1814 (sp)
1815 (sp)
1816
1816 (sp)
1818
1822
1825
1846 (sp)
1828
1828 (sp)
1829
1829 (sp)
1830
1835
1836
1836 (sp)
1840 (sp)
1841
1843
1847
1849
1854 (sp)
1855
1858 (sp)
1861
1868
1872
1872 (sp)
1876
1879
1883
1884
1889
1890
1894
1894 (sp)
1897
1901
1903
1907
1909
1913
1914
1918
1920
1924
1926
1930
1932
1932 (sp)
1936
1938
1942
1944
1948
1948 (sp)
1950
1950 (sp)
1954
1954 (sp)
1956
1958 (sp)
1960
1966
1968
1972
1974
1978
1980
1984
1986
1986 (sp)
1990
1992
1996
1998
2002
2004
2008
2010
2014
2016
2020
2022
2026
U.S. House of Representatives
1790
1791
1793
1795
sp:4
1796
sp:4
1798
sp:10
1800
1801
sp:8
1802
sp:8
1803
1804
1805
sp:5
1806
sp:10
1808
sp:7
1810
1813
sp:3
1815
1816
sp:6
sp:8
1817
1818
sp:7
sp:11
1819
1821
sp:4
1823
1825
sp:2
1826
sp:8
1827
1829
sp:5
sp:10
1831
1833
1835
1837
1839
1841
1843
1845
1847
1849
1851
1853
1855
1857
1858
sp:8
1859
1865
1868
1870
1872
1874
1876
1878
1880
1882
1884
1886
1888
1890
1892
1894
1896
1898
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1928
1930
1934
1938
1940
1942
1946
1948
1950
1952
1956
1958
1960
sp:12
1968
1972
1980
1984
1986
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
sp:1
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
sp:12
2016
2018
9
2019
sp:3
sp:9
2020
2022
2024 :
State executive
Gubernatorial elections
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1810
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1838
1840
1842
1844
1846
1848
1850
1852
1854
1856
1858
1860
1862
1864
1865
1866
1868
1872
1876
1880
1884
1888
1892
1896
1900
1904
1908
1912
1916
1920
1924
1928
1932
1936
1940
1944
1948
1952
1956
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
Lieutenant Governor elections
1936
1940
1944
1948
1952
1956
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
Attorney General elections
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
Council of State elections
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
Secretary of State elections
1940
1944
2024 :
State legislature
State Senate elections
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
State House elections
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024 :
State judiciary
Judicial elections
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024 :
Ballot measures
2012Amendment 1 :
Mayoral elections
Charlotte mayoral elections
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2022
Cary mayoral elections
2011
2015
2019
2023
Durham mayoral elections
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
2023
Fayetteville mayoral elections
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2022
Greensboro mayoral elections
2011
2013
2015
2017
2022
Raleigh mayoral elections
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2022
2024
Winston-Salem mayoral elections
1997
2001
2005
2009
2013
2016
2020 :
vte :
North Carolina Amendment 1 (often referred to as simply Amendment 1) is a partially overturned legislatively referred constitutional amendment in North Carolina that (until overruled in federal court) amended the Constitution of North Carolina to add ARTICLE XIV, Section 6, which prohibit the state from recognizing or performing same-sex marriages, civil unions or civil union equivalents by defining male–female marriage as "the only domestic legal union" considered valid or recognized in the state. It did not prohibit domestic partnerships in the state and also constitutionally protected same-sex and opposite-sex prenuptial agreements, which is the only part that is still in effect today. On May 8, 2012, North Carolina voters approved the amendment, 61% to 39%, with a voter turnout of 35%. On May 23, 2012, the amendment took effect.
State law had already defined marriage as being between a man and a woman prior to its passage. Amendment 1 was the last state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to be passed in the United States via voter referendum, as well as the shortest-lived: it was found unconstitutional in federal court in October 2014 after then-Attorney General Roy Cooper declined to further defend it.
ARTICLE XIV, Section 6 of the North Carolina Constitution remains a partially unconstitutional constitutional amendment to this day. In order to repeal the overturned parts of the constitution, either 60% of the North Carolina General Assembly must approve a bill putting another legislatively referred constitutional amendment on the ballot and that amendment must be approved by a majority of voters or convention-referred constitutional amendment during a state constitutional convention, which also requires a majority of voters approval.

## Full text

ARTICLE XIV, Section 6 of the Constitution of North Carolina, as amended, states:
   Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.

## Legislative approval

Senate Bill 514 was introduced in the 2011 legislative session North Carolina. Sponsored by Republican State Senator Peter Brunstetter, the bill was passed by the North Carolina General Assembly in September 2011.
Final voting on SB 514 was as follows:
Ten House Democrats voted "aye": William Brisson, James W. Crawford, Jr., Elmer Floyd, Ken Goodman, Charles Graham, Dewey L. Hill, Frank McGuirt, William C. Owens, Jr., Garland E. Pierce and Timothy L. Spear. All House Republicans voted "aye" except for those who did not vote: D. Craig Horn, Chuck McGrady and Glen Bradley. All Senate Democrats voted "no" except for those who did not vote: Eric L. Mansfield (who publicly opposed the bill but was absent due to a planned wedding anniversary trip), Michael P. Walters and Stan White. All Senate Republicans voted "aye", except for one who did not vote, Fletcher Hartsell.

## Bill information

The long title of Senate Bill 514 is: "An Act to Amend the Constitution to Provide That Marriage Between One Man and One Woman is the Only Domestic Legal Union That Shall Be Valid or Recognized in This State."
The bill proposed to add a new section to article XIV, which covers miscellaneous provisions. The sections of the bill were:
* Section 1
"Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts."
* Section 2
Specifies that the amendment shall be submitted to voters, and defines the ballot text.
* Section 3
Specifies that a simple majority vote is required for approval.
* Sections 4 and 5
Specify that the amendment will become effective when it is certified by the Secretary of State.

## Effects

The amendment 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. North Carolina became the 30th US state to ban same-sex marriage in its constitution and 20th 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 North Carolina General Assembly from enacting a statute legalizing same-sex marriages or civil unions or civil union equivalents. Another section of the amendment constitutionally protected same-sex and opposite-sex prenuptial agreements, which was already statutorily codified in the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act in 1987. Domestic partnerships in North Carolina, legal in 4 counties and 7 municipalities at the time, were unaffected by the amendment.

## Potential effects

In a study by Maxine Eichner, Barbara Fedders, Holning Lau, and Rachel Blunk of the University of North Carolina School of Law, the authors discussed how the wording in the proposed amendment could have legal implications beyond banning marriage between same-sex couples. A white paper authored by Lynn Buzzard, William A. Woodruff, and Gregory Wallace of Campbell Law School disagreed with many of those claims.

### Employee benefits

Some said that all unmarried couples, both same-sex and opposite-sex, and their children that are receiving domestic-partner benefits as public employees would no longer be eligible for those benefits under this amendment. The second sentence in the amendment sought to address this issue by continuing to allow private-party contracts between employees and employers. For example, a private company could agree to extend health benefits to employees and their partners. However, since "domestic legal union" was untested language in the courts, the issue was considered likely to face litigation to determine what the actual meaning would be and how it would be implemented.

### Legal protections

In addition to restricting benefits to couples in domestic partnerships, the amendment could have also stripped protections for unmarried couples such as domestic violence and stalking protections. If the courts had determined that the language used in the amendment invalidates protections for unmarried couples it could have harmed domestic-violence protections for that population. After passing a similar constitutional amendment in Ohio, several courts ruled that domestic violence protections did not apply to unmarried couples and cases were dismissed or told not to press charges. The courts could have determined that validation of unmarried couples domestic legal union status would violate the amendment. However, the counter argument was that North Carolina's domestic-violence statutes were better defined and included protections for unmarried couples.
North Carolina Statute 50B-1, Domestic Violence, states:
   (b) For purposes of this section, the term "personal relationship" means a relationship wherein the parties involved
          (1) Are current or former spouses;
          (2) Are persons of opposite sex who live together or have lived together;
          (3) Are related as parents and children, including others acting in loco parentis to a minor child, or as grandparents and grandchildren. For purposes of this subdivision, an aggrieved party may not obtain an order of protection against a child or grandchild under the age of 16;
          (4) Have a child in common;
          (5) Are current or former household members;
          (6) Are persons of the opposite sex who are in a dating relationship or have been in a dating relationship. For purposes of this subdivision, a dating relationship is one wherein the parties are romantically involved over time and on a continuous basis during the course of the relationship. A casual acquaintance or ordinary fraternization between persons in a business or social context is not a dating relationship.
Adoption and child-visitation protections were also in question. While North Carolina only allows adoption by one unmarried adult, there are cases where children are adopted by two unmarried adults (including same-sex couples) in other states and are now living in North Carolina. Since those relationships would not have been recognized under Amendment One, there were potentially serious consequences. In Potential Legal Impacts of the Proposed Same Sex Marriage Amendment, the authors concluded that in child-custody disputes "judges may interpret [amendment one] as an expression of public policy against all non-marital relationships. This interpretation may have caused judges to view such relationships as having a per se negative impact on a child, and fashion custody orders accordingly. They also said that in custody disputes between a parent and non-parent, the courts could decide that one parent's relationship is impermissible since it would validate a domestic legal union other than heterosexual marriage. As with the other protections in question it seemed that the courts would have to decide what the actual interpretation and implementation will be in this area.
Other areas of protection that were under question included hospital visitation, emergency medicals decisions, and disposition of deceased partner's remains. Although there are legal documents that can help protect medical and financial security (power of attorney, living will, medical power of attorney), these could have been contested in court based on the argument that they recognize a domestic legal union between the two parties. Issues in estate planning could have arisen through increased litigation contesting wills of unmarried individuals, particularly those in same-sex relationships. Again, the courts could have ruled that any recognition of a domestic legal union between unmarried partners would be unconstitutional and therefore rule those wills and trusts invalid.

### Economics

In addition to legal implications, there were concerns that the amendment would harm economic development and vitality. Some felt that business's employee recruitment and retention would be hurt if the most talented prospects did not feel that North Carolina was progressive or representative of their beliefs. Many Fortune 500 companies have implemented policies protecting employees against discrimination based on sexual orientation, which would not be affected by such legislation.

### Public knowledge

An April 2012 Public Policy Polling found that only 40% of North Carolina voters actually knew that Amendment 1 bans both same-sex marriage and civil unions, and among those voters who do know the effects of Amendment 1, they opposed it with 60% against and 38% in favor. Among the 27% of voters who thought Amendment 1 banned same-sex marriage only, they supported it with 72% in favor and 27% against, and with voters who didn't know what Amendment 1 did, they supported it with 64% in favor and 28% against. Among North Carolina voters who were informed about the effects Amendment 1 banning same-sex marriage and civil unions and then asked how they would vote, only 38% continued to support it, 46% against it, and 16% were unsure. When combined those who do and don't know the effects of Amendment 1 it found that 55% would vote for it, 41% would vote against, and 4% were unsure. It also found that 55% of North Carolina voters support legal recognition of same-sex couples with 27% supporting same-sex marriage, 28% supporting civil unions, 41% oppose any legal recognition of same-sex couples, and 4% were unsure. When asked what the effects of Amendment 1 would be, 40% of voters thought that Amendment 1 banned same-sex marriage and civil unions, 27% thought it banned same-sex marriage only, 26% were unsure, and 7% thought it legalized same-sex marriage.

## Election spending

The campaigns were fueled by more than $1,000,000 in spending by the pro-amendment coalition Vote For Marriage NC and $2,000,000 in spending by the anti-amendment group Coalition to Protect North Carolina Families. Big donors, making more than $10,000 contributions, were the main source of funds. The Human Rights Campaign, a pro-gay rights group, gave more than $256,000 to the Coalition to Protect NC Families while the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) contributed more than $427,000 to Vote For Marriage NC.

## Pre-decision opinion polls

| Date of opinion poll | Conducted by | Sample size | In favor | Against | Undecided | Margin | Margin of Error |
| May 5 – 6, 2012 | Public Policy Polling | 1,026 likely primary voters | 55% | 39% | 6% | 16% pro | ±3.1% |
| April 27 – 29, 2012 | Public Policy Polling | 982 registered voters | 55% | 41% | 4% | 14% pro | ±3.1% |
| April 20 – 22, 2012 | Public Policy Polling | 1,139 registered voters | 54% | 40% | 6% | 14% pro | ±2.9% |
| March 26 – 29, 2012 | Elon University Poll | 534 adults | 31.9% | 61.2% | 6.9% | 29.3% con | 4.24% |
| March 23 – 25, 2012 | Public Policy Polling | 1,191 likely primary voters | 58% | 38% | 8% | 20% pro | ±2.8% |
| February 27 – 28, 2012 | National Research, Inc. | 600 registered voters | 64% | 30% | 6% | 34% pro | ±4% |
| February 26 – March 1, 2012 | Elon University Poll | 534 adults | 37.8% | 54.2% | 7.9% | 16.4% con | 3.98% |
| January 5 – 8, 2012 | Public Policy Polling | 780 registered voters | 56% | 34% | 10% | 22% pro | ±3.5% |
| December 1 – 4, 2011 | Public Policy Polling | 865 registered voters | 58% | 32% | 10% | 26% pro | ±3.3% |
| October 27 – 31, 2011 | Public Policy Polling | 615 registered voters | 59% | 35% | 6% | 24% pro | ±4% |
| September 30 – October 3, 2011 | Public Policy Polling | 671 likely primary voters | 61% | 34% | 5% | 27% pro | ±4.26% |
| September 1 – 4, 2011 | Public Policy Polling | 520 voters | 30% | 55% | 15% | 15% con | ±4.3% |
| Date of opinion poll | Conducted by | Sample size | In favor | Against | Undecided | Margin | Margin of Error |
| October 31 – November 2, 2011 | Elon University Poll | 529 adults | 36.5% | 57% | 6.5% | 20.5% con | ±4.26% |
| September 25 – 29, 2011 | Elon University Poll | 594 adults | 39.1% | 55.7% | 5.1% | 16.6% con | ±4.02% |
| August 15 – 16, 2011 | National Research, Inc. | 400 unaffiliated general election voters | 49% | 43% | 7% | 6% pro | ±4.9% |
| February 20 – 24, 2011 | Elon University Poll | 467 adults | 37.9% | 55.8% | 5.9% | 17.9% con | ±4.6% |
| August 16 – 18, 2010 | National Research, Inc. | 400 unaffiliated likely general election voters | 50% | 43% | 7% | 7% pro | ±4.9% |
| October 15 – 19, 2009 | Elon University Poll | 620 adults | 43.3% | 50.4% | 6.2% | 7% con | ±7.1% |
Nate Silver predicted Amendment 1 would likely pass. His 2011 model, based on past results of past support for constitutional bans on same-sex unions based on religious participation in each state and whether the amendment would additionally ban civil unions, found support for a hypothetical constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions in North Carolina during the 2012 United States elections would be a clear favorite to pass in the accelerated model at 53.4%, which treats increasing support of same-sex marriage at a faster rate due to a particularly sharp increase in support for same-sex marriage in national polls in the past three years, and overwhelming favorite to pass in the linear model, which treat increasing support for same-sex marriage as slow, at 59.5%.
Nate found an amendment banning same-sex marriage only in North Carolina would be an overwhelming favorite to pass, according to both the accelerated model at 60.4% and the linear model at 66.1%. He also stated that there was uncertainty in statistical modelling due to different conditions in each state. He also found that constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage and civil unions perform on average about 7% worse at the voting booth than amendments banning same-sex marriage alone. Polling from September 2011 to May 2012 put support of same-sex marriage between 30 and 35%. Nate's 2013 model projected North Carolina's support for a hypothetical same-sex marriage ballot measure would be at 34.2% in 2008 and 40.2% in 2012.

## Results

Amendment 1 :
| Choice | Votes | % |
| Yes | 1,317,178 | 61.04 |
| No | 840,802 | 38.96 |
| Total votes | 2,157,980 | 100.00 |
| Registered voters/turnout | 6,296,759 | 34.66 |
On May 8, 2012, at 7:30 pm ET the polls closed. At 9:11 pm ET, with 30 percent of the precincts reporting, 43 percent of the vote against and 57 percent of voters approve of the Amendment 1. At 9:15 pm ET, the Associated Press projected, with 35 percent of the vote counted and 58 percent of those casting ballots voted in favor of the amendment, that Amendment 1 had passed.
Of the 100 counties of North Carolina, only Buncombe (home to Asheville), Orange (home to Chapel Hill), Durham (home to the city of Durham), Wake (home to Raleigh), Mecklenburg (home to Charlotte), Chatham, Watauga (home to Boone and Appalachian State University), and Dare voted against Amendment 1. Of the eight counties that voted against Amendment 1, six of them would vote for Barack Obama in the 2012 election, while Watauga County and Dare County voted for Mitt Romney.

## Timing of the ballot

The vote on Amendment 1 was held during the lower-turnout North Carolina primary election rather than during a general election when voter turnout is typically higher. Furthermore, whereas the Republican primary was an active contest, the Democratic primary was effectively uncontested and thus had an even further reduced turnout of the Democratic electorate relative to what might have occurred in a hotly contested primary.
Jessica Jones, of North Carolina Public Radio, stated that white women and white Republican men were the two largest groups of early voters in the 2012 North Carolina primary compared to the 2008 North Carolina primary. Voter turn out for North Carolina Amendment 1 was at 34.27%, which is 0.39% lower than overall turnout in the 2012 North Carolina primary, 2.59% lower than the 2008 North Carolina primary and 34.13% lower than the 2012 North Carolina general election.

## Response by President Barack Obama

The day after Amendment 1 passed its public vote, US President Barack Obama expressed disappointment in the outcome and announced his support for same-sex marriage.

## Legal challenges

On July 28, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling in Virginia in favor of the freedom to marry, declaring that banning same-sex couples from marriage is unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution. The decision affirmed the February 13 ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Arenda Wright Allen in Bostic v. Schaefer, in which same-sex couples sought the freedom to marry and respect for their marriages legally performed in other states. On October 6, the United States Supreme Court denied review of this case, meaning that same-sex couples would have the freedom to marry in Virginia.
Since the 4th Circuit also covers Maryland, West Virginia, North and South Carolina, the decision by the Supreme Court to refuse review meant the 4th Circuit decision stood as case law in the other states. With the exception of Maryland, where same-sex marriage was already legal, court cases were promptly filed to strike down various state laws and amendments.
Shortly after 5 p.m. on October 10, 2014, U.S. District Court Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr. in Asheville issued a ruling in the case of General Synod of the United Church of Christ, et al. v. Drew Reisinger, Register of Deeds of Buncombe County, declaring the amendment unconstitutional, and also declaring unconstitutional "and any other source of state law that operates to deny same-sex couples the right to marry in the State of North Carolina or prohibits recognition of same-sex marriages lawfully solemnized in other States, Territories, or a District of the United States, or threatens clergy or other officiants who solemnize the union of same-sex couples with civil or criminal penalties".
Chris Sgro, executive director of Equality NC, an LGBT rights advocacy organization in North Carolina, said "Today's ruling allowing loving, same-sex couples to marry across North Carolina is a historic moment for our state", and said that "With it, we celebrate with so many North Carolinians who have worked tirelessly over decades to change hearts, minds, and unequal laws in the state we call home. Love won and the barriers to it are done."
Shortly after Cogburn's ruling, the Registers of Deeds in several North Carolina counties reopened (or had previously extended hours in anticipation of the ruling) to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples that had been waiting for several days.